Wake, Grow, Certificates, Wild Parties, Suits, Under The Weather, Babies, Marriage Divorce, Take It Or Leave It, Back Down, Sleep, What's Hope For...
Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.
The origin of life as we know it remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young.
Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on earth turned out to have a non-evolutionary origin, evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies.
The origin of life as we know it remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young.
Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on earth turned out to have a non-evolutionary origin, evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies.
6 Comments:
maybe i am just simple minded about that evolution/creation debate, but from a science point of view, shouldn't the scientists be able to replicate their theory? or give a demonstration of it?
same goes for the big bang theory. i am not knocking science. i think it is great, in the right hands. but it seems that in the media the debate is cleanly managed to produce no results, except more wasted time and money.
to accept a creation story as the other alternative, however, would lead one to an impasse. 'which one to choose?' since most cultures have developed some explanation of how things got to the state they are in.
likewise, this side is not covered in the media very well, if at all.
browsing through.
Erik - I am not knocking creationism but from a religious point of view, shouldn't there be something beyond a weakness in human nature to explain it?
We are in such a place, that everything can be great - if it were in the right hands. Creationism and evolution theorms are both ligit, they are just theories afterall...
Evolution is demonstrated, in small scales. To replicate events such as, the evolution of man takes many more years than lifetimes. To expect this show and tell, is, a little narrow.
The Big Bang is another topic altogether and may feature on the blog in future.
It is demonstrated ions from the Milky Way - our means of measurement are not sufficient to better understand the principal of its opening. The Big Bang is scientific, and it is recursive, but when one initiates the next - where did the first emerge?
The most intelligent person I know told me, we're not meant to comprehend everything, if we were, we would...
"...primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units..."
I try to follow the more significant developments in science. It seems I somehow missed that one. I am really curious as to how "primitive nucleic acids" & etc. "organized themselves." Was this a group effort?
Chemical attraction, like Mercury on a plate Jim. Its not even a significant development in terms of what is yet to be understood.
I'm sure it'd be entertaining to hear what you do keep up with.
If you want to keep up, you should read more, this site is quite good for biochemical listings - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish.html
Whats with the title BD?
Children, children. This is just a coin toss discussion looking at the pros and cons of the creation / evolution debacle.
Jim - I don't know how 'it' works exactly, (which is really why these posts have been put up) general biochemical reactions cause architectures - as with all chemical reactions, e.g., H + H + O = H2O. I'm not the biochemist I'm just summarising reports that have found a possible explantion for how the "building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves". Somehow, I'm sure you will have caught up with these developments by now.
Dan - This blog, is not the place for that kind of remark. We've already been treated to when you misread.
BD - It works just like it says it works. Bonding, chemical bonding like eighth grade science.
Post a Comment
BACK