Assuming evolution is true, where did the first cell come from?

[Draken Benvolaid]

Well, where did it origonate?

Something so fragile had to come from somewhere.

You can't create life from just the base elements, only from other already living things, so where then?

Viruses attack cells, not make them, so again where?

Radiation can change isotopes of individual atoms, but to bond it so perfectly, how then?


(I'm not giving you guys/girls a link to Evo theories, I explained it several times here on several occasions. Find it yourselves, just make sure you use all of them, every variant)

[vevuxking102]

I'm not an expert in the subject myself, but this link might help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins...anic_molecules

[Draken Benvolaid]

I'm not an expert in the subject myself, but this link might help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins...anic_molecules

The theory is sound in many ways, but it seems unsterial. Too many flaws of contamination.

How can a cell be formed from a vacuum of space or early environments, not suitable for normal life? If they did, why did they devolve from that endurance with so many harsh conditions through our universe?



And again, which theory is correct?
How can you be sure they're even close?


The never ending questions continue to build, but thanks for the input.

[vevuxking102]

How can a cell be formed from a vacuum of space or early environments, not suitable for normal life? If they did, why did they devolve from that endurance with so many harsh conditions through our universe?

Who says that cells on Earth evolved from the vacuum of space?

And again, which theory is correct?
How can you be sure they're even close?

The theory with the scientific basis is the correct one, and that happens to be Evolution.

[Draken Benvolaid]

Who says that cells on Earth evolved from the vacuum of space?

That too is a theory. Cosmetology, I think. The Big Bang Theory.

The theory with the scientific basis is the correct one, and that happens to be Evolution.

Yet many scientific theories contradict each other and many are branches of the same. Which is right?

What about when it crosses other theories? When they fit together like a puzzle will they be right?

What is the solution?

[vevuxking102]

That too is a theory.

Which theory is that?

Cosmetology, I think.

Cosmetology is the study of skin. Do you mean Cosmology? That is not a theory, it's a field of science.

The Big Bang Theory.

The Big Bang Theory has nothing to do with the formation of cells. What are you talking about?

Yet many scientific theories contradict each other and many are branches of the same. Which is right?

Which ones contradict themselves. I don't believe you know that much about science, no offense, but you believed that the Big Bang has something to do with Cell formations and called Cosmology Cosmetology.

What about when it crosses other theories? When they fit together like a puzzle will they be right?

What is the solution?

When do they cross other theories?

Solution to what?

[Draken Benvolaid]

Shit, damn spell check. I meant Cosmology, that's the Big Bang theory and the effects of the universe here after. There needs to be an area where everything is perfect for living cells can form and propagate. For us it's earth, yet where did the cells originate? How, out of all the universe, did we end up here, living? Where is the beginning of all life? Why did life begin?

It needs to connect or it couldn't exist. Each theory and scientific law crosses each other, barring some from crossing, but building bridges to others. It wouldn't work in the reality otherwise.


Read this Thread I posted a few months ago. Theories cross each other to a point of a reasoning between them.
http://thefinalfantasy.net/forums/sh...ad.php?t=57720



(Side note: Every question I asked, has no true answer, and never will.

Yet, why do people deny the theories of others? Why do they fear the unknown?)


Or will it ever have an answer?

[vevuxking102]

There needs to be an area where everything is perfect for living cells can form and propagate

Um, okay. I don't know who ever said that, but what does that have to do with Cosmology and the Big Bang?

For us it's earth, yet where did the cells originate? How, out of all the universe, did we end up here, living? Where is the beginning of all life?

On Earth?

Origin of the first cell

For more information, RNA world hypothesis
For more information, Last universal ancestor

In a gene-centered view of evolution, life is regarded in terms of replicators—that is DNA molecules in the organism. In this paradigm, cells satisfy two fundamental conditions for the evolution of complexity. If freely-floating DNA molecules that code for enzymes are not enclosed in cells, the enzymes that benefit a given replicator (for example, by producing nucleotides) may do so less efficiently, and may in fact benefit competing replicators. If the entire DNA molecule of a replicator is enclosed in a cell, then the enzymes coded from the molecule will be kept close to the DNA molecule itself. The replicator will directly benefit from its encoded enzymes.

Biochemically, cell-like spheroids formed by proteinoids are observed by heating amino acids with phosphoric acid as a catalyst. They bear many of the basic features provided by cell membranes. Proteinoid-based protocells enclosing RNA molecules may have been the first cellular life forms on Earth. Some amphiphiles have the tendency to spontaneously form membranes in water. A spherically closed membrane contains water and is a hypothetical precursor to the modern cell membrane composed of proteins and phospholipid bilayer membranes.[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_%2...igins_of_cells

Why did life begin?

Most people who advocate Scientific theories will tell you there is no reason why, and that's fine an all. But I, as a Christian believe Yahweh God created us so we could worship him and so he could punish us.

It needs to connect or it couldn't exist. Each theory and scientific law crosses each other, barring some from crossing, but building bridges to others. It wouldn't work in the reality otherwise.

And who said that? And honestly, if you're going to argue about scientific facts, use science, not your own ideas. I'm not going to argue about your own ideas about things. And also, give proof. Give me links, citations, sources, etc.

Yet, why do people deny the theories of others? Why do they fear the unknown?)

Which theories are you referring to?

How can someone who's discovering information about the universe be fearing the unknown? Isn't that the complete opposite?

[Draken Benvolaid]

Um, okay. I don't know who ever said that, but what does that have to do with Cosmology and the Big Bang?



On Earth?

Origin of the first cell

For more information, RNA world hypothesis
For more information, Last universal ancestor

In a gene-centered view of evolution, life is regarded in terms of replicators—that is DNA molecules in the organism. In this paradigm, cells satisfy two fundamental conditions for the evolution of complexity. If freely-floating DNA molecules that code for enzymes are not enclosed in cells, the enzymes that benefit a given replicator (for example, by producing nucleotides) may do so less efficiently, and may in fact benefit competing replicators. If the entire DNA molecule of a replicator is enclosed in a cell, then the enzymes coded from the molecule will be kept close to the DNA molecule itself. The replicator will directly benefit from its encoded enzymes.

Biochemically, cell-like spheroids formed by proteinoids are observed by heating amino acids with phosphoric acid as a catalyst. They bear many of the basic features provided by cell membranes. Proteinoid-based protocells enclosing RNA molecules may have been the first cellular life forms on Earth. Some amphiphiles have the tendency to spontaneously form membranes in water. A spherically closed membrane contains water and is a hypothetical precursor to the modern cell membrane composed of proteins and phospholipid bilayer membranes.[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_%2...igins_of_cells



Most people who advocate Scientific theories will tell you there is no reason why, and that's fine an all. But I, as a Christian believe Yahweh God created us so we could worship him and so he could punish us.



And who said that? And honestly, if you're going to argue about scientific facts, use science, not your own ideas. I'm not going to argue about your own ideas about things. And also, give proof. Give me links, citations, sources, etc.



Which theories are you referring to?

How can someone who's discovering information about the universe be fearing the unknown? Isn't that the complete opposite?

I'm getting tired going back through and quoting everything so I'm going to just write it at the bottom.



Through this whole thing, you deny the possibility that things can cross each other, viewing everything as separate things, all unrelated within this plane of existence, yet the universe could never exist without connecting. They're not separated by some wall of facts, they interact with each other. It's basic Physics. An idea is only an idea if it never reacts and interacts with the things around it. Again basic Physics.


A person denying the theories of others is not. That's the point, you fear the unknown closing your mind to possibility and reason. You don't know it, so you deny it's possibility of my theories and the theories of others. Again, why do you fear and deny the theories that you choose to deny as possibility?

[vevuxking102]

Through this whole thing, you deny the possibility that things can cross each other

Uh...no I didn't. I just asked you to back up your statements that certain scientific theories are impossible with science. Unless that is beyond your grasp. When you argue and discuss science, I don't care about your ideas, I only care about the science.

ey're not separated by some wall of facts, they interact with each other. It's basic Physics.

You're not advocating basic Physics though. You're not advocating anything...at least, I think you're not.

A person denying the theories of others is not.

Denying which theories? I've asked that over and over again. Who's theories are being denied, and who is doing the denying?

That's the point, you fear the unknown closing your mind to possibility and reason.

How do I fear the unknown and in what context?

You don't know it, so you deny it's possibility of my theories and the theories of others.

What are your theories? And you saying it doesn't make it a theory. There is specific criteria for something to be classified a theory.

Again, why do you fear and deny the theories that you choose to deny as possibility?

Who's theories am I denying?

[Walter Sobchak]

Vevu is my new favorite member.

Evolution does not have anything to do with the origin of life, that would be abiogenesis. There are many different ideas as to how the first cell evolved, and it is one of those questions that is too complex to answer at this time.

The Miller-Urey experiment is the only real information we have. Amino acids found in living cells were formed by the carbon and other elements that likely existed in early Earth.

Maybe we are aliens. Who knows.

[vevuxking102]

Why am I your new favorite member?

And it's ve Vux.

[Jin]

Draken's garbbled and barely intelligible posts aside...

The theory with the scientific basis is the correct one, and that happens to be Evolution.

Am I reading this sentence wrong? It looks like here you're saying that a theory based in science is without a doubt true, specifically evolution. That can't be what you meant though, because that would be stupid. I must be reading it out of context. Perhaps you meant that the one with the scientific basis is science?

[vevuxking102]

Am I reading this sentence wrong? It looks like here you're saying that a theory based in science is without a doubt true, specifically evolution.

Uh, no, I mean in the context of Science, theories with a scientific basis happen to be relevant and correct, in regards to the scientific method, such as Evolution. What did you think I meant?

Perhaps you meant that the one with the scientific basis is science?

That's exactly what I meant.

[Sean]

Why do humans seek answers that we do not know; why do we try so hard to answer the question as to how or why we got here?

Why can we not just live for the now and focus on what we have some control over; the future? The future of ourselves, our families, our offspring, their future offspring, and the horrible greed and war based world full of suffering we're creating for them?

Is it really so hard to just accept the fact that you're here, right now? Be it from some god, some cell that just came to be, or however. Learn from the past, live for the future.

Humans seek too many answers to prove their existence, but our existence is minuscule in the grand scheme of it all.

[vevuxking102]

It's not such a matter of seeking answers to the grand scheme of things, just a matter of what's scientific and what's not.

[dimmufan]

I saw a program about this very thing on the Science Channel one time. Now I don't remember everything as I was drunk off my ass and eating Ramen Noodles. As I remember, they said amino acids are the basic building blocks of life, which we should all remember if we ever took and science classes in junior high. Amino acids are just a clump of atoms and molecules. So who's to say that we weren't created by the sun through many billions of years of evolution? The sun makes every element in our solar system, even those that form amino acids. It is my firm opinion that we are stardust. Life started as stardust and it will end as stardust.

[Rasler]

First off, let me just state that like El Wray said, this question is, as-of-current, unanswerable. At this time it is simply impossible to give a complete, perfect answer. The technology has not yet developed in such a capacity to allow the measuring of such a long-past event.

Since the event is unexplainable but an answer is wanted nonetheless, scientific experimentation, observation, conjecture, and theories are employed. As for conflicting theories: not all theories mesh together perfectly. Since the answer is unknowable and a great deal of the variables and information is unknown, multiple conflicting theories will often arise. As per usual in these topics of conflict, the position with the most logical and empirical evidence will have the greatest support.

Something so fragile had to come from somewhere.
You can't create life from just the base elements, only from other already living things, so where then?

You presume much. Can you support your claim that life can only result from previous life? If that was the case, then the only possible explanation for life is that life always existed. However, that idea is illogical to the point of silliness.

Life is fragile, that’s a fact. It is short, fleeting, and often insignificant. And yes, it had to have come from somewhere. Everything comes from somewhere. Given the right conditions, and a sufficient period of time, it’s not absurd to say that life will slowly develop. This is true for all locations, everywhere. Complex life takes even longer, and sentient life, longest of all.

Actually, life from non-life is on the way to becoming possible. Consider a human embryo. Now, let’s assess what we know about this embryo. It’s the end-result of sperm+egg, it’s made up of cells, and cells are made of atoms. Atoms of elements combine and create everything that has mass. Since everything with mass is composed of atoms, it merely becomes a matter of having the information to “build something from the ground up”, so to speak.

Now, back to the human embryo: how does the mother’s body actually create the embryo? If you take away all preconceived notions, emotions, and unscientific thought, you realize it’s simply matter creation and replication. The body accomplishes this by converting the matter consumed (food) into basic elements and compounds and by rearranging and manipulating it over the period of embryo-creation, it fabricates human life. After that, the embryo’s cells divide on their own, provided the mother provides adequate supplies (again, food). A human womb is more-or-less, a matter converter. A literal “baby-factory.”

The expanding and advancing field of nano-technology is working to develop nanomachines that act as simple machines---levers, gears, pulleys, ball bearings, etc. With such technology, it would become possible to rearrange the atoms of an object until it literally becomes another object. As such, animal bodies could be “built” rather than grown. Notice I said “bodies” instead of “life”. A constructed body would likely be “born” dead, but methods of revivification are already available. It’s not rare to hear of incidents where a person is declared medically dead and revived via an electric shock. And given that this scenario takes place in a plausible near future with advanced technology, it stands to reason that revivification techniques have advanced as well.
Of course, human biology is so complex that it would be nearly impossibly difficult to fabricate a human specimen. All that would be required to prove the theory is the creation of a living single-celled organism, or the creation of a dead single-celled organism that was animated to life by science.

As said earlier, elemental atoms bond in various configurations, and essentially, make everything. The four most common periodic elements found in living creatures are carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen. The only elements more abundant in the universe are the Noble Gases, but they don’t react with other elements. So, the materials were there for life to begin, leaving the question of how these elements combined in just the right way to create a living organism.

The first animals (i.e. “life”) were microorganisms. Mankind simply didn’t “poof” into existence like the Bible would like you to believe. Microorganisms are composed of cells, which are made up of atoms, primarily CHON (Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen). I’ve already established that because life was given adequate time and proper conditions, it could start. And it did.

Amino acids are a vital component of animal cells. An experiment by the American Institute of Physics in 1998 yielded the following results: “Hydrogen cyanide, formaldehyde, and ammonia are considered important intermediates in amino acid synthesis by electric discharge. However, amino acid precursors were synthesized from a CO–N2 mixture free of hydrogen atoms. An amorphous film composed of carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen was given from a highly activated plasma. When exposed to atmospheric moisture, this film incorporated hydrogen atoms to yield amino acid. This is a mechanism for amino acid synthesis without involving hydrogen cyanide, formaldehyde, and ammonia.”

Simply put, animal cells happen.

Most microorganisms can reproduce rapidly and microbes such as bacteria can also freely exchange genes by conjugation, transformation and transduction between widely-divergent species. This horizontal gene transfer, coupled with a high mutation rate and many other means of genetic variation, allows microorganisms to swiftly evolve (via natural selection) to survive in new environments and respond to environmental stresses.

The most adaptable of these are called Extremophiles. They have been known to survive for a prolonged time in a vacuum, and can be highly resistant to radiation, which allowed them to survive in the chaotic not-quite-yet Earth.

Given more time and survivable conditions, life advances, evolving via theory of natural selection.

*Insert massive time lapse here*

Argument on a Final Fantasy forum about the nature of life.

[Zardoch]

Actually, life from non-life is on the way to becoming possible.

While Darwin revealed that certain worms that he found had come back to life, they were still worms and nothing of the complexity as the human body. As such, the whole "Frankenstein" ideal of creating matter of life or reviving it from non-life seems scientifically impossible. Considering scientist have yet to do so means that it would be illogical to assume life came from non-life until such empirical evidence can be found.

Now, back to the human embryo: how does the mother’s body actually create the embryo? If you take away all preconceived notions, emotions, and unscientific thought, you realize it’s simply matter creation and replication. The body accomplishes this by converting the matter consumed (food) into basic elements and compounds and by rearranging and manipulating it over the period of embryo-creation, it fabricates human life. After that, the embryo’s cells divide on their own, provided the mother provides adequate supplies (again, food). A human womb is more-or-less, a matter converter. A literal “baby-factory.”

Yes, but this is provided by the living tissue of another human beings. If the science of creating an embryo and turning it into a living creature was so easy as putting sperm into the egg, then we would've figured something out by now to replicate that process. I mean let's talk about lizards and their ability to grow their tails back.

Once their tail has been cut off, cells inside their own living body begin to build up, repair, and eventually recreate the damage limb. If you cut the lizard's head off instead, the living matter of that lizard no longer triggers the regeneration of the tail. So in essence it seems like a natural law of life that living matter is needed in order for cells or well, anything in a living creature to work.

Of course, human biology is so complex that it would be nearly impossibly difficult to fabricate a human specimen. All that would be required to prove the theory is the creation of a living single-celled organism, or the creation of a dead single-celled organism that was animated to life by science.

That wouldn't exactly prove that life came from single-celled organisms. It might prove that it is possible to create living organisms, but does not tell us how a single-celled organism evolved into the complex living creatures of today. This would take something like a couple million if not billions of years to watch the created single cell grow into something complex. This is still a big if, of course.

As said earlier, elemental atoms bond in various configurations, and essentially, make everything. The four most common periodic elements found in living creatures are carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen. The only elements more abundant in the universe are the Noble Gases, but they don’t react with other elements. So, the materials were there for life to begin, leaving the question of how these elements combined in just the right way to create a living organism.

While living creatures have such common elements, they are only part of the equation in creating living matter, if that is possible. There are simply so many elements of the human body besides the most common within the universe to make up the human genome.

The first animals (i.e. “life”) were microorganisms. Mankind simply didn’t “poof” into existence like the Bible would like you to believe. Microorganisms are composed of cells, which are made up of atoms, primarily CHON (Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen). I’ve already established that because life was given adequate time and proper conditions, it could start. And it did.

That is up for debate, but it is still only a speculation that life began within single-celled organisms. As we have yet to see such things happen and observe it, it would be illogical to assume so quickly because "it makes sense at the moment" until something else comes along to challenge that. Not saying that it's logical to assume that an intelligent being created everything in the brink of a moment, but either theories are sketchy at best. A lot of scientist seem to like using the terms of "this is what we THINK happened" instead of "this is what we KNOW happened".

Most microorganisms can reproduce rapidly and microbes such as bacteria can also freely exchange genes by conjugation, transformation and transduction between widely-divergent species. This horizontal gene transfer, coupled with a high mutation rate and many other means of genetic variation, allows microorganisms to swiftly evolve (via natural selection) to survive in new environments and respond to environmental stresses.

That is pretty much an explanation for the facts on micro-evolution, which is the real evolution that has empirical evidence behind it.

Now, how about I quote a friend of mine that has shared the same view as I have on the subject and the irony of what some people find "logical" [Note: This is by no means trying to insult anybody. Simply rather a bit of sarcasm.]

It can't be any worse then another ONE BILLION people believing that the earth POPPED out of NOWHERE for NO apparent REASON AT ALL. That just happened to develop all of the EXACT right amount and mixture of gases, where the Earth and the moon accidentally ended up in the exact RIGHT positions for life to exist on Earth. And then all of a SUDDEN the building blocks of LIFE sparked up, which are little GERM cells, that some how MAGICALLY started to evolve (evolution just MAGICALLY EXISTED BY THIS TIME, WITHOUT ANY EXPLANATION!!), and as this germ cell started to evolve, BODY PARTS MAGICALLY APPEARED, BLOOD MAGICALLY APPEARED (nobody knows where it came from), and over years, the first organisms body parts MAGICALLY all appeared, and MAGICALLY arranged themselves into the proper locations, and then the organism MAGICALLY REPRODUCED asexually, and then reproduced organisms that reproduce sexually RANDOMLY. So then this organism was the birthing organism for all organic life, plants and animals, we don't know what it was, or what it consisted of, but It's the most logical concept we come up with that doesn't include God.

By no means is this "scientific", but the mocking of what is assumed to believe as true when it comes to the beginning of life on earth makes me chuckle in the sense of irony. Simply put, all these things happened millions and billions of years ago with a great amount of coincidences seem a bit ridiculous. Not claiming anything to be wrong since as you AND El Wray mentioned that it is, at the moment, unanswerable, but I just can't believe what scientist deem as what happened during the beginning of our planet. It seems just as ridiculous as a God doing all the "poofing" with the planet, sun, and living creatures sprouting up in an instant. Hell, how about we take another look the theory of evolution and the cells of life?

How did the consciousness of the human brain come to be? As animals, we share the same instincts and processes as the unintelligent animals below us [Reproduction, eating, sleeping, etc etc.], but yet at one point in time developed a consciousness that allowed us to go beyond the simple instincts of a unintelligent animal and gain free will?

Or how about blood for that matter? How did the single-celled organisms that supposedly evolved into greater cells develop or find the DNA information of blood and create such a complex system of veins and vessels? I mean isn't that's the whole point about evolution as the DNA and information about the genes are found, used, and some times mutated in order to evolve into something that would survive in the current environment? If there's no information about what evolves [blood in this case], then how can the information just spring up out of nowhere along with the complexity of it? From what we know today, it can't.

Anyway, that's all I have to say about that. I think it is simply something we should be questioning and being more skeptical about instead of jumping onto the boat and assuming what is correct or "logical". What is "logical" may not always be "right".

[Walter Sobchak]

As such, the whole "Frankenstein" ideal of creating matter of life or reviving it from non-life seems scientifically impossible.

Hold it, friendo.

The Miller-Urey experiment led to the creation of amino acids from water, hydrogen, methane, and ammonia. These amino acids were 13 of the 22 that make up protein in cells. The carbon in the methane was turned into amino acids from the experiment that was meant to imitate primordial Earth. Sydney Fox found that amino acids could spontaneously form peptides. Of course, both of these assume a model of ancient Earth that has not been agreed upon by science.

Francis Crick (from the singing duo Watson and Crick) says that life may have come from Mars. The hypothesis reasoned that Mars cooled faster, so life would me more possible there in the beginning. The fact that there are organic compounds throughout the universe helps this idea, but it assumes Mars was bombarded with asteroids and comets and the compounds survived all the way until they reached Earth.

[Rasler]

I think it is simply something we should be questioning and being more skeptical about instead of jumping onto the boat and assuming what is correct or "logical". What is "logical" may not always be "right".

Correctness is directly related to logic. It is certainly possible that logical things might not always be the correct things. Up until I learned about the energy spectrum when I was 10, I figured that the blue part of a flame would be colder than the yellow part; actually, the blue part is the hottest part of a fire. If a situation seems illogical, then you are simply lacking proper knowledge to explain it. Once you have the necessary knowledge, it becomes "logical" and "correct".

Unanswerable questions are unanswerable. We don't know and can't prove it. Which unfortunately, leaves the floor open for everyone to throw their two cents in. Usually, there are two major parties in these kinds of arguments: Science vs Philosophy (includes religion). Science attempts to explain the situation through observable events, facts, and data. Philosophy attempts to explain the problem through various logics. That's not to say that people are not entitled to have different opinions. While I accept the fact that everyone is entitled to their own ideas, I also hold true that not all ideas are equally valid. For example, if you want to believe that the world is 6,000 years old, go ahead. It's doubtful I could say anything to convince you otherwise.


In my post, I may have neglected to mention that those were my personal opinions, and not me trying to prove that my views were the only acceptable ones. Hell, if a question is unaswerable, and you have an answer that makes you happy, then congratulations. While some of what I said was fact and some of it was theory, I am by no means pushing my viewpoints on others. I'll leave that kind of behaviour to religious fundamentalists.

-edit-
As for your friend's "analysis":

It can't be any worse then another ONE BILLION people believing that the earth POPPED out of NOWHERE for NO apparent REASON AT ALL. That just happened to develop all of the EXACT right amount and mixture of gases, where the Earth and the moon accidentally ended up in the exact RIGHT positions for life to exist on Earth. And then all of a SUDDEN the building blocks of LIFE sparked up, which are little GERM cells, that some how MAGICALLY started to evolve (evolution just MAGICALLY EXISTED BY THIS TIME, WITHOUT ANY EXPLANATION!!), and as this germ cell started to evolve, BODY PARTS MAGICALLY APPEARED, BLOOD MAGICALLY APPEARED (nobody knows where it came from), and over years, the first organisms body parts MAGICALLY all appeared, and MAGICALLY arranged themselves into the proper locations, and then the organism MAGICALLY REPRODUCED asexually, and then reproduced organisms that reproduce sexually RANDOMLY. So then this organism was the birthing organism for all organic life, plants and animals, we don't know what it was, or what it consisted of, but It's the most logical concept we come up with that doesn't include God.

Although you included this for the sake of sarcasm and satire, it is, in fact, highly offensive due to its extreme lack of applied logic. It suggests that things have to happen for a reason, that the scientific community explains things with "magic", and a severe misunderstanding of evolution.

Things don't always happen for a reason. Watch a fish swim in a fishtank. What direction does it swim in? Why does it swim in that direction and not any other? Is it the will of God or a complex series of priorities and instincts imbued deep within the fish's brain? Regardless, it swims that direction, choosing it above all other directions, possibly for reasons unknowable (even to it), but most probably for no reason at all.

The scientific community does not use the concept of "magic." Magic is a term used by ignorant peoples to explain away a counfounding phenomenon. Science does not "explain away", it explains. Yes, we have no definitive evidence where the origins of life began. It is unmeasurable. We cannot collect data. Evolution, despite being a theory, acts as a natural law, akin to gravity. Things change over time to better survive their environments. It's logical, and there is some empirical evidence, but not enough to be absolutely definitive. As a natural law, it is a fundamental fact of nature, and has existed and will exist as long as life exists.

The creator of this analysis is also woefully inaccurate in his notion of what the theory of evolution is. The Earth, moon, sun, air composition, and all other variables weren't "magically" the right amount. The conditions were what they were, and life evolved based on the environment. Oceans don't exist so that fish may use their gills and swim around. Fish have gills and fins so that they may live in the ocean. Evolution doesn't happen "magically". A fish doesn't wake up one morning with lungs, arms, and claws. It's a very gradual change over an extended period of time so that that animal's species may better survive in a changing environment. Genes mutate among generations (fact), sometimes resulting in positive mutations (fact), where that animal of a species is now able to better survive in a changing environment (fact). Because it survives better, its now-superior genes are more likely to be passed on (fact), gradually resulting in very minor changes in the species over a long period of time (fact). This is not to say that evolution is necessarily correct, just that it does makes sense.

[Zardoch]

Correctness is directly related to logic. It is certainly possible that logical things might not always be the correct things. Up until I learned about the energy spectrum when I was 10, I figured that the blue part of a flame would be colder than the yellow part; actually, the blue part is the hottest part of a fire. If a situation seems illogical, then you are simply lacking proper knowledge to explain it. Once you have the necessary knowledge, it becomes "logical" and "correct".

I guess a lot of scientist are lacking the knowledge to explain the holes within their own theories then, huh? lol. I mean you are in no doubt right about that, but knowledge is based on facts and as we have unanswerable questions throughout the theories including macro-evolution or the beginning of the universe, no one is entirely "the most logical" or "the most correct". It's correct to say that there is such a thing called gravity, but gravity is observable and can be tested upon. Macro-evolution or similar popularly believed theories cannot [excluding micro-evolution].

Plus as it was said before, humans only have like 1% of knowledge about the universe and the earth we live upon so we can only assume so much before it becomes ridiculous. Either way there can be a fine line between "logic" and the "correctness" of the facts as during these modern times it has become a trend for people to jump onto the "I'm logical" bandwagon and blindly follow the most popular theories [macro-evolution, big bang, etc etc] without questioning those theories. Not saying you're one of those people, but I'd like to point that out because some times that is perceived as being "correct" AND "logical" needs to be looked over to see the things some people might miss, much like the holes within the theories my argument reveals.

Unanswerable questions are unanswerable. We don't know and can't prove it. Which unfortunately, leaves the floor open for everyone to throw their two cents in. Usually, there are two major parties in these kinds of arguments: Science vs Philosophy (includes religion). Science attempts to explain the situation through observable events, facts, and data. Philosophy attempts to explain the problem through various logics. That's not to say that people are not entitled to have different opinions. While I accept the fact that everyone is entitled to their own ideas, I also hold true that not all ideas are equally valid. For example, if you want to believe that the world is 6,000 years old, go ahead. It's doubtful I could say anything to convince you otherwise.

Of course. With unanswerable questions there are many people trying to fill in those blank spots, yet at the same time we must study what those people try to fill in as being false or a correct advancement in science since science does not advance without asking questions. However, my argument has nothing to do with philosphy, but rather the issues I have with what the science community that tries to tell me as what is right when there are things that don't make any sense in their theoriesthat try to explain things in order TO make sense.

In my post, I may have neglected to mention that those were my personal opinions, and not me trying to prove that my views were the only acceptable ones. Hell, if a question is unaswerable, and you have an answer that makes you happy, then congratulations. While some of what I said was fact and some of it was theory, I am by no means pushing my viewpoints on others. I'll leave that kind of behaviour to religious fundamentalists.

And I respect you for that. I'm sorry if it felt like I was attacking you, but I've felt obligated to point various things out that maybe even you should question. It's something I feel a lot of people should be thinking about because these days I see a lot of people taking sciences' side for the sake of hating religion instead of truly believing what science tells us. I wouldn't say you're one of these people, just that stuff like that annoys me when things become more bias against religion from certain people rather than an actual debate.

On another subject, how about I ask you one other question? [Through PM, just for kicks.]

Oh and El Wray, I've heard of that theory that life may have came from mars or from a meteor that had living cells on it and crashed into earth to begin the evolution of all life. Problem with that theory is it doesn't really explain anything other than continuing on what evolution has told us. You'd have to continue originating those living cells farther and farther back as to where they came from? How did they form? How did they survive a trip through a burning atmosphere? It gets frustrating with a whole lotta questions to ask, lol.

[Draken Benvolaid]

This wasn't really about me arguing about the info on scientific ideals. It was about others knowing and learning that there isn't just one ideal to think of. Really, arguing about the unknown and the uncertain future doesn't do much... even though I started this thread.
(The actual person who this was intended to wasn't even here and hasn't been for a while, lol. I guess I should have checked, ha ha ha...)

What you hear about the past is what you think you know, you assume it's true or want to assume so, so you do. That's what leads to differentials between people. Again, the concept that we are all the same, yet different. Decisions about how you should view the world, really should be based on both the differences and similarities between each other. At what point should you make the decision on how others should take to heart without considering everyone else? That in itself is a form of human nature. Selfish yes, but a form of perception none the less.

"Judge not, lest ye be judged."
-(I can't remember who, lol)


Theories and Ideals are just that, theories and ideals. You can't make them any truer then thinking so, yet people are so content with trying to. posting and making banter does nothing in the end, unless it has a conclusion to come to.
As such, my conclusion is up above, one paragraph.