Evolution

Yes,  but the way you state it is wrong.   The building blocks for DNA have been found elsewhere in the universe, and they aren't uncommon

Source?
Also, as far as I know the origin of life is thought to be rna, not dna. Which of course doesn't mean random dna couldn't exist, especially since dna is more stable.

Quote from: disputeone on August 24, 2017, 10:56:58 PM

Papa is right tho.
Like I said evolution is the best theory we have to explain origins. Doesn't make it right.

Like the big bang theory or GR, It's just the best we have at this time.

Inb4 my fan club.

I don't know why you're saying this. This applies to every theory ever. Including the shape of the Earth. You're just stating the obvious.

Not when we can fly into space and see the shape of the earth. That's an experiment to test your hypothesis on earth shape.

As Bhs and Legba correctly state we haven't done an experiment to test evolution. There's no argument that species adapt to their environment it's obvious.

[angry rant snipped]

Lame. You just keep stating things and declaring them wrong or right. Every single one of your questions has already been answered and you ignore the answers. It's funny how you complain that people insult you instead of making a point in a post where all you do is call things stupid to disprove them.

Yes, life came "randomly by chance", whatever that means to you. Just about everything in the universe happens "randomly by chance".

You made no arguments about how DNA "shreds the Darwinian religion".

Yes we did have a common ancestor with trees. It doesn't mean we were trees. I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp.

No the common ancestry is not only supported by the genetic similarities. But the genetic similarities are very telling.

You clearly don't understand the Big Bang so please give up your arguments from incredulity.

Yes, it's the same mechanism. The population changes genetically. Then changes some more. This keeps happening and at some point it becomes its own thing.

You forgot to address my other post it seems.

Quote

Yes,  but the way you state it is wrong.   The building blocks for DNA have been found elsewhere in the universe, and they aren't uncommon

Source?
Also, as far as I know the origin of life is thought to be rna, not dna. Which of course doesn't mean random dna couldn't exist, especially since dna is more stable.

he probably means purine and pyramide bases, they can be found in comets, maybe even in interstellar clouds, certainly phosphoric acids, even amino acids (they are of course no building blocks of DNA or RNA.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on August 25, 2017, 12:22:24 AM

Quote from: disputeone on August 24, 2017, 10:56:58 PM

Papa is right tho.
Like I said evolution is the best theory we have to explain origins. Doesn't make it right.

Like the big bang theory or GR, It's just the best we have at this time.

Inb4 my fan club.

I don't know why you're saying this. This applies to every theory ever. Including the shape of the Earth. You're just stating the obvious.

Not when we can fly into space and see the shape of the earth. That's an experiment to test your hypothesis on earth shape.

As Bhs and Legba correctly state we haven't done an experiment to test evolution. There's no argument that species adapt to their environment it's obvious.

Then why did you mention GR?

People have mentioned quite a few experiments to test evolution on this thread.

Yes, we can fly to space and see the shape of Earth, it looks like a sphere. But there could be some bizarre non-Euclidean thing going on. You've heard about these. Science has quit pretending its theories describe absolute truth, it just makes models of reality that are as accurate as possible, which some people misinterpret but that's irrelevant.

Quote

Yes,  but the way you state it is wrong.   The building blocks for DNA have been found elsewhere in the universe, and they aren't uncommon

Source?
Also, as far as I know the origin of life is thought to be rna, not dna. Which of course doesn't mean random dna couldn't exist, especially since dna is more stable.

I'm referring to amino acids and other complex organic molecules.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2003/aug/11/amino-acid-detected-in-space
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/murchison-meteorite/
https://phys.org/news/2010-02-chemical-snapshot-murchison-meteorite-reveals.html

The Murchison meterorite had dozens of amino acids,  and many complex organic compounds.   
Some of the amino acids were not previously known.  http://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-00693-9

I'm not asserting the panspermia concept, although it's not beyond the realms of possibility. 

Quote from: User324 on August 25, 2017, 12:30:37 AM

Quote

Yes,  but the way you state it is wrong.   The building blocks for DNA have been found elsewhere in the universe, and they aren't uncommon

Source?
Also, as far as I know the origin of life is thought to be rna, not dna. Which of course doesn't mean random dna couldn't exist, especially since dna is more stable.

he probably means purine and pyramide bases, they can be found in comets, maybe even in interstellar clouds, certainly phosphoric acids, even amino acids (they are of course no building blocks of DNA or RNA.

I was referring to amino acids specifically,  but  I take your correction.   Lots of complex organics are being discovered in interstellar space.   

Reminds me a bit of Fred Hoyle  "The Black Cloud"

Well, there is basically a unlimited amount of amino acids that could exist.

About this article: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2003/aug/11/amino-acid-detected-in-space

They measured the spectral lines of the clouds - Sagittarius-B2, Orion-KL and W51 - over a four-year period using the 12-metre telescope at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) in Arizona.
The frequencies of certain transitions in glycine, which are known from experiments in the lab, provide a characteristic signature for the molecule. Knowing this spectral "fingerprint", the researchers were able to identify 27 glycine lines at frequencies between 90 and 265 GHz in the clouds
[...]
Observing the spectral lines in these clouds - which are tens of thousand of light-years away - is not easy because the lines are very weak. Moreover, the molecular transitions that cause them can be contaminated by emissions from "interloper" molecules in the surrounding medium.

I'm not saying it's wrong in any way, but to me a few spectral lines seem rather weak evidence for glycin, as spectral lines could be caused by a lot of molecules.

What wiki has to say about that:

The detection of glycine outside the solar system in the interstellar medium has been debated.[30] In 2008, the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy discovered the glycine-like molecule aminoacetonitrile in the Large Molecule Heimat, a giant gas cloud near the galactic center in the constellation Sagittarius.[31]

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycine#Presence_in_space

Also, the presence of glycin on comets and stuff should be seen with a sceptical view. Those molecules are so incredibely small that impurities may easily occure and lead to false-positive results.

But, of course, glycin is a rather simple and stable molecule. So it forming somewhere in space doesn't seem too unlikely.

The Murchison meterorite sounds interesting, I'll have to read further into that. But since it has been found on earth and not harvested in space, contamination is definitely a thing and distinguishing between contamination and non-contamination is most likely more a guessing game than anything else. Especially considering the meteor has fallen on to earth quite a while ago, when technology wasn't as advanced as it is know.

I actually agree with you user. That was the best post I've ever seen from you. Bring your A game more often.

Life will always find a way. Even when the universe enteres the black hole era where essentially they are the only celestial like objects left, I'm sure life, will still hang somewhere. Even long into the dark era, suggested to start in 10^106 years where even sub atomic particles have decayed, life will find a way.

Even when there is absolutely nothing left in the universe, in 10^10^50 years, a Boltzmann brain may appear. It may not be life as we know it but it will do. And if a new universe is created in 10^10^10^56 years. Well, you know the story. We may be here from such an occurrence. It may have happened an infinite amount of times already.

Just to give you an idea how mind boggling ridiculous 10^10^10^56 years is,

There is only around 10^80 atoms in the observable universe that stretches 93 billion light years

The width of a human hair is approximately 100,000 atoms across

Let that sink in as to how old time itself is, and if you think 13.8 billion years is a long time, just think how much longer this 'incarnation' of the universe still has to go before it starts all over again. And again

Let that sink in as to how old time itself is, and if you think 13.8 billion years is a long time, just think how much longer this 'incarnation' of the universe still has to go before it starts all over again. And again

Screw you, now I'm sober.