|
|
#21
10-02-2007, 11:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Abiogenesis
[ QUOTE ]
We have failed to create life in the lab and we should have, given the power of our technology. [/ QUOTE ] Man you opened a can of worms now. Why do you think Hoyle opposed the big bang and Crick went for panspermia? 
|
|
#22
10-02-2007, 11:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Abiogenesis
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] We have failed to create life in the lab and we should have, given the power of our technology. [/ QUOTE ] Man you opened a can of worms now. Why do you think Hoyle opposed the big bang and Crick went for panspermia? [/ QUOTE ] I dont think it was because "we should have created life in the lab, given the power of our technology," do you?
|
|
#23
10-02-2007, 11:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Abiogenesis
[ QUOTE ]
I dont think it was because "we should have created life in the lab, given the power of our technology," do you? [/ QUOTE ] I think it was because they both realized 14 by isn't near enough time according to probability calculations. 14 gazillion is way too short.
|
|
#24
10-02-2007, 11:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Abiogenesis
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I dont think it was because "we should have created life in the lab, given the power of our technology," do you? [/ QUOTE ] I think it was because they both realized 14 by isn't near enough time according to probability calculations. 14 gazillion is way too short. [/ QUOTE ] but why would you take seriously what these scientists say? chez
|
|
#25
10-02-2007, 11:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Abiogenesis
[ QUOTE ]
but why would you take seriously what these scientists say? [/ QUOTE ] I take science very seriously, including it's inconsistencies and Midgelaw-like zig zagging.
|
|
#26
10-02-2007, 11:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Abiogenesis
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] but why would you take seriously what these scientists say? [/ QUOTE ] I take science very seriously. [/ QUOTE ] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#29
10-03-2007, 12:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Abiogenesis
[ QUOTE ]
he states with little equivocation that life on earth began only once. [/ QUOTE ] I do not think you can say that. What is probably true is that all current life descended from one entity. It is possible, and very likely in my opinion, that there were other starts all of which died out. [ QUOTE ] We have failed to create life in the lab and we should have, given the power of our technology. [/ QUOTE ] It is difficult to replicate a million years in the lab. [ QUOTE ] abiogenesis [/ QUOTE ] I am not sure abiogenesis is the way to go. Check out the metabolism first origin of life. Life has its origin in a repeating cycle of chemical reactions that slowly got more complicated though evolutionary processes. Makes sense to me.
|
|
#30
10-03-2007, 03:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Abiogenesis
If we assume that:
1. Humans never stop progressing technologically. 2. If life was randomly created, the process should be repeatable given sufficient technology. 3. At some point in time humans will know which level technology is required to replicate the creation of life. Given these conditions, what would prove your point was that humans never managed to create abiogenesis when the sufficient level of tecnology was reached. However, since you know very little in the way of knowing what technology would constitute the level where you 'should make it', you can't disprove it just because it has not happened yet. Speculating in a 'what if we fail' scenario is also fairly dubious, but you would have to assume the assumptions for thought experiment was wrong. Either we never get sufficient technology, it isn't possible to re-create anymore or life is more/different than we thought it was. But it is kinda like asking 'what is the result if we prove beyond doubt that no miracle could ever have happened'. It is just intellectual masturbation.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
