It might or might not exist. It's the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. In essence, its chemical evolution, but should not be confused with evolution. It says the amino acids, also know as "the building blocks of life" can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life. In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. Thus the question of how life on Earth originated is a question of how the first nucleic acids arose. So what do you think of abiogenesis?
How is it already here that makes no sense inanimate matter from where did all this randomly appear? I think we can agree everything has to come from somewhere. Well where did this come from? It was already there doesnt convince me im sorry but I just don't buy that.
Life is essentially very complex chemistry. When the right elements are in the right environment, organic compounds form. The bullet was loaded and the environment pulled the trigger.
Matter makes up everything. Whether you like it or not MrMonkey, it's pretty much always been there. It makes up the universe. Inanimate matter on earth gets made into the earliest forms of life through chemical reactions. You don't have to buy it, you just don't understand how it works.
That's impossible. I'll talk to you guys when I can accelerate the evolution of intelligent life. Seriously. That's god like power your talking about. Creating life from inanimate matter? You've got to be kidding. It's a natural process, not something we can manipulate.
That's god like power your talking about. Creating life from inanimate matter? You've got to be kidding. It's a natural process, not something we can manipulate.
Hahahahah, you contradicted yourself a bit seeing as how you just said creating life was a god like power, and things that a god like power couldn't be done in nature or by humans seeing as it's GOD like.
Did you see the link I posted? We already have....
Kind of, it'd be nearly impossible to recreate something like that because you'd have to get the exact amount of everything present, and give it NO human interaction or man-made devices
Kind of, it'd be nearly impossible to recreate something like that because you'd have to get the exact amount of everything present, and give it NO human interaction or man-made devices
No, not 'Kind of'. It's not meant to be a literal recreation of the event itself, the experiment is meant to show that it is *possible*, and that was indeed a success. Do we have magic lenses that allow us to look back in time and see the event actually happen? No, we don't - but we do have a very plausible explanation which can happen - as we've proven it in conditions and with materials that are not at all unlike our planet.
No, not 'Kind of'. It's not meant to be a literal recreation of the event itself, the experiment is meant to show that it is *possible*, and that was indeed a success. Do we have magic lenses that allow us to look back in time and see the event actually happen? No, we don't - but we do have a very plausible explanation which can happen - as we've proven it in conditions and with materials that are not at all unlike our planet.
Yes we do, I know it could have happened I just don't think it did.
That's impossible. I'll talk to you guys when I can accelerate the evolution of intelligent life. Seriously. That's god like power your talking about. Creating life from inanimate matter? You've got to be kidding. It's a natural process, not something we can manipulate.
Okay, well what is it that's making you think it's not a plausible explanation for the beginnings of life on our planet?
well an plausible explanation is not necesserily a true one. i mean to the people 600 years ago it was very plausible that the earth was in the middle of the universe and the sun rotated around us. we know now better. you can never gain 100% certainty in science. you can only assume, that our level of knowledge creates a good understanding of a phenomenom. so both religion and science are based upon believing
(recreated it in the best way possible at this time)
At this time? So... there would be a better way of doing the experiment?
I mean, I can understand the misgivings because it's not happening out.. in nature.. but the reason why scientists do experiments in a laboratory is to eliminate as many, if not all, outside factors when determining the results of reactions. If they don't control the circumstances under which they happen, it may be difficult to reproduce the results as there may have been some unknown element (literally or figuratively as the case may be) that is having an impact on the test.
well an plausible explanation is not necesserily a true one.
No, but it makes sense to have a *reason* to doubt the explanation.
so both religion and science are based upon believing
That's not an accurate statement.
Religion requires faith - belief in something for which there is an absence of evidence.
Science requires belief that the evidence available & calculations are correct. You can't put them on equal ground.
