I believe evolution is right in its theory of species changing properties in relation to the Earth's climate change.
The similaries of life's properties in the present to the distance past life is so apparent that some people have to be brain dead to say, that it is nothing but errors in the data concerning its facts about how life has change over millions of years in relation to Earth's climate change.
Of course the alternative is religion interpetations of how life to day come to be over time.
Which is of course preposterous for a scientist using logic and the scientific method.
The explaination they give is from their religious texts which of course can't be corroborated because scientists can't disscuss it with their god or gods.
With Christianity being the major opponent to evolution.

I don't hear no reports of Buddhism and Hinduism religions complaining.
If there are reports of any other religions let me know about if I was misinform.
I don't make it my bussiness to know of all the world's religions.

The scientific method is a system of logical rules navigation that teach us how to be objective.
It teaches us how not to depend on emotions, bias attitudes or not to have the corrupting influence of others controlling our decision making on testing arguments.
While using the scientfic method for testing the vality of evolution, they have gather lots of convincing evidence to try to quail the skeptics doubt.
The bias of some religious skeptics will never allow them to accept the damning truth of the science.
The corruption of some people in some religions like Christianity for example, try to influence others of their beliefs, that if others don't change their belief in not favoring their religion's belief that they will suffer in hell.
This is very apparent! In some cases!
They don't use the scientific method, or logic for that matter.
Their emotions have taken over to influence their reasoning.
Some of them! In my opinion some of them have the fear that they will be banish to hell if they accepts evolution's interpretation.
Well, thats where some of their religious peers would have imprinted in their minds.
Their is no way, in my opinion to convince them of evolution validity if they have fear influencing their decision making.
Of course there are people who is not going to accept evolution until they have almost a 100% certainity.

The understanding of evolution is incomplete because the simple fact we only have the evidence of evolution happening on Earth.
I am not saying we need to explore the galaxy or universe to accept evolution validity.
As far as the present is concerned the evidence of evolution on Earth is valid.
But there is still a galaxy, universe and other possible infinite universes in existence left to explore.
Of course you can say, we will never have a finish definition of the evolution process with that statement said.
But the science of biology is based on life here, we have no idea of what life can evolve into elsewhere in the universe or in the rest of existance.
Until we aleast start exploring the galaxy our understanding of evolution will remain incomplete to say the least.

We assume that because ours is the planet with life that we were meant to be alive. The failed attempts at life in the universe could be on the order of 10 to the 23 zeros. Or it could be 5. The situation is like the lotto winner: an "astronomically small" chance of winning, but for the winner it seems like "fate." Bollucks. Someone had to win. The same could be true with the universe and we should use n=1 when deciding the probability that life could emerge from a universe.

Lottery--if they don't pick anyone's number, no one wins.... :) Which is why I generally don't play unless the dollar amount is huge, and even then I consider it my 'donation' to the states' general funds.

We're working within the limits of the biochemistry and specific science on our own planet, so the number of attempts on other planets is irrelevant. Silicon-based life may have been feasible on another planet, but not on this one, for instance.

Sure, the very first choice out of 10^40,000 could be the right one, statistically speaking, but the likelihood is so minute you may as well say zero for all intents and purposes, and it's certainly well beyond the range of statistical significance. Even if you take into account billions of years and billions of chances, you're still looking at one chance in 10^39,888--still way too small a chance for me to be comfortable saying 'it just happened all by itself.'

Of course, none of us is ever really going to know since we can't go back to that point in time to find out for sure. :)

We're working within the limits of the biochemistry and specific science on our own planet, so the number of attempts on other planets is irrelevant. Silicon-based life may have been feasible on another planet, but not on this one, for instance. Jae, we're talking about the possibility of life arising anywhere, from anything. Doesn't matter if it's on another planet, made from silicon, or whatever. Sure, it may have a very small chance on any particular planet - but that's not the only planet that process is happening on. Like Skinwalker said, "How many stars orbiting how many galactic centers have how many planets with the right conditions[?]"

Of course, none of us is ever really going to know since we can't go back to that point in time to find out for sure. :)True enough. However, what's the point of this loophole you're leaving? Didn't God create Adam out of dirt (which is definitely not alive)? The particular process with which he did so doesn't seem to be expounded on. Why not just apply the same sort of disbelief as you did to literally interpreted creationism?

Jae, we're talking about the possibility of life arising anywhere, from anything. Doesn't matter if it's on another planet, made from silicon, or whatever. Sure, it may have a very small chance on any particular planet - but that's not the only planet that process is happening on. Like Skinwalker said, "How many stars orbiting how many galactic centers have how many planets with the right conditions[?]"

I understand what you're saying, I happen to disagree with it, unless you're arguing that our life came from another planet.

Life as it developed on this particular planet required a very specific set of conditions that _may be_ , though not necessarily _are_, unique to this planet. It makes no difference what happened on other planets that are unlike ours, and I find it unlikely that there are enough planets in the universe with our specific criteria to be able to dilute the stat enough for me to buy it. The fact remains that things like hemoglobin, insulin, ATP, cGMP, DNA and RNA and a host of other incredibly complex proteins, phospholipids, and other biochemicals had to develop within a very narrow range of conditions to create us humans. Most of these biochemicals can't function outside of these conditions.


True enough. However, what's the point of this loophole you're leaving? Didn't God create Adam out of dirt (which is definitely not alive)? The particular process with which he did so doesn't seem to be expounded on. Why not just apply the same sort of disbelief as you did to literally interpreted creationism?

The Bible's not a science book, and I don't read it for science. :)

I understand what you're saying, I happen to disagree with it, unless you're arguing that our life came from another planet.

Life as it developed on this particular planet required a very specific set of conditions that _may be_ , though not necessarily _are_, unique to this planet. It makes no difference what happened on other planets that are unlike ours, and I find it unlikely that there are enough planets in the universe with our specific criteria to be able to dilute the stat enough for me to buy it.According to this (http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=534), there are 7x10^22 stars in the visible universe. That's only the visible universe, mind. Using this (http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=447), there are around 7x10^19 similar planets to earth. How many different combinations are being tried every year by each world (note that selection would take effect after the initial life is formed)? An extremely large amount (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#Search) given the earth-like conditions (more than one combination at a time obviously!). Also note that the Earth has had possible traces of life back to around 3.8 billion years, and the others would have as much or more time to form life. That's not even counting whatever solar systems that have lived and died before we've been around, or the ones outside of our visible universe, or ones we can't see because our telescopes are not good enough.

Can I ask where your statistics are from?
[edit; nevermind (http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionabiogenesis/a/probability.htm), Hoyle. He apparently uses the 'smallest living cell', which would be a lot more complex than the kind of thing that we're thinking of]

The fact remains that things like hemoglobin, insulin, ATP, cGMP, DNA and RNA and a host of other incredibly complex proteins, phospholipids, and other biochemicals had to develop within a very narrow range of conditions to create us humans. Most of these biochemicals can't function outside of these conditions. Abiogenesis is not talking about forming all of the complex molecules out of the blue. Just the very simplest ones would be formed at first.

The Bible's not a science book, and I don't read it for science. :)Neither do I. What's the holdup? :)

EDIT: I want to be clear that I don't really care if you think abiogenesis would work or not, or whether you felt another hypothesis is more plausible, or feel that you would like to reserve judgement until more facts are obtained. That's perfectly reasonable. I simply take issue with the fact that you replace any effort to obtain scientific knowledge on this subject with a catchall explanation for anything and everything. Seeing it from a Christian's point of view, of course God created life, so what? He created everything. I simply don't see how you come to believe that God created life in that way. Why would he create life ready made, and not use abiogenesis/any other hypothesis? He seems to like using systems based on natural laws to do, well, pretty much everything else that's been observed. Why do you think that he would deviate from this pattern in a way inconsistent the rest of creation?

So basically:

I don't think you have a particular reason for saying "God did it" besides the fact that you don't think that abiogenesis is believable (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100.html). Simply because you think that one idea is impossible does not make its opposite (i.e., divine intervention) automatically true). Besides being totally useless as an explanation for what happened, "God created it" is redundant. Of COURSE he created it! Unfortunately, that's not what abiogenesis is trying to explain. We're asking HOW here, not 'who' or 'why'.

I don't think just creating life fully constructed would be consistent with other types of natural systems that God has created, such as evolution, which you have previously accepted. I have no reason to believe that God would create natural phenomena with no natural explanation. If you have a reason to believe that, then do tell. I would be interested in hearing it.

Therefore, abiogenesis explains some things about the origin of life and is useful as such. It has problems, but it seems to be a viable alternative to "I don't know." Perhaps other explanations will become available that will be more palatable to you in the future, but for now there seem to be few choices in the matter.

Abiogenesis is not talking about forming all of the complex molecules out of the blue. Just the very simplest ones would be formed at first.

Hoyle's numbers are convenient to use. I could do a good chunk of the stats myself on my stats calculator, but it'll take forever without a program, and at the moment I don't have a ton of time to do this. The very simplest forms of life (around 100 proteins) are still incredibly complex, and all the parts have to be there for them to work. Miss out on one part of the cell membrane/wall or one of the proteins, and you've got nothing.

The holdup--having enough undergrad/grad level courses in stats, chemistry (organic and general), physics, biochemistry, biology, anatomy/physiology/embryology, among others (because I am a school junkie. Don't ask how many undergrad hours I had, you'll want to throw up. :) ) to evaluate the arguments pro/con evolution and actually understand the underlying scientific principles driving the findings. Some arguments are great and make sense. Some things require leaps in logic that I'm not able to make along with others. I see scientists on both sides of the evolution fence conducting some good scientific experiments that I find utterly fascinating. And there are bad experiments done solely to 'prove a point', and politicizing science drives me crazy. At some point it boils down to a fundamental faith in the development of life with or without a creator. The complexity of the simplest bits of life, the extremely low probability of the formation of even simple proteins, and the fact that DNA and RNA have never been found to form on their own (at least, outside of a living cell) makes it more difficult to believe it happened all by itself than by being helped along in some way by someone who put the pieces all together to get it going in the right direction.

The complexity of the simplest bits of life, the extremely low probability of the formation of even simple proteins, and the fact that DNA and RNA have never been found to form on their own (at least, outside of a living cell) makes it more difficult to believe it happened all by itself than by being helped along in some way by someone who put the pieces all together to get it going in the right direction.I think Mr. Dravis has a good point here: Why would God derive from his "standard pattern" of doing things and do "quick and dirty magic" instead?

The possibility that it might have been "helped along in some way by someone who put the pieces all together to get it going in the right direction" does in no way qualify the way it was done nor quantify the time it took to do so.

It'd be kind of "unusual" if there were DNAs and RNAs popping in from one cell to the next or from one second to the other. Also, the "slow way" (which still can be God's) shows more conformity to the concept of evolution (which also could be godmade), plus, it's not entirely certain that the first lifeforms had things like DNA/RNA. And we cannot assume there was always and exclusively the principle of using DNA and RNA to pass the necessary information for (re)production of cells/organisms. It would fit perfectly into the scheme of the evolutionary process if there were other ways to pass on these informations, but less successful, obviously. Perhabs there were batteries needed for this, or open fire, which I heard was both hard to handle, in primeval oceans, especially if it's raining a lot :PPP

Perhabs there were batteries needed for this, or open fire, which I heard was both hard to handle, in primeval oceans, especially if it's raining a lot :PPP

Bad Jae, having silly thoughts....

I suddenly have a picture of a pink Energizer bunny beating on that darn drum while rolling across the bottom of a primordial soupy ocean.... :)

So what do you propose instead of RNA/DNA?

I think Mr. Dravis has a good point here: Why would God derive from his "standard pattern" of doing things and do "quick and dirty magic" instead? What kind of magic are you talking about?


The possibility that it might have been "helped along in some way by someone who put the pieces all together to get it going in the right direction" does in no way qualify the way it was done nor quantify the time it took to do so.Help by what?

it's not entirely certain that the first lifeforms had things like DNA/RNA. And we cannot assume there was always and exclusively the principle of using DNA and RNA to pass the necessary information for (re)production of cells/organisms. What else do you believe it will be?
If early life didn't have RNA/DNA then it's a good bet that our science of biology won't get the answer, since it only tells us of Earth's life history.
And not the rest of the Milky Way.
Because we don't know what the hell is out there.
Maybe you might be talking of some other form of matter that is not made of fermions.

Yeah, for people who don't know what they are.
They are subatomic particles of matter that don't transmit no forces.
So they can't be in the same place at the same time.
Bosons are the particles responsible for force interaction.
Bosons can be in the same phase.
Fermions make complex life chemistry possible by having stable atoms in electron orbits.
The electrons waves don't interact at the same time or at the same point in space.

Or maybe early life forms was made of electromagnetic plasmas.
You know, the energy blobs of early Star Trek.

Well, I cannot deny that possibility. But I think that, according to my understanding of things, the chances that a being put up life per fingersnap is 1 against uncountable "by chance events" in the chaotic system "planet Earth". So the chance is way more bigger for random creation of life. To me this is not faith, it's math. Again, who knows how God did it?
The calculation of Chaos is approximations, the solutions to the nonlinear differential equations aren't exact solutions.
The solutions change each time the calculation is peform.
I have to agree that God or some intelligent being created life in this universe.
Of course there is still that unanswer question of who created God? Who created the creator of God?
Who created this damn infinite repeating pattern of creators.

I really doubt life was simply put together. I don't think there was a single first "lifeform". I like the idea that the basics of life "died" a hundred billion deaths before there finally was anything looking real life-ish. And even then, it didn't survive, reproduce, whatever. Life started as what it still is, one big cluster of tons of chemical reactions (or in the case of cells, not that big).
Even though I believe absolutely nothing is impossible.
This free will chaos is hard to accept.
Also, I found one question to be quite interesting: Is God a lifeform, too?What the hell ultimately determine what life is?
Other than our bias Earth bound knowlege of the definition of life.

If so, how can God, as form of life, create life itself? Did he create his own existance as lifeform? I would find that hard to believe and logical quite impossible.
Nothing is impossible !
And if he's not a lifeform (this appears to me the only valid possbility in case he literally *created* life), then why impersonate him as "human" (or vice versa, humans after his image), because he is not even "life"? That seems somewhat contradicitve.This is bias, we are talking about ourselves we are forgeting about the rest of the Milky Way and universe: A, B and so on.

Of course, I do know very well that I am made of Quarks and whatnot. :)

What kind of magic are you talking about?The metaphoric one. I was just asking, why, if it was really God, he should have put life into place with just a fingersnap (hence MAGIC) instead of doing it like he did with the other things he possibly created (standard pattern).

Help by what?God. My point was, if god really created life, he technically created it already by creating the universe, thus he helped along to get it going in the right direction.

What else do you believe it will be?
If early life didn't have RNA/DNA then it's a good bet that our science of biology won't get the answer, since it only tells us of Earth's life history.I don't know. And I was talking about early life on earth, and from the point of view that the life as we know it developed on earth. I just tried to say, that we don't know if all life on earth had DNA from the begin with, or if there weren't other "techniques" existent for the same purpose, which did not "make it". This would fit into the common concept of evolution.



Bad Jae, having silly thoughts....

I suddenly have a picture of a pink Energizer bunny beating on that darn drum while rolling across the bottom of a primordial soupy ocean.... :)So how do you think the fire would fit into this scenario?

So what do you propose instead of RNA/DNA?Uuuuhm. Excellent question? Maybe one of those LEGO construction plans? Really, I don't know. In the end it might have been just kind of pre-DNA, maybe a very short one or just using two proteins or another set of proteins, like that. Maybe there were the usual evolutionary attempts for pre-DNA. Something that finally made "cells" which had it "better" than those which didn't. Maybe because those without kind of mutated, exploded or couldn't reproduce in form of clone like copies (you get the point), whilst those who had developed pre-DNA were able to start the run for "Who'll be the first err..dino-beaver?"





[edit]

The calculation of Chaos is approximations, the solutions to the nonlinear differential equations aren't exact solutions.
The solutions change each time the calculation is peform.Nope, chaotic equations behave just like normal equations, in fact they're basically just iterated equations. Thus, given the same variables, they give the same results after the same number of iterations, so we are able to display those fancey fractals (Feigenbaum, Mandelbrot, etc) But, due to the fact of iteration, the smallest possible variation in one variable can have an immense effect on the result, which again can dissapear right with the next iteration.
The calculation of chaos is totally exact, but *only* if you know every single variable of a chaotic system and its exact value. Of course we're not (yet) able to get all those information to calculate a big chaotic system of "real life" like weather. What we are able to do is, we can take a limited set of variables which are known to influence a system the most and use these for an approximate calculation of what might happen. Provided that we found the proper equations already, of course.

I have to agree that God or some intelligent being created life in this universe.I don't. But it might as well be possible, like for instance we could be like a simulation of the universe, I mean a real good one, technically perfect, beyond our imagination. Like someone (like "real humans") wanted to know how things went, gained really a ton of cool knowledge about the whole universe or whatever thing and just "copied" it. Maybe we, as simulation, are all what's left of some high tech space race which was just interested in their own history. Or maybe we are gonna be the one to do so. I don't know, really.

What I doubt is that anything was created in the sense of just putting something somewhere. At least not within this universe. And whatever caused the universe to exist, indirectly caused life to exist because life as we know it "needs" this very universe we happen to live in. There is no certain necessity that life itself had to be "created" after that, because obviously life can exist within this universe. And I don't freaking care what people call this "cause of the universe", may it be God, popsicles or Ray Jones, it's all the same: the "thing" that "made" the universe exist. They all address the same issue by saying God, Big Bang or anything like that, they often just don't realise.
Starting from that point of view most religious "theories" about "creation" seem to become interpretable and kind of make sense (except they're based on some decent LSD experiences).
Of course, these "stories" come from a time where evolution, for instance, was not really "invented" yet, so what does one expect should be written in these religious texts? In the end, it doesn't matter for the aim of the text itself, so an analogy was drawn to normal life according to the best knowledge people had back then: things are created. They build houses, made swords, woved cloth, all that. So why not describe it like that, lacking of a better explanation.

The result is the same: birds, humans, earth, universe, everything, it does exist.

Of course there is still that unanswer question of who created God? Who created the creator of God?
Who created this damn infinite repeating pattern of creators.This is not of importance, because it still ends in one question: What's the beginning of it all. This seem to be not even a religious question, because even the most non religious nut (me) wants to know that.

What the hell ultimately determine what life is?
Other than our bias Earth bound knowlege of the definition of life.Life is per defintion very simple to describe: It eats and thus makes shyte (in the simpliest form: it breathes, in other words: it needs to take energy out of its surrounding and replaces it with something else), interacts with its environment (it reacts to its environmental dependencies, i.e.: take away the source of energy and it'll die), it reproduces on its own (yeah, ba-bey! :naughty: ), it can die (read: stop having the aforementioned attributes). That should be universal applicable to all life everywhere, else it has to be seen as something else, hmm.. maybe undead?


Nothing is impossible !That is not what I said. I just said that there is not logical reasoning possible that someone, who is (per definition) a form of life, can (literally) create this very life he is already "made of".

[edit]

Nope, chaotic equations behave just like normal equations, in fact they're basically just iterated equations. Thus, given the same variables, they give the same results after the same number of iterations, so we are able to display those fancey fractals (Feigenbaum, Mandelbrot, etc) But, due to the fact of iteration, the smallest possible variation in one variable can have an immense effect on the result, which again can dissapear right with the next iteration.
You are talking of the butterfly effect.
The calculation of chaos is totally exact, but *only* if you know every single variable of a chaotic system and its exact value. Of course we're not (yet) able to get all those information to calculate a big chaotic system of "real life" like weather. What we are able to do is, we can take a limited set of variables which are known to influence a system the most and use these for an approximate calculation of what might happen. Provided that we found the proper equations already, of course.
You must mean Algebraic equations are the exact ones.
I guess I ment to say partial differential equations and nonlinear partial differential equations.
Navier-Stokes equation for example have few or no exact solutions in close-form.
Which I mean:at least one solution can be expressed by approximation in terms of a bounded number of certain elementary math functions; no infinite series, limits of a algebraic sequences, and no continued fractions.
It's a type of a nolinear partial differential equation.
The solutions to theses types equations are n-dimensional and also you have to deal with the six degrees of freedom in angle.
When the calculation is bound to 3 spacial dimensions.
You can only calculate evolution size of the chaotic mess with stochastic differential equations.
They are more extremely sensitive to initial conditions,
at the start of the numerical iterated process.
Then the Algebraic ones.

You must mean Algebraic equations are the exact ones.
I guess I ment to say partial differential equations and nonlinear partial differential equations.
Navier-Stokes equation for example have few or no exact solutions in close-form.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_equation)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier-Stokes_equations)

Windu6, it is called an equation _because_ given some values to calculate with it gives an result, and given exact the same values again, it gives the same result, over and over again. This is definite, no matter what kind of equation.


You are talking of the butterfly effect.I know what I am talking about :P so yes, that's basically chaos theory in a nutshell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory)

I know what I am talking about :P so yes, that's basically chaos theory in a nutshell.I know what I am talking about too, Ray.
Don't get mad it's fun to have a argument about science.


Windu6, it is called an equation _because_ given some values to calculate with it gives an result, and given exact the same values again, it gives the same result, over and over again. This is definite, no matter what kind of equation.I know what a equation is, Ray.
But Chaos Theory math don't give exact solutions; You will have to used probability theory with calculus to only get approximate results.
It has not been proven generally yet that Chaos Theory is nothing but patterns.

Evolution connection:
I also believe possibility, that some chaotic systems in nature are maybe be somewhat alive.
Or maybe be another form of life.
That is yet to be determine to be life.
Because, as you know I believe that absolutely nothing is impossible.
So, that is my reasoning about that belief.


Don't you think it's funny we are arguing about the mathematics of Chaos Theory.:lol:
On a Star Wars forum.

But Chaos Theory math don't give exact solutions;Yes, it does. It would at least, if we'd knew the equations and every of its variables.

Don't you think it's funny we are arguing about the mathematics of Chaos Theory.:lol:
On a Star Wars forum.Why, no. After all it's Star Wars. Not Star Trek. XP

Yes, it does. It would at least, if we'd knew the equations and every of its variables. Then you might you believe that absolutely is impossible like I do. :)
Because if you don't, then that is a very difficult and practical problem to solve.

You will have to account for all the states of those variables in the 6* of freedom in the 3 dimensions of space,
at every event of time the system starts to bifurcate that is depended on the 3 dimensions of space and the 6 right angle directions.
Not to mention, that true chaotic systems in nature aren't close systems of interaction.

Why, no. After all it's Star Wars. Not Star Trek. XPIt will probably be a more complex discussion of math and physics there.
Since scientists are really interested in the science of Star Trek more than the science of Star Wars.

I am, however, only interested in boobs, where to put my "sabre" and how to turn on the Stargate. I use chaos theory for that, though.

You will have to account for all the states of those variables in the 6* of freedom in the 3 dimensions of space,
at every event of time the system starts to bifurcate that is depended on the 3 dimensions of space and the 6 right angle directions.
Not to mention, that true chaotic systems in nature aren't close systems of interaction. No, I just need to record ALL states (which might be some more than the six delivered from phase space) of EACH "stateful object" of a system at ONE given point of time, to calculate (iterate) to the state of the system at any point of time possible. Granted, pretty much a complex task.. :~~~~

I am, however, only interested in boobs, where to put my "sabre" and how to turn on the Stargate. I use chaos theory for that, though.

No, I just need to record ALL states of EACH "stateful object" of a system at ONE given point of time, to calculate (iterate) to the state of the system at any point of time possible. Granted, pretty much a complex task.. :~~~~Well, let's us get back to the topic of evolution before Skinwalker show up. :)

So,
I wanted to ask you. Do you think our knowlege of evolution is incomplete respect to the Milky Way galaxy.

Or, do you think we have the complete picture?

I also believe possibility, that some chaotic systems in nature are maybe be somewhat alive.Well, certainly, every form of life is a chaotic system itself. Chaos and order are the same. It's just that order is a special state of a chaotic system. Take the human body, for instance. You can narrow it do to be made of protons, electrons and neutrons. From that aspect, the human body is not different to the body of a fish, a tree or a stone. It's not different to any random atom on earth or whereever you want. It's a system of subatomic particles interacting and finally formating themselves into what we are. Or a stone is.

Do we have a complete picture? No, there's a lot we don't know yet. Especially since we've not been very far into space yet. But I think we already have a good understanding of what's going on on earth and what we already know should be generally applicable outside the limits of our planet.

Well, let's us get back to the topic of evolution before Skinwalker show up. :)Oh, I think we surely are talking about the topic of "evolution and how we know it's right", and how it's related to chaotic systems in this case. However, if SkinWalker sees necessity to take action, he certainly will do, usually with good reason and my full respect for whatever he does. After all, he is the bunch of atoms trying to moderate this forum. And I can easily "flood" his PM inbox with mail-electrons in case I appear to have a lack of understanding. :)

Do we have a complete picture? No, there's a lot we don't know yet. Especially since we've not been very far into space yet. But I think we already have a good understanding of what's going on on earth and what we already know should be generally applicable outside the limits of our planet.
I agree too, we still got alot to learn as a species.
There is still an unknown galaxy out there.
And there maybe infinite combinations of life structures out there. :)
Like, the electromagnetic plasma blobs of Star Trek.

Due to the nature of plasma it would surpise me if these blobs weren't electromagnetic. And I don't think I'd find their girls very attractive. On the other hand, they might have found out where these socks do go, if they dissapear in the washing machine. So it cannot be wrong to ask.

So,
I wanted to ask you. Do you think our knowlege of evolution is incomplete respect to the Milky Way galaxy.

The guys who one the Nobel prize in '81 (Hubel and Wiesel) for tremendous advances in visual physiology got it for learning how cats' brains process vision. They figured out how these cats see the orientation of a single line. That was considered cutting edge. And we still have a lot to learn about how the eye sees and how the brain processes what the eye sees. We don't have cures for cancer, heart disease, and a host of other diseases. We only figured out antibiotics in the last 75 years. I'd say our knowledge is pretty darn incomplete at this point. :)

Guess those plasma blobs will have to wait, then, huh?

Besides, Jae, you could like try to trick talk "someone", to worm out a little information, erm.. I mean, you know? Just a little bit.. :) I tried myself, and now have thumbs where my nose should be, so I'm kind of.. careful? :D

Due to the nature of plasma it would surpise me if these blobs weren't electromagnetic. And I don't think I'd find their girls very attractive. On the other hand, they might have found out where these socks do go, if they dissapear in the washing machine. So it cannot be wrong to ask. :lol:
Well, yeah the electromagnetic plasma female will fry your ass.
Yuck, I don't have no damn idea what one can do with a female blob. :lol:
Also another question, is there anything else after a male of female?
Which is a definite brain twister.

When I seen the end of MIB 2, at the end of the movie it show that our galaxy may exist inside a marble ball.
This is of course a good philosophy discussion about that kind of possibility.

Did you ever wonder that can lifeforms evolve into a size multiple times greater than our galaxy?
Which I mean do you think that size of lifeforms is limited, in existence.
Well, you already know what my answer will be.

Besides, Jae, you could like try to trick talk "someone", to worm out a little information, erm.. I mean, you know? Just a little bit.. I tried myself, and now have thumbs where my nose should be, so I'm kind of.. careful?

It is always wise to take precautions. ;)
Naw, I never trick talk anyone. Aside from the seedier implication to that which would be quite amusing in my case to say the least, I'm pretty much a straight talking gal, expect for being permanently 29.

:lol:
Well, yeah the electromagnetic plasma female will fry your ass.
Yuck, I don't have no damn idea what one can do with a female blob. :lol:

Darlin', if you don't know by now, we're not going to 'educate' you. :)

As to your male/female question....
Pretty much everything's male, female, hermaphrodite, or no gender at all, though someone might come up with some obscure 'something else'. I suppose in other worlds there could be as many genders as would be needed to create life on that world. It's certainly imagined in more than one SF/fantasy novel.

Darlin', if you don't know by now, we're not going to 'educate' you. So, do you think you can have something close to sex with a male blob, Jae.
Or, whatever the hell that blob will be made of. :)
I don't know if I can bang a female blob.
And, I won't definitely mess around with a female blob made of electromagnetic hot plasma.
My ass will be fried or vaporise for sure. :lol:

So, do you think you can have something close to sex with a male blob, Jae.

Where there's a will, there's a way....however, I'm terribly and delightfully monogamous so I'll never know.
Besides (cheesy attempt to bring this vaguely back on topic), a blob-human baby would do bizarre things to evolution here on earth.

Where there's a will, there's a way....however, I'm terribly and delightfully monogamous so I'll never know.
I guess the first explorers of Milky Way galaxy will probably find that will and the way to mate with a blob.
I don't know how the hell they will mate with a hot electromagnetic plasma.
But, as I believe that nothing is impossible.
I will have to concede with that belief.
Besides (cheesy attempt to bring this vaguely back on topic), a blob-human baby would do bizarre things to evolution here on earth.
Well, the universe is a bizarre place.

Sorry for the late reply, but I didn't have anything better to do today. :p

Hoyle's numbers are convenient to use. I could do a good chunk of the stats myself on my stats calculator, but it'll take forever without a program, and at the moment I don't have a ton of time to do this. The very simplest forms of life (around 100 proteins) are still incredibly complex, and all the parts have to be there for them to work. Miss out on one part of the cell membrane/wall or one of the proteins, and you've got nothing. Apparently you think it'd be impossible to form RNA because it is so complex. It doesn't have to be random (PAH world hypothesis (http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:Jr0PZpOTrSYJ:nai.arc.nasa.gov/team/index.cfm%3Fpage%3Dprojectreports%26year%3D6%26tea) mID%3D14%26projectID%3D632+PAH+world+hypothesis&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=7) is an example), and in the case of already replicating molecules/cells it most decidedly is not random.

You apparent espousal of the inability for 'irreducibly complex' structures to exist without all their parts is unwarranted. Yes, they cannot function without all their parts now. Evolutionary theory actually predicts the coevolution of distinct parts in such a way as to create 'irreducibly complex' structures without any intervention whatsoever. Indeed, using genetic algothrims (http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2005/articles_2005_Avida.html) this has already been tested and shown to be true. It's like constructing a building with scaffolding, then taking off the scaffolding. If you take it apart now, does it stand? Of course not; the scaffolding provided support only for when it was being built. Now that's it's gone there is nothing to hold up the individual parts. This doesn't mean that it necessarily simply appeared fully created, an invisible hand held up the rafters, or any other similar idea. While strictly speaking possible, those ideas have absolutely no demonstrable evidence behind them and are therefore eliminated by Occam's Razor.

In addition, there are very few reputable scientists that actually support the idea of irreducibly complex structures. Here is a refutation of IC (http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html) for your enjoyment.

The holdup--having enough undergrad/grad level courses in stats, chemistry (organic and general), physics, biochemistry, biology, anatomy/physiology/embryology, among others (because I am a school junkie. Don't ask how many undergrad hours I had, you'll want to throw up. :) ) to evaluate the arguments pro/con evolution and actually understand the underlying scientific principles driving the findings. Some arguments are great and make sense. Some things require leaps in logic that I'm not able to make along with others. I see scientists on both sides of the evolution fence conducting some good scientific experiments that I find utterly fascinating. And there are bad experiments done solely to 'prove a point', and politicizing science drives me crazy.The complexity of the simplest bits of life, the extremely low probability of the formation of even simple proteins, and the fact that DNA and RNA have never been found to form on their own (at least, outside of a living cell) makes it more difficult to believe it happened all by itself than by being helped along in some way by someone who put the pieces all together to get it going in the right direction.

At some point it boils down to a fundamental faith in the development of life with or without a creator.The probability of life develping with/without a creator is not affected in any way by the veracity of abiogenesis, evolution or anything else. The Creator is God, remember? If he planned it, and by definition he did, then he created life regardless of any particular way he chose to do it. I don't see how religion is a holdup unless you're some sort of young earth creationist, which I doubt.

Again, I have no interest telling you whether to believe, disbelieve, or have no comment on any scientific subject. I'd just like you to use science where science is appropriate - attempting to explain the how. 'God did it' provides no useful conclusions (regardless of its actual truth) and therefore divine intervention is useless in practice. There simply is no reason to believe it happened - no evidence, no knowledge of what happened, no divine voice telling us the state of things, no nothing. There's a reason that no evidence exists for something - our level of technological advance is not capable of finding the evidence, it is something the scientific method cannot be applied to, or the phenomena doesn't exist. Since it's impossible to discover things that we are incapable of discovering and it's totally useless to apply the scientific method to something it doesn't apply to, it leaves only one realistic answer - the proposed phenomena doesn't exist for the purposes of the current level of scientific inquiry.

I prefer extrapolation on scientific subjects, even if it is inaccurate, to random guesses that involve totally unquantifiable factors.