22-01-2002 11:10									#331
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh I an not sure I really buy that argument - ie that life could form multiple times but one of the 'Adams' got a head start so it could out-compete the others - because there are always places on Earth were competition is minimal. And there are always niches to fill. It is just like why there are som many species on Earth - because there are so many roles to play. But maybe....

First of all life most likely were started in shallow seas, IIRC the seas had a much lower salinity back then. Since the oceans were (still are) connected life could spread around easily. Specialisation came later.

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh UR: it does matter what the probabilities are. Unless you invoke an anthropic principle (ie without successful creation of life on Earth we wouldn't be here to argue the point) we really have to have a non-neglible probability of life forming by random means, or explain why this planet is so different that life would form here.

I don't know how big the probability of "life forming by random means" is. If we consider life as something that can self-replicate, the probability doesn't seem so low.

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh It is just like throwing a pin in the air. Imagine it lands on the pointy end and balances perfectly. This is statistically possibe but has vanishingly small probability, so if it happens you can be pretty sure there is some other underlying reason...

That's what the fallacious creationist argument is. First they invent some bollocks probability, then asserted this probability to occur naturally, so there has to be a creator.

First of all this probability calculation is a risky business. Probability itself is not wrong, but the underlying assumption can be. Most creationist models try to attempt to calculate the probability of a fully formed cell spontaneously formed by random chance. This is the first thing that's wrong; lifeforms can be a lot simpler.

Secondly, there really was a lot of time and a lot of sites for chemical reactions. Consider that over 70% of the earth's surface is covered with water. Suppose that the life forming events can take place in the first 1m of water. That's an astronomical amount of sites for such reactions.

	22-01-2002 14:04									#332
	Evolution Defended Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The problem with a lot of creationists is that they make a purely negative argument. They assume that if evolution is disproven that the book of Genesis now stands as fact. That is simply not the case to quote someone informed on the subject:

" Are you ready to disprove the Algonquin creation myth, the Shinto creation myth, the Yoruba creation myth, the Mayan creation myth, the Pawnee, Inuit, Mogollon, Hindu, and Zoroastrian creation myths, as well as other scientific hypothesis such as Special Creationism, Lamarckism, Neo-Lamarckism, Process Structuralism, Saltationism, and rand knows how many more ideas ? "


Clearly a positive case must be made for the Christian creation myth as well as negative arguments. This is not even attempted by creationists though as such proof does not exist. All that creationists have ever had are hoaxes and mythology (dinosaur foot prints with a man's in Texas, sightings of the lockness monster,myths of dragons in the middle ages, and reports made by pygmies in Africa about giant lizards hiding in the jungle).


The idea that there was aver a world wide flood is disconfirmed by the fact that there isn't enough water on earth for a world wide flood which would cover the tallest mountains. This is also disconfirmed by the fact that all the fish would be wiped out in a world wide flood(As it would screw up the salinity of the water, and fish are very sensitive to that).

The best argument I've seen for the Genesis Flood here is that people share floodmyths. This can easily be explained by the fact that most ancient people lived near water, such a explanation is preferable as it is more in line with what we know of geology. In any case though these stories are usually not very similar except on the detail of the flood element. It should also be kept in mind that these are all myths too, and hence show how desperate creationists are.

If evolutionists used the Greek myth of random animals appearing all at once and dying out until those less able remained, as evidence for evolution; you bet the creationists would point to how silly it is. And I wouldn't blame them for doing so.

If creationists want a case they have to do more than cling to pathetic "girly man" pieces of evidence like "similar mythology" and actually use something more solid like geology.

	22-01-2002 14:28									#333
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger First of all life most likely were started in shallow seas, IIRC the seas had a much lower salinity back then. Since the oceans were (still are) connected life could spread around easily. Specialisation came later. ....... I don't know how big the probability of "life forming by random means" is. If we consider life as something that can self-replicate, the probability doesn't seem so low.

But this is all speculation. Is there any hard direct evidence that it was this way? Do we know, for example, that life started in shallow water? Do we know that the probability of creating life by random means is high enough?

What is to prevent, for example, a micro-organism having arrived on Earth inside an asteroid?

	22-01-2002 14:49									#334
	Support Apolyton

quote: What is to prevent, for example, a micro-organism having arrived on Earth inside an asteroid?

How would it get there? Even if all the chemicals were present, there wouldn't be liquid water in there for long.

Unless life evolved on Mars during its watery era and came to Earth in a meteorite from there. That's plausible, but I doubt if Mars was any better than Earth as a site for life to appear, so Earth is still the more likely site.

	22-01-2002 19:57									#335
	Got spare money?

quote: Oh boy, did this thread rage out of control or what?

Quite.

	22-01-2002 21:24									#336
	Inflate your Upload Space

Oh Boy...good going conner Looks like this thread is in competition with the finish one

	22-01-2002 22:51									#337
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Jack, check the news!

"Even if all the chemicals were present, there wouldn't be liquid water in there for long"

With the discovery of a hydrogen-based ecology 600 feet under the state of Idaho (a 'new' type of methanogen) the two 'pre-requisites' for life--sunlight and liquid water--have been dethroned.

It has recently been discovered that other ecologies are possible. I think space.com has the article. They go on to explain the obvious panspermia implications.

	23-01-2002 14:06									#338
	Suffering from ads?

Seeker:
Oooh...must look at that.
Sunlight hasn't been a pre-requisite for a while now...just a source of energy, but liquid water losing its place is interesting.

Maybe that's where we've been going wrong...

	23-01-2002 17:27									#339
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Seeker,

Got any links?

	23-01-2002 17:37									#340
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Ah...liquid water doesn't seem to have been removed according to the article:

""If hydrogen is indeed present on Mars in association with liquid water, the kind of metabolism we describe ... may occur on Mars," Chapelle said."

http://www.space.com/searchforlife/...ane_020116.html

These are just archaea, but the exciting thing is that it seems to be the first eco-system we've found based entirely on them...but water seems to still be a requirement.

	23-01-2002 17:39									#341
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Tolls,

Thanks.

	23-01-2002 20:01									#342
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I don't see how life is likely to appear without a liquid medium of some sort for the molecules to move around in and generally get organized.

And liquids don't last long in a vacuum, which would seem to limit life to oceans or liquid interiors of bodies of significant size. Hence, no panspermia except the "chunks knocked off planets" variety.

And as the entire Universe is only about three times the age of the Earth, there has only been a limited amount of time for chunks of life-bearing planets to accumulate in interstellar space. Especially as solid planets can't form until enough heavy elements have been produced in supernovae, further shortening the time available.

	24-01-2002 00:20									#343
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Sorry. Am a boobus maximus. The hydrogen thing is interesting though.

Love the quote!

	24-01-2002 01:53									#344
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless Especially as solid planets can't form until enough heavy elements have been produced in supernovae, further shortening the time available.

They are not produced in Supernovae - they are produced in Stars. Supernovae just spread them around (when stars go BOOM!).

	24-01-2002 02:37									#345
	When Aligators attack! Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh when stars go BOOM!.

Sounds like a good name for a TV show.

	24-01-2002 19:19									#346
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh They are not produced in Supernovae - they are produced in Stars. Supernovae just spread them around (when stars go BOOM!).

Don't novas and supernovas produce some elements esp. iron?

	24-01-2002 19:41									#347
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Don't novas and supernovas produce some elements esp. iron?

They do produce heavier elements in this way (it is a bloody big nuclear fusion explosion after all) but stars are the main sources of elements lighter than iron. For really heavy elements (which are too unstable to be made by stellar fussion) you actually need the supernovae.

Our Sun for example has iron in its core I believe.

	25-01-2002 01:06									#348
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh They do produce heavier elements in this way (it is a bloody big nuclear fusion explosion after all) but stars are the main sources of elements lighter than iron. For really heavy elements (which are too unstable to be made by stellar fussion) you actually need the supernovae. Our Sun for example has iron in its core I believe.

Not much iron there.

Most production of the heavier elements occurs when a star reaches its red giant phase. If the star is large enough it will display a helium flash - the point at which helium is fused in greater quantities into carbon. For even larger stars the carbon will be fused into successively heavier elements up to iron.

Larger stars will produce elements heavier than iron by going nova (type II supernovae, IIRC). "Rare-Earth" elements are made by neutron capture in red giants, whilst the radioactive elements are formed by rapid neutron capture, which occurs during supernovae.

	25-01-2002 01:44									#349
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin Not much iron there.

I am surprised that it doesn't have some iron, since it isn't a first generation star so one would expect that it would have 'inhereted' iron from its 'parent'.

	25-01-2002 01:50									#350
	Remove this text

"Not much" is a relative term. Compared to the other elements its a piddly amount. About 0.003%

	25-01-2002 09:21									#351
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin Larger stars will produce elements heavier than iron by going nova (type II supernovae, IIRC). "Rare-Earth" elements are made by neutron capture in red giants, whilst the radioactive elements are formed by rapid neutron capture, which occurs during supernovae.

Okay. I remember that iron is the end point for fusion. You can't get more energy by fusing iron nucleii.