Indeed.
Well, faith, and the fact that its pretty dumb
I admit for evos, it sounds dumb. That's one reason the researchers have been so surprised. But if you assume common descent, their conclusions are likely correct.
I admit for evos, it sounds dumb. That's one reason the researchers have been so surprised. But if you assume common descent, their conclusions are likely correct.
Ok, then why DNA? You suggest it's highly unlikely but say it happened. There must be a reason. Just positing a magical one-time, extremely unlikely event that could never happen again does not seem like real science to me.
If there is a mechanism that did it, it would likely do it again and again.
devnull
Philosopher
Again, why would you not regard them as merely the most successful? Or are they the only 4 amino acids that could result in viable DNA?
Im not making a point here, I really am just asking a question.
Like I said, Im a layman.
devnull
Philosopher
Given the same conditions of course.
I guess all we know for sure is that it happened at least once
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
No there mustn't.
Yea, things happen for no reason or natural cause all the time.
devnull
Philosopher
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
Goalpost moving.
Things do happen for no reason all the time. The latter part of your sentence is something you've only just added because you know you wouldn't be able to defend the first part of the sentence by itself, even though the first part of the sentence by itself is the original claim you made.
What happened to that plea for honest debate you made earlier in the thread?
devnull
Philosopher
Oh, the debate has been over for 3 or 4 pages now.....
Why not DNA? Maybe there were early forms of life based on some other method of passing information along to offspring, but they didn't survive (or if they did, we haven't found them yet). Why are you assuming that life must contain DNA?
If we ever find life on another planet there is no guarantee that it would be based on the same DNA chemistry as we are.
Why not a one time event. DNA/RNA have other nucleotides.
It's possibly based of our usage of ATP as energy currency since it's an universal adenosine usage. But again as stated more research is needed and it is taking place.
The DNA code we utilise is universal except for small differences implying common descent. The chance of multiple things coming to the same biochemical conclusion is silly because there are other options. The choice of chirality of our molecules is based on a coin flip decision since neither confirmation is preferred. Multiple origins would cause more optical isomers of our proteins to be seen.
Hence the common origin.
It's possibly based of our usage of ATP as energy currency since it's an universal adenosine usage. But again as stated more research is needed and it is taking place.
The DNA code we utilise is universal except for small differences implying common descent. The chance of multiple things coming to the same biochemical conclusion is silly because there are other options. The choice of chirality of our molecules is based on a coin flip decision since neither confirmation is preferred. Multiple origins would cause more optical isomers of our proteins to be seen.
Hence the common origin.
The collapse of World Trade Center 7?
I'm willing to bet that they meant "all life that has so far been observed by humans on the planet earth", but that phrase is a little cumbersome so they shortened it.
In order for evolution to occur inheritance and mutability is needed. Survivability is based on variation. DNA would have given it's users that ability. The other non inheritance life forms of the period would have simply died out because they would not have been able to evolve.
The big bang is a one time event is it not?
And viruses have RNA based lifestyles of varying mechanisms.
Some people don't classify viruses as being alive.