Shocking claim to Macro-evolution!

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It's an anomaly. Life on earth, I mean. Who disagrees with this?

Nice post, but there are a few things to discuss there.

It's uncommon in our surrounding and known universe.

We don't know that. We haven't found extraterrestrial life yet, but we've also just begun in that search. SETI is only looking for technologically advanced civilizations.

Most I've read, suggest life just happened due to the required conditions being met within an infinite period of time, how-ever long it took for life to form from the chaos.

Infinite isn't the right word here. But yes, it is believed that wherever life can form, it will, just like every time an ice cube can melt, it will. This is different from the original way abiogenesis was conceived, which was as a lucky coincidence involving a fortuitous lightning strike.

How rare the conditions able to foster and nurture life are in our known universe? I would suggest extremely.

On what basis do you make that judgment. There are several candidate moons in our solar system for life. There's good reason to believe that life formed on Mars. Why? Because it once had oceans, an atmosphere, and a protective magnetic field

how many billions of years passed before life began on earth after the accepted beginning of our universe?

About 13.7 - 4.5 = about 9.2 billion years before there was an earth. The oldest know life lived about 3.7 billion years ago, which is only 800,000 years after the earth formed, the first 500,000 or so of which had earth too hot and too dry for life.

There's an interesting argument that earth's first life began on Mars and was kicked to earth following a meteoric impact on Mars. Why? Mars being further from the sun and smaller than earth cooled first. Abiogenesis could proceed there before it could on earth. And 300,000 years feels like a relatively brief time for abiogenesis to occur. Mars had longer to do it, since its crust cooled and hardened first. If the first life on earth was Martian, we wouldn't expect abiogenesis to occur on earth. The process seems to require that there not be living things already present (a prebiotic environment), which is probably why all life has the same genetic code.

@YoursTrue - this is what conjecture and speculation looks like. And you'll notice that I made no assertion that this idea is correct, merely possible, or at least not known to be impossible.

One more digression: Have you ever noticed that there are two slightly different definitions of possible? Some things we know can happen, like the meteor impact I just described. That's the stronger definition of possible. The weaker one includes things that actually are impossible but not yet known to be.

Maybe travel back in time can be done, and maybe it can't. We don't know. We call it possible because it is not known to be impossible, but perhaps it is and we will someday know that.

Abiogenesis itself is more like the latter. We call it possible because we don't know that it's impossible, but if the creationists are correct, perhaps it is.

 

[Balthazzar]

Nice post, but there are a few things to discuss there.

We don't know that. We haven't found extraterrestrial life yet, but we've also just begun in that search. SETI is only looking for technologically advanced civilizations.

That's the point, specifically. Time orientation and probability associated with infinity. It a mathematical certainty. It is rare, uncommon, and unknown. That's not to suggest there isn't life out there. I presume that there is. It'a a mathematical certainty associated with infinity.

Infinite isn't the right word here. But yes, it is believed that wherever life can form, it will, just like every time an ice cube can melt, it will. This is different from the original way abiogenesis was conceived, which was as a lucky coincidence involving a fortuitous lightning strike.

What not?

On what basis do you make that judgment. There are several candidate moons in our solar system for life. There's good reason to believe that life formed on Mars. Why? Because it once had oceans, an atmosphere, and a protective magnetic field

Life can exist in other area's given the correct conditions are met, whether by design or by random chaotic events.

About 13.7 - 4.5 = about 9.2 billion years before there was an earth. The oldest know life lived about 3.7 billion years ago, which is only 800,000 years after the earth formed, the first 500,000 or so of which had earth too hot and too dry for life.

There's an interesting argument that earth's first life began on Mars and was kicked to earth following a meteoric impact on Mars. Why? Mars being further from the sun and smaller than earth cooled first. Abiogenesis could proceed there before it could on earth. And 300,000 years feels like a relatively brief time for abiogenesis to occur. Mars had longer to do it, since its crust cooled and hardened first. If the first life on earth was Martian, we wouldn't expect abiogenesis to occur on earth. The process seems to require that there not be living things already present (a prebiotic environment), which is probably why all life has the same genetic code.

@YoursTrue - this is what conjecture and speculation looks like. And you'll notice that I made no assertion that this idea is correct, merely possible, or at least not known to be impossible.

One more digression: Have you ever noticed that there are two slightly different definitions of possible? Some things we know can happen, like the meteor impact I just described. That's the stronger definition of possible. The weaker one includes things that actually are impossible but not yet known to be.

Maybe travel back in time can be done, and maybe it can't. We don't know. We call it possible because it is not known to be impossible, but perhaps it is and we will someday know that.

Abiogenesis itself is more like the latter. We call it possible because we don't know that it's impossible, but if the creationists are correct, perhaps it is.

Whether life began on Mars is beyond my knowing. I always presumed it was Saturn that provided the needed organism (amino acid, chromosomes, or material), but that's pure speculation on my part. I guess due to the very large ring of meteorites or rocks surrounding it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nice post, but there are a few things to discuss there.

We don't know that. We haven't found extraterrestrial life yet, but we've also just begun in that search. SETI is only looking for technologically advanced civilizations.

Infinite isn't the right word here. But yes, it is believed that wherever life can form, it will, just like every time an ice cube can melt, it will. This is different from the original way abiogenesis was conceived, which was as a lucky coincidence involving a fortuitous lightning strike.

On what basis do you make that judgment. There are several candidate moons in our solar system for life. There's good reason to believe that life formed on Mars. Why? Because it once had oceans, an atmosphere, and a protective magnetic field

About 13.7 - 4.5 = about 9.2 billion years before there was an earth. The oldest know life lived about 3.7 billion years ago, which is only 800,000 years after the earth formed, the first 500,000 or so of which had earth too hot and too dry for life.

There's an interesting argument that earth's first life began on Mars and was kicked to earth following a meteoric impact on Mars. Why? Mars being further from the sun and smaller than earth cooled first. Abiogenesis could proceed there before it could on earth. And 300,000 years feels like a relatively brief time for abiogenesis to occur. Mars had longer to do it, since its crust cooled and hardened first. If the first life on earth was Martian, we wouldn't expect abiogenesis to occur on earth. The process seems to require that there not be living things already present (a prebiotic environment), which is probably why all life has the same genetic code.

@YoursTrue - this is what conjecture and speculation looks like. And you'll notice that I made no assertion that this idea is correct, merely possible, or at least not known to be impossible.

One more digression: Have you ever noticed that there are two slightly different definitions of possible? Some things we know can happen, like the meteor impact I just described. That's the stronger definition of possible. The weaker one includes things that actually are impossible but not yet known to be.

Maybe travel back in time can be done, and maybe it can't. We don't know. We call it possible because it is not known to be impossible, but perhaps it is and we will someday know that.

Abiogenesis itself is more like the latter. We call it possible because we don't know that it's impossible, but if the creationists are correct, perhaps it is.

The only way travel back in time can happen in a manner of speaking is when the dead are brought back to life and can explain what they saw and experienced. Time goes forward, not backwards.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The only way travel back in time can happen in a manner of speaking is when the dead are brought back to life and can explain what they saw and experienced. Time goes forward, not backwards.

This is a rather odd statement. There is no need for a time machine. When certain events happen it is quite common that there is evidence of those events. There is more than enough evidence for the theory of evolution to confirm it.

 

[gnostic]

The only way travel back in time can happen in a manner of speaking is when the dead are brought back to life and can explain what they saw and experienced. Time goes forward, not backwards.

when you looking through the telescope, RIGHT NOW, like say the Andromeda Galaxy, you are not seeing this galaxy as it is now, but what it like 2 million years ago. light from Andromeda will take 2 million years to reach your telescope. So if you see a supernova at 1 of billions of stars from Andromeda, what you are seeing now is actually occurring 2 million years ago.

You are literally looking into Andromeda’s past, not what it is presently.

 

[YoursTrue]

when you looking through the telescope, RIGHT NOW, like say the Andromeda Galaxy, you are not seeing this galaxy as it is now, but what it like 2 million years ago. light from Andromeda will take 2 million years to reach your telescope. So if you see a supernova at 1 of billions of stars from Andromeda, what you are seeing now is actually occurring 2 million years ago.

You are literally looking into Andromeda’s past, not what it is presently.

That has nothing to do with our lives on earth and the progression of time. Sorry, no matter what sci-fi writers or brainy scientists may say, it isn't true about going back in time. I'm not interested in writing a science fiction story ala the Twilight Zone.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The only way travel back in time can happen in a manner of speaking is when the dead are brought back to life and can explain what they saw and experienced. Time goes forward, not backwards ... Sorry, no matter what sci-fi writers or brainy scientists may say, it isn't true about going back in time. I'm not interested in writing a science fiction story ala the Twilight Zone.

I suspect that you're correct that traveling into the past is impossible, but I won't say that it is. Too many people have made pronouncements like that and been wrong. Here's a fun collection of wrong prognostications from a now defunct web site:

[1] "Rail travel at high speed is not possible, because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia." - Dr Dionysius Lardner (1793-1859), professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy, University College London

[2] "What, sir, would you make a ship sail against the wind and currents by lighting a bonfire under her deck? I pray you, excuse me, I have not the time to listen to such nonsense." - Napoleon Bonaparte, when told of Robert Fulton's steamboat, 1800s

[3] "The phonograph has no commercial value at all." - Thomas Edison, American inventor, 1880s

[4] "What can be more palpably absurd than the prospect held out of locomotives traveling twice as fast as stagecoaches?" - The Quarterly Review, March, 1825

[5] "The abolishment of pain in surgery is a chimera. It is absurd to go on seeking it…knife and pain are two words in surgery that must forever be associated in the consciousness of the patient." - Dr. Alfred Velpeau, French surgeon, 1839.

[6] "No one will pay good money to get from Berlin to Potsdam in one hour when he can ride his horse there in one day for free." - King William I of Prussia, on hearing of the invention of trains, 1864.

[7] "Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction." - Pierre Pachet, British surgeon and Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872.

[8] "The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon." - John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon Extraordinary to Queen Victoria, 1873.

[9] "Such startling announcements as these should be deprecated as being unworthy of science and mischievous to its true progress." - William Siemens, on Edison's light bulb, 1880

[10] "X-rays will prove to be a hoax." - Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, 1883.

[11] "We are probably nearing the limit of all we can know about astronomy." - Simon Newcomb, Canadian-born American astronomer, 1888.

[12] "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." - Lord Kelvin, British mathematician and physicist, president of the British Royal Society, 1895

[13] "Radio has no future." - Lord Kelvin, Scottish mathematician and physicist, former president of the Royal Society, 1897

[14] "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now; All that remains is more and more precise measurement." - Lord Kelvin, speaking to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1900.

[15] "The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a novelty-a fad." - The president of the Michigan Savings Bank advising Henry Ford's lawyer not to invest in the Ford Motor Co., 1903

[16] "Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value." - Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre, 1904

[17] "The idea that cavalry will be replaced by these iron coaches is absurd. It is little short of treasonous." - Comment of Aide-de-camp to Field Marshal Haig

[18] "The energy produced by the breaking down of the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine." - Ernest Rutherford, shortly after splitting the atom for the first time

[19] "There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom." - Robert Millikan, American physicist and Nobel Prize winner, 1923

[20] "While theoretically and technically television may be feasible, commercially and financially it is an impossibility, a development of which we need waste little time dreaming." - Lee DeForest, American radio pioneer and inventor of the vacuum tube, 1926

[21] "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."...Thomas Watson, president of IBM.

[22] "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."... Ken Olsen, founder of DEC.

 

[YoursTrue]

I suspect that you're correct that traveling into the past is impossible, but I won't say that it is. Too many people have made pronouncements like that and been wrong. Here's a fun collection of wrong prognostications from a now defunct web site:

[1] "Rail travel at high speed is not possible, because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia." - Dr Dionysius Lardner (1793-1859), professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy, University College London

[2] "What, sir, would you make a ship sail against the wind and currents by lighting a bonfire under her deck? I pray you, excuse me, I have not the time to listen to such nonsense." - Napoleon Bonaparte, when told of Robert Fulton's steamboat, 1800s

[3] "The phonograph has no commercial value at all." - Thomas Edison, American inventor, 1880s

[4] "What can be more palpably absurd than the prospect held out of locomotives traveling twice as fast as stagecoaches?" - The Quarterly Review, March, 1825

[5] "The abolishment of pain in surgery is a chimera. It is absurd to go on seeking it…knife and pain are two words in surgery that must forever be associated in the consciousness of the patient." - Dr. Alfred Velpeau, French surgeon, 1839.

[6] "No one will pay good money to get from Berlin to Potsdam in one hour when he can ride his horse there in one day for free." - King William I of Prussia, on hearing of the invention of trains, 1864.

[7] "Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction." - Pierre Pachet, British surgeon and Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872.

[8] "The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon." - John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon Extraordinary to Queen Victoria, 1873.

[9] "Such startling announcements as these should be deprecated as being unworthy of science and mischievous to its true progress." - William Siemens, on Edison's light bulb, 1880

[10] "X-rays will prove to be a hoax." - Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, 1883.

[11] "We are probably nearing the limit of all we can know about astronomy." - Simon Newcomb, Canadian-born American astronomer, 1888.

[12] "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." - Lord Kelvin, British mathematician and physicist, president of the British Royal Society, 1895

[13] "Radio has no future." - Lord Kelvin, Scottish mathematician and physicist, former president of the Royal Society, 1897

[14] "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now; All that remains is more and more precise measurement." - Lord Kelvin, speaking to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1900.

[15] "The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a novelty-a fad." - The president of the Michigan Savings Bank advising Henry Ford's lawyer not to invest in the Ford Motor Co., 1903

[16] "Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value." - Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre, 1904

[17] "The idea that cavalry will be replaced by these iron coaches is absurd. It is little short of treasonous." - Comment of Aide-de-camp to Field Marshal Haig

[18] "The energy produced by the breaking down of the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine." - Ernest Rutherford, shortly after splitting the atom for the first time

[19] "There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom." - Robert Millikan, American physicist and Nobel Prize winner, 1923

[20] "While theoretically and technically television may be feasible, commercially and financially it is an impossibility, a development of which we need waste little time dreaming." - Lee DeForest, American radio pioneer and inventor of the vacuum tube, 1926

[21] "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."...Thomas Watson, president of IBM.

[22] "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."... Ken Olsen, founder of DEC.

Even though light travels and that is very interesting in itself, I am pretty sure that we cannot see what was happening in the past as if we were there. A good sci fi case. This is out of my league, I should say.

 

[Tomef]

Excerpts from a very long, eye-opener of an article by James Tour.


James M Tour Group » Evolution/Creation

That's the claim made by one of the leading chemist in the world - James Tour.

Before we go any further, a little background on James Tour.


James Tour - Wikipedia

In related news, careful studies of over 100 games of monopoly failed to explain the 2008 financial crisis. Scientists remain unable to explain this shocking revelation. One top zignoflapologist declared that as he was aware monopoly ‘has something to do with money’ this puzzling outcome was indeed ‘bizarre’.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Even though light travels and that is very interesting in itself, I am pretty sure that we cannot see what was happening in the past as if we were there. A good sci fi case. This is out of my league, I should say.

Yeah, the belief in the past as true is a belief without evidence. In fact it is not true that there is a past, time or furture as none of it can be seen.

 

[Astrophile]

About 13.7 - 4.5 = about 9.2 billion years before there was an earth. The oldest know life lived about 3.7 billion years ago, which is only 800,000 years after the earth formed, the first 500,000 or so of which had earth too hot and too dry for life.

I am afraid that this is incorrect. 3.7 billion years ago is 800 million years after the formation of the Earth, and about ten billion years after the origin of the universe.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I am afraid that this is incorrect. 3.7 billion years ago is 800 million years after the formation of the Earth, and about ten billion years after the origin of the universe.

OK. Thanks. 800,000 years should read 800,000,000 years and 500,00 should be 500,000,000.

3.7 billion years is not meant to be the age of the earth, but rather, when the first life that we know of lived.

I am pretty sure that we cannot see what was happening in the past as if we were there. A good sci fi case. This is out of my league, I should say.

Out of your league, but you're pretty sure nevertheless?

So if the light from Andromeda takes 2 million years to get to earth, what do you think you are seeing - Andromeda as it is now or as it was when that light left that galaxy?

 

[metis]

Andromeda as it is now or as it was when that light left that galaxy?

When it left.

 

[YoursTrue]

OK. Thanks. 800,000 years should read 800,000,000 years and 500,00 should be 500,000,000.

3.7 billion years is not meant to be the age of the earth, but rather, when the first life that we know of lived.

Out of your league, but you're pretty sure nevertheless?

So if the light from Andromeda takes 2 million years to get to earth, what do you think you are seeing - Andromeda as it is now or as it was when that light left that galaxy?

I'm sure that some scientists make guesses as to how things came about. Whether or not the light carries with it situations that happened millions of years ago, it still doesn't mean that we can go back in time.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yeah, the belief in the past as true is a belief without evidence. In fact it is not true that there is a past, time or furture as none of it can be seen.

I guess that's the beauty of our consciousness. Choice of beliefs and/or research.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I guess that's the beauty of our consciousness. Choice of beliefs and/or research.

If your standard is to see, then you don't know that other humans and you are conscious, because you can't see consciousness.

 

[metis]

I'm sure that some scientists make guesses as to how things came about.

They are called "hypotheses, and they are not considered to be facts.

 

[Audie]

Even though light travels and that is very interesting in itself, I am pretty sure that we cannot see what was happening in the past as if we were there. A good sci fi case. This is out of my league, I should say.

That's been the case.