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?
Einstein was pantheist, not Jewish. He was part of the Jewish race, not the actual religion. Although Judaism is a religion, it can also be perceived as a race.
Being a pantheist meant Einstein viewed god as the force that drives nature, the life force of everyone and everything. The supreme being to him meant the supreme energy supplier.
Although he wasn't highly religious, he didn't consider himself to be atheist either. He thought himself to be an agnostic pantheist.
well scientifically you can doubt any explanation according the beginning of the world. mostly because it is impossible to recreate the state of before the bigbang, create a bigbang and see if live will develop.
Yes... but if we are speaking scientifically, you *do* have to have a reason behind why you doubt it, not just "we'll never know because we weren't there" - I was making an inquiry as to what that specific reason was - an inquiry which was never answered, I might add.
In Bio I was taught that these thermal volcanic vents spewed out all the elements like carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, phosphorus, nitrogen, etc. the elements bonded and thus creating amino acids, which gave rise to proteins. Scientists are still researching this topic, but I read in Scientific American that there was a protien based DNA or PNA.
Also If I remember correctly some guy threw in the elements in slat water and added an electrical charge to the water. a week later he found amino acids in it. Wish I knew the name...
I was making an inquiry as to what that specific reason was
the inquiry could be, that you say, that the proof brought by the supporters of this theory is insufficient and not founded. therefore as scientist you would have to dig deeper to find proof.
i mean right now the theory is established and you would have to find prove for disproving the theory first, but that is just because most people believe this theory(at least in science). it does not mean that in 50 or 100 or so years someone accidentally pops up with another better theory
the inquiry could be, that you say, that the proof brought by the supporters of this theory is insufficient and not founded. therefore as scientist you would have to dig deeper to find proof. i mean right now the theory is established and you would have to find prove for disproving the theory first, but that is just because most people believe this theory(at least in science). it does not mean that in 50 or 100 or so years someone accidentally pops up with another better theory
Not to be rude mate, but I'm not interested in you speculating an answer for a question I asked of another person... thanks.
Eh, reading the first page or so, but I thought Miller had to add oxygen to keep the amino acids 'alive'? And isnt a lab a somewhat 'controlled' enviroment? So arnt all these experiments just really making the perfect solution so it will work?
Reading is a good skill to have. That's how some people learned that not everything the catholic church said in the middle ages was true to them and so they began to open our eyes to newer ideas. And we might not remember them if we could not read!
I have a question, how do scientists explain how gravity first came to exist. Without their whole theory on the big bang has no base. My theory on the big bang is:
God decided to make the universe and BANG it was there!
Eh, reading the first page or so, but I thought Miller had to add oxygen to keep the amino acids 'alive'? And isnt a lab a somewhat 'controlled' enviroment? So arnt all these experiments just really making the perfect solution so it will work?
There's oxygen in air, and there ws much more before then there is now.
And the way they did it, they were simulating the conditions of Earth when abiogenesis would've occurred. So whether it was controlled or not wouldn't matter, because the conditions were very similar.
I have a question, how do scientists explain how gravity first came to exist. Without their whole theory on the big bang has no base. My theory on the big bang is:
Well God suddenly creating the universe has no base either. Gravity is a natural occurrence, we cannot explain how it came to exist. Maybe "graviogenesis" could explain it. xD
Gravity is the attraction of two objects. As long as you have two objects, gravity is a spontaneous force that occurs. Life, however, is not spontaneously formed. Therefore, you use a false analogy.
