The Earth - too many coincidences for life to have evolved

[The Neo Nerd]

Not really.... life can't survive burning up in the atmosphere as it enters. Even hidden deep in a meteorite or asteroid it would be killed as the rock heats to a semi-liquid around it.

Biomolecules like amino acids can survive the trip, but little else. And you will find that the actual scientists who support panspermia only go as far as seeding the planet with simple biomolecules like amino acids. Not the arrival of actual organisms.

And again, there was no need for Earth to attract anything as amino acids are stupidly common in the universe and occur just about everywhere. In far greater variety and abundance than on Earth. Life on Earth uses a pathetically small number of possible amino acids. (Only 22 out of more than 100)

Aliens would likely use entirely different sets of amino acids from any living thing on Earth as most amino acids in space that don't occur naturally on Earth.

Thus, it is safe to say that life started here with the amino acids available on Earth rather than in space with all the possible amino acids out there.

wa:do

Let's not forget that panspermia doesn't solve the mystery of where life came from, just puts it a step back.

Where did the life that was seeded here come from?

 

[Photonic]

Let's not forget that panspermia doesn't solve the mystery of where life came from, just puts it a step back.

Where did the life that was seeded here come from?

That has been answered as well.

 

[Daviso452]

You could just as easily put that the other way around though.

The conditions were prepared for us first - like a new housing project.

I'm not going to troll you like everyone else. I want to know why you think this because I do not know of evidence to support this. As someone said earlier in the forum, common sense is not evidence. This is because, from the way I see it, it is common sense that there is no god. But your common sense says there must be a God. This is why Common sense is not evidence.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

If we take the Earth as a complete living system then it seems unlikely all to have come about through evolution.

Given the diversity of life on this planet and the fact that all life is related, some more closely than others, I see no discrepancy that evolution is not a viable explanation.

Not only did we have random chemicals forming together to create DNA but we also had all the other parts of the equation just happening to be there at the right place and time.

Your point? I see no violation to the Theory of Evolution here.

I am talking about water and all its myriad properties, the atmosphere, climate and soil for example all being perfect at the same time as life just spontaneously erupting.

Again, your point? Evolution is about how "existing" life changes over time. So nothing above violates evolution.

seems rather a bizarre coincidence doesn't it?

Bizarre to you because you really don't understand how evolution works.

More like a deliberate coming together of elements aided by mysterious powers.

We call your hypothesis "pseudoscience" where you offer NO testable evidence for your claim.

To think otherwise is surely the religion of denial.

As you clearly have demonstrated here and every other thread you either start or post in.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

How can anyone account for the formation of water?

I've looked at various scientific theories but they all seem just as credible as the Magic Teardrop.

Are you serious....? Hydrogen and oxygen are amongst the the most common and abundant elements in the universe.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

All these things exist for a reason - natural products taste better because they are meant to

This is a pure ignorant statement here. Strawberries taste good. Peanuts taste good...but if you are allergic to them they can be deadly to you. Just because it "taste" good doesn't mean it's good for you.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

This statement is like fuel for me!

It seems that life could well have come from outer space - many scientists also think this.

Forget about the 'primordial soup, abiogenesis theories' - quite likely that life had already formed elsewhere and was deposited here via a comet or similar sort of vehicle.

And still doesn't violate the TOE. In fact, the TOE thrives with this concept.

 

[painted wolf]

This is a pure ignorant statement here. Strawberries taste good. Peanuts taste good...but if you are allergic to them they can be deadly to you. Just because it "taste" good doesn't mean it's good for you.

Cilantro however tastes nasty.... like old soap. :areyoucra

wa:do

 

[Tedm]

Bizzare coincidence? maybe. Spontaneously happening? you obviously don't know the idea of evolution. nothing came about immediately, it happened over hundreds and thousands and millions of years. With all that time, seems a little more likely don't you think?

 

[Chase200mph]

If we take the Earth as a complete living system then it seems unlikely all to have come about through evolution.

Not only did we have random chemicals forming together to create DNA but we also had all the other parts of the equation just happening to be there at the right place and time.

I am talking about water and all its myriad properties, the atmosphere, climate and soil for example all being perfect at the same time as life just spontaneously erupting.

seems rather a bizarre coincidence doesn't it?

More like a deliberate coming together of elements aided by mysterious powers.

To think otherwise is surely the religion of denial.

Answer: The Universe is so vast, the probabilities are so great that it has happened elsewhere more times than you could theorize or count….so if the earth was alone in the universe your argument may retain merit….

 

[Chase200mph]

Good Day Hammer, from Jim Predator

 

[Chase200mph]

Good Day Hammer, from Jim Predator

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Dude!

 

[ScottySatan]

seems rather a bizarre coincidence doesn't it?

How many coincidences are we allowed? 3? 4?

How about the coincidences that are actually statistically very likely die to an astronomically large sample size? Do likely coincidences count as coincidences, or are those free?

 

[Quiddity]

At least he is up front and honest about it and NOT hiding behind dishonest tactics.

Who exactly is being dishonest? Just to be clear...

 

[Quiddity]

Really, Victor?! Really?

Even the Pope isn't that out of touch.

Pope: Creation vs. evolution an

Shrug...I don't think you've invested enough time in catholic forums to go beyond a media article.

I have no beef with macro.....just some of it's philosophical dispositions and "just so" stories that don't operate under the same methodological naturalism. There is a lot of "connect the dots" science in it and there is no sense in getting your undies in a bunch every time someone objects to it. This is good for science.

 

[Quiddity]

His statement is accurate.

The distinctions of 'macro' and 'micro' were made by creationists, not scientists.

So this:

Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Was made by creationist?

Also, from talkorigins:

"Antievolutionists argue against macroevolution so loudly that some people think they invented the term in order to dismiss evolution. But this is not true; scientists not only use the terms, they have an elaborate set of models and ideas about it..."

Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History

 

[Photonic]

So this:

Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Was made by creationist?

Also, from talkorigins:

"Antievolutionists argue against macroevolution so loudly that some people think they invented the term in order to dismiss evolution. But this is not true; scientists not only use the terms, they have an elaborate set of models and ideas about it..."

Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History

The problem is the phrase is used incorrectly by those trying to disprove (wut?) evolution. The two phrases don't exist in the context they are put in by creationists.

 

[cablescavenger]

If we take the Earth as a complete living system then it seems unlikely all to have come about through evolution.

Not only did we have random chemicals forming together to create DNA but we also had all the other parts of the equation just happening to be there at the right place and time.

I am talking about water and all its myriad properties, the atmosphere, climate and soil for example all being perfect at the same time as life just spontaneously erupting.

seems rather a bizarre coincidence doesn't it?

More like a deliberate coming together of elements aided by mysterious powers.

To think otherwise is surely the religion of denial.

That old chestnut

You are using something called the anthropic principle, which is not an argument for God, but an argument against God. It was put together to try and figure out why the laws of the universe supported life i.e. in the absence of a God.

 

[Photonic]

I love the anthropic principle. It just makes so much sense.
Anthropic principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia