Habemas Papem!

[Kidlicious]

Nice non-sequitur. The specific details of getting exactly the same critters at the same time are unique. There is no evidence that the process is unique and no reason, based on the chemistry involved, that it should be. The reason it took 3.5+ billion years to go from likely first life to complex organisms is simple. Atmospheric oxygen.

If you think that you can just add oxygen to single cell organisms and turn them into multicell organisms I have some swamp land to sell you.

[Sava]

Then please share with us the data set you used to conclude that Catholic priests are more likely to be sexual predators than the general population

My personal beliefs that Catholic priests are child molesters is the data set I rely on in absence of legitimate scientific study.

[Kidlicious]

Atmospheric oxygen.

Let's start here MtG. Do you concede that oxygen level is necessary for the evolution of complex life forms, that is couldn't happen without necessary oxygen levels?

[MrFun]

A better verse for that would be what Jesus says in Matthew 5.17: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

The law and the prophets is the same as the OT.

Which is why we shouldn't be wearing clothing made of mixed fibers.

And why retail workers and restaurant workers need to be put to death for working on Sundays.

[MichaeltheGreat]

If you think that you can just add oxygen to single cell organisms and turn them into multicell organisms I have some swamp land to sell you.

I was deliberatly vague so you could show your ignorance. You can easily get primitive multicell organisms in low or non-oxygen containing atmospheres. However, you need oxygen for biochemical reactions necessary to support more complex evolution. Multicellularity doesn't require oxygen, nor does basic differentiation or specialization of function. You need oxygen to opportunistically exploit the range of organic chemistry available to allow primitive multicellulars to become less primitive multicellulars.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Let's start here MtG. Do you concede that oxygen level is necessary for the evolution of complex life forms, that is couldn't happen without necessary oxygen levels?

Some excess oxygen is necessary for complex biochemistry. How complex an organism you can get without significant oxygen is another issue.

[Kidlicious]

Some excess oxygen is necessary for complex biochemistry. How complex an organism you can get without significant oxygen is another issue.

We're talking about intelligent life so I'll take that as a yes, you need a free oxygen build up event for intelligent life to evolve. But that's only one factor. Do you concede that you need other conditions and events that happened on earth for intelligent life to evolve, such as the evolution of oxygenic photosynthesis, plate tectonics and volcanic activity? Do you concede that intelligent life could not evolve without all of these conditions and events?

[snoopy369]

Exactly. Evolution is a theory that explains how intelligent life evolved on this planet. The fact is that even if there are planets with life on them there may never be any evolution at all. There could be other planets with singlecell organisms and no complex life forms at all, and there will never be any complex life forms on that planet. Or there could be life forms that have evolved but there has not been any evolution into intelligent life, nor will there ever be.

Seems like it's reasonably logical that evolution goes hand in hand with life-as-we-know-it. Regardless of the conditions or the location, 'more successful' will always outcompete 'less successful' and thus evolve. While one could argue that something like DNA and crossover mutations are potentially unique elements to Earth, one would probably be wrong; given that something that does have the capability for reasonably fast mutation will outcompete things that do not, it's likely that any life that does develop would eventually come up with something equivalent. Evolution here is basically governed by the competition of mutations with anti-mutation factors [things that protect DNA from being modified, things that prevent transcription errors, etc.] and there's no reason to assume it wouldn't be the same elsewhere. While I can't say for certain, it's sort of like the person who looks outside and sees rain, and thinks that perhaps in another city it probably rains sometimes also; while they don't know for certain, it's far stupider to take that and say 'we don't know it rains anywhere else' and act as if it doesn't, than to take that and say 'It probably rains elsewhere' and act as if it does.

[Kidlicious]

Seems like it's reasonably logical that evolution goes hand in hand with life-as-we-know-it. Regardless of the conditions or the location, 'more successful' will always outcompete 'less successful' and thus evolve. While one could argue that something like DNA and crossover mutations are potentially unique elements to Earth, one would probably be wrong; given that something that does have the capability for reasonably fast mutation will outcompete things that do not, it's likely that any life that does develop would eventually come up with something equivalent. Evolution here is basically governed by the competition of mutations with anti-mutation factors [things that protect DNA from being modified, things that prevent transcription errors, etc.] and there's no reason to assume it wouldn't be the same elsewhere. While I can't say for certain, it's sort of like the person who looks outside and sees rain, and thinks that perhaps in another city it probably rains sometimes also; while they don't know for certain, it's far stupider to take that and say 'we don't know it rains anywhere else' and act as if it doesn't, than to take that and say 'It probably rains elsewhere' and act as if it does.

You neglect one factor, that evolution as we know it is the result of destructive events. The evolution of intelligent life is only the result of all of these destructive processes pretty much happening just when they did, just as they did.

[snoopy369]

We're talking about intelligent life so I'll take that as a yes, you need a free oxygen build up event for intelligent life to evolve. But that's only one factor. Do you concede that you need other conditions and events that happened on earth for intelligent life to evolve, such as the evolution of oxygenic photosynthesis, plate tectonics and volcanic activity? Do you concede that intelligent life could not evolve without all of these conditions and events?

Kid, given the numbers out there, it is highly likely that there is a planet exactly identical to Earth in every fashion, including 8 or 9 planets, 4 inner solids 5 outer gas giants, in the sweet spot with liquid water and everything else, somewhere else. Probably ten or twenty of them.

And I don't think any reasonable scientist would 'concede' all of what you argue up there. All of those facts were necessary for _earth_ to develop life; perhaps that's not true elsewhere. We don't know **** about life on other planets; who knows how many ways it could come about. We're not even at Newtonian levels here. We're basically Galileo-equivalent right now; it'll take another few Hubble level advances before we can know enough to understand the myriad ways life might come about.

[snoopy369]

You neglect one factor, that evolution as we know it is the result of destructive events. The evolution of intelligent life is only the result of all of these destructive processes pretty much happening just when they did, just as they did.

No idea why you think that, other than an ends-based tautology. Yes, what precisely happened was a result of exactly what happened happening. Good job, there. Could it have happened in a very different way? Probably. Could humanity have evolved if the Dinosaurs weren't wiped out? Maybe. Or maybe a super intelligent lizard-race would have evolved. Or a bird race. Or rats. Any number of things is possible. One specific thing did happen, as a result of a set of specific things happening, but "A led to B" does not imply "A is necessary for B".

Destructive events, by the way, are nice and useful for Evolution - in that they sort of reset things - but they're not solely necessary by any means. Change of _any_ sort will lead to a natural differentiation and adaptation to that change, which might include introducing new and more interesting/valuable traits. Have a drought, adapt by favoring those who live on less water. Have a surfeit of water, adapt by favoring those who have some other advantage but require more water [say, those who have more compact root systems that are safer from parasites]. Focusing on destructive events is a mistake.

[Kidlicious]

Kid, given the numbers out there, it is highly likely that there is a planet exactly identical to Earth in every fashion, including 8 or 9 planets, 4 inner solids 5 outer gas giants, in the sweet spot with liquid water and everything else, somewhere else. Probably ten or twenty of them.

I think that was once widely believed, but is becoming not widely believed. We are coming to terms with the extreme unlikelihood of our own existence.

And I don't think any reasonable scientist would 'concede' all of what you argue up there. All of those facts were necessary for _earth_ to develop life; perhaps that's not true elsewhere. We don't know **** about life on other planets; who knows how many ways it could come about. We're not even at Newtonian levels here. We're basically Galileo-equivalent right now; it'll take another few Hubble level advances before we can know enough to understand the myriad ways life might come about.

Let's look at what we know. Life existed in very primitive form for billions of years on this planet without significant macro-evolution. Why did it not change? As MtG has said, it's because there wasn't enough free oxygen. The fact is that it's fantasy to assume that intelligent life can evolve in another way than it did on earth.

[MrFun]

You're assuming there are no other planets in the universe without an oxygen-rich atmosphere.

[Kidlicious]

No idea why you think that, other than an ends-based tautology. Yes, what precisely happened was a result of exactly what happened happening. Good job, there. Could it have happened in a very different way? Probably. Could humanity have evolved if the Dinosaurs weren't wiped out? Maybe. Or maybe a super intelligent lizard-race would have evolved. Or a bird race. Or rats. Any number of things is possible. One specific thing did happen, as a result of a set of specific things happening, but "A led to B" does not imply "A is necessary for B".

Destructive events, by the way, are nice and useful for Evolution - in that they sort of reset things - but they're not solely necessary by any means. Change of _any_ sort will lead to a natural differentiation and adaptation to that change, which might include introducing new and more interesting/valuable traits. Have a drought, adapt by favoring those who live on less water. Have a surfeit of water, adapt by favoring those who have some other advantage but require more water [say, those who have more compact root systems that are safer from parasites]. Focusing on destructive events is a mistake.

No, focusing on destructive events is the key to the issue. Why didn't dinosaurs evolve into intelligent beings?

[snoopy369]

There's no point in arguing with you on this, since there isn't true evidence - but everything MtG has posted is relevant. Real scientists simply don't consider what you're saying true. Believe what you want, it's certainly your right; but you don't have any more reasonable of an argument than the guy looking outside at rain who claims it doesn't rain anywhere else.