Go Back   Science Forums
View Single Post
Old 12-29-2008   #128 (permalink)
Moontanman's Avatar
Moontanman
Astounding Vision


Location:
South Eastern North Carolina, Cape Fear Region
 
Moontanman has a reputation beyond reputeMoontanman has a reputation beyond reputeMoontanman has a reputation beyond reputeMoontanman has a reputation beyond reputeMoontanman has a reputation beyond reputeMoontanman has a reputation beyond reputeMoontanman has a reputation beyond reputeMoontanman has a reputation beyond reputeMoontanman has a reputation beyond reputeMoontanman has a reputation beyond reputeMoontanman has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Moontanman
 



Not Ranked  0 score     
Re: Evolution Pros and Cons

[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by questor View Post
Moon, yes, some have been rude, but that shows a lack of understanding and knowledge. I have explained my views before, but here I go again. I do not believe in Gods. I do not believe in church dogma. I do believe that the answers to life, evolution, thought and reason lie somewhere below the molecular level and can be explained by understanding the force or impetus that causes carbon compounds to act as they do. Galapagos does not understand this question and he thinks his numerous links have answered it. He wants to throw names and insults around instead of confront the fact that we do not know. I have read his links and the questions remain unanswered. I am not religious, but I do think the universe has intelligent design. If not, how could there be order, orbiting, gravity, physical forces, evolution, and the universe itself? There should have been chaos if there was a big bang and we would not exist. This indicates to me that some type of planning has occurred. I do not know how to explain it.
I believe in cause and effect. everything has a cause. Once you determine the cause, you may be able to create the effect. Once we understand molecular or particulate biochemistry, we may be able to create life itself. Although we have made self replicating compounds, we have not created life.
If you take a soup of elements neccesary to make life and hit them with electricity, you may create replicating cells, but what else is needed to create life? read the
Quote:
Miller/Urey Experiment
''By the 1950s, scientists were in hot pursuit of the origin of life. Around the world, the scientific community was examining what kind of environment would be needed to allow life to begin. In 1953, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey, working at the University of Chicago, conducted an experiment which would change the approach of scientific investigation into the origin of life.
Miller took molecules which were believed to represent the major components of the early Earth's atmosphere and put them into a closed system.
These discoveries created a stir within the science community. Scientists became very optimistic that the questions about the origin of life would be solved within a few decades. This has not been the case, however. Instead, the investigation into life's origins seems only to have just begun.[<quote]

Has this specific question been answered? No. So, actually we must understand the nature of life and at what particulate level it resides in order to answer all the questions of evolution. We have not answered the question of what bottom line motivating force dictates the activity of the chemistry of carbon compounds.
We don't know, and the scientists don't know regardless of their consensus.
Questor, I honestly do not understand your need to see a motivating force behind chemical reactions. When fluorine encounters hydrogen does it need a motivating force to react? I think not, they react because of the attraction between the atoms and their electron shells. In other words they react because they can. When fluorine encounters neon they do not react because they cannot, not because some outside intelligence won't let them. Organic molecules are the same way, they react because they can they react in the ways they can, not in ways they cannot. Abiogenesis and evolution as well work because the atoms involved can react the ways they do. Reactions that cannot take place do not take place. As the chemical systems become more complex they regulate the reactions but they never cause a reaction that cannot happen. I see no need for an outside motivational force. If we were seeing chemical reactions taking place that could not do so I would concede you have a point but this never happens.


----------------
Michael
Life is the poetry of the universe.
Love is the poetry of life.

Nuclear is the only real option!
http://www.nuclearspace.com/Liberty_ship_menupg.aspx

Over heard from a three year old, "Daddy why do my toes get sticky when I eat strawberry jam?"

Never wrestle a troll. You both get dirty and the troll likes it

Proud graduate of Wossamotta University!

Last edited by Moontanman; 12-29-2008 at 08:11 AM..
Reply With Quote
 
» Advertisement
» Current Poll
Who's the sexiest man alive? Johnny Depp or Robert Pattinson?
Johnny Depp - 27.27%
3 Votes
Robert Pattinson - 0%
0 Votes
Someone else (please specify) - 45.45%
5 Votes
I'm too macho to think a guy is sexy - 27.27%
3 Votes
Total Votes: 11
You may not vote on this poll.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:08 AM.

Hypography?

Hypography [n.]: A combination of "hyperlink" and "bibliography" - ie, a list of links to electronic documents. Comparable to discography and bibliography, but not cartography.

We have been online since May 2000, and aim to be the best place to find and share science-related content of all kinds.

Share the love!

Please add more science to your life. Use our RSS feeds on your blog, your portal, or your favorite feedreader!


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2000-2009 Hypography
Part of the Hypography - Science for Everyone Network