It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Abiogenesis: Hypothetical Origins of Life - The Real Enemy of Creationism

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   

from WikiPedia
Abiogenesis (Greek a-bio-genesis, "non biological origins") is, in its most general sense, the hypothetical generation of life from non-living matter. Today the term is primarily used to refer to hypotheses of the origin of life from a primordial soup.


I bring this subject forth because I understand that many members of this board have an obfuscated perception of abiogenesis.

Though much progress has been made, modern abiogenetic science is still very much in its infancy, and as such, I believe that it should not be treated or debated as if it were a complete or unified theory.

Bad Science

Until very recently, about 200 years ago, many of mankind's most scientific minds considered spontanous genesis through putridity a real phenomenon. We know now how ridiculous the notion of rats generating from hay is, but to ancient man, it was an accepted fact. For all its ludicracy, early scientific tests to prove and disprove the notion lead to important and groundbreaking discoveries in microbiology and medicine, by such famous names as Pasteur and Spallanzani.[1]

For abiogenetic science, the disproval of spontaneous genesis on a microscopic level lent credence to the idea that organisms could only be born of organisms that already exist. As this notion developed, so did a new abiogenetic postulation which stated that original life arose in a "series of stages from non-living matter."[1] This was stated by Thomas Huxley, who, despite being a critic of Darwin's theory of evolution, was a staunch supporter of the theory - to the point that he was known to some as "Darwin's Bulldog."[2]

Modern Abiogenetic Hypotheses

Modern abiogenesis concerns itself with the initial creation of the earliest forms life from primordial chemicals.[1] As abiogenesis is not a complete theory, several competing hypotheses are under review, including RNA world hypothesis[4], proteinoid abiogenesis[5], the Miller-Urey synthesization hypothesis[6], and, to some degree, the panspermia postulation.[3]

RNA World

I'm not very familiar with the RNA World hypothesis, so I can only comment on what I am currently reading about it. There is some support for the idea that RNA is a life form. Beyond that, Walter Gilbert postulated that RNA was the first lifeform, the first cellular structure, capable of duplicating itself and manipulating genetic information. Difficulties with this hypothesis include the fact that we have been unable to duplicate the initial roduction of RNA so far in a lab. Bear in mind, however, that modern abiogenetic science is young, with the Miller experiment occuring in the 1950s and the RNA World hypothesis being formed in 1986.[4]

Miller-Urey

The Miller-Urey experiment attempts to recreate the chemical conditions of a primitive Earth using water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen.[6] During Miller and Urey's original experiment, after seven days of operation, "Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids, including 13 of the 21 that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant."[6]



This experiment inspired many similar experiments in a similar vein. In 1961, Joan Oro found that amino acids could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in a water solution.

He also found that his experiment produced a large amount of the nucleotide base adenine.

Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA bases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere.
[6]

Abiogenesis and Evolution

It is extremely important to note that abiogenetic hypotheses and evolutionary theory are separate beasts. Evolutionary theory does not depend on abiogenesis to function - for example, evolution does not by itself exclude the possibility of a "God creator" inspiring the initial genesis of life, though, admittedly, its scientific nature does tend to express bias towards a more practical approach to the genesis of life.

Last Universal Ancestor

To understand how fruit trees share commonality with geese, scientists are looking towards the "last universal ancestor." Deductive reasoning tells us that this LUA must have existed because we can transplant genes across the plant and animal kingdoms for universal effect - i.e., recently we began making rice with a human kidney gene that allows the rice to digest pesticides.[8]

I don't think I can explain the LUA any better than WikiPedia does:



Last universal ancestor (LUA), the hypothetical latest living organism from which all currently living organisms descend. Also LCA (last common ancestor) or LUCA (last universal common ancestor).

The last universal ancestor already had all of the properties that are shared by all currently living organisms, such as a (prokaryotic) cell structure, DNA, the modern genetic code and mRNA, tRNA and ribosome mediated transcription.

Notes on possible misconceptions:

The LUA wasn't the first living organism ever, neither was it the most primitive possible living organism, and it wasn't alone but had plenty of contemporaries inhabiting the world ocean.
[7]

Conclusion

The notion that life could only come from pre-existing life was kind of a kneejerk reaction to the new knowledge that spontaneous abiogenesis was invalid. This postulation served little purpose, did not investigate the actual origins of life, and didn't tell us anything that we didn't already know about modern life and reproduction.

I had hoped to have done a better job on this post so that it would be a one-stop resource to point people towards whenever it is claimed that we "come from rocks," however, I think that I have missed that mark. In any case, I would like to begin discussion about abiogenesis in a dedicated thread. Judging from all of the talk about abiogenesis in evolution-related threads, I am surprised that no one has made a thread about "the heart of the matter," especially in regards to the new forum: why the public school assault on evolution, which has been proven, with no talk about abiogenesis, which is based on hypotheses, and is the real "enemy" of "God-inspired" creation?


[1] en.wikipedia.org...
[2] www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...
[3] www.daviddarling.info...
[4] nobelprize.org...
[5] www.absoluteastronomy.com...
[6] en.wikipedia.org...
[7] en.wikipedia.org...
[8] www.organicconsumers.org...

Zip

[edit on 7/5/2005 by Zipdot]




posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Good post Zipdot, I'm surprised it hasn't gotten any replies yet. It's good that you brought up the point about the modern view of abiogenesis not centered around spontaneous creation of worms/rats from putridity, because that's what some people still believe abiogenesis is all about. I know that the theory is false, but do you recall anything about an experiment in which a cadaver or dead animal was put into a sealed environment, and after a few days worms appeared? I wonder how you would explain this, unless the dead body was exposed for some time before being put into a closed container


I found some more material on the RNA World theory to add to your collection:



RNA has the ability to act as both genes and enzymes. This property could offer a way around the "chicken-and-egg" problem. (Genes require enzymes; enzymes require genes.) Furthermore, RNA can be transcribed into DNA, in reverse of the normal process of transcription. These facts are reasons to consider that the RNA world could be the original pathway to cells. James Watson enthusiastically praises Sir Francis Crick for having suggested this possibility: "The time had come to ask how the DNA—>RNA—>protein flow of information had ever got started. Here, Francis was again far ahead of his time. In 1968 he argued that RNA must have been the first genetic molecule, further suggesting that RNA, besides acting as a template, might also act as an enzyme and, in so doing, catalyze its own self-replication."


After the first stage of evolution, RNA molecules assemble from the surrounding nucleotides in a catalytic reaction. "The RNA molecules evolve in self-replicating patterns, using recombination and mutation to explore new niches. ... they then develop an entire range of enzymic activities. At the next stage, RNA molecules began to synthesize proteins, first by developing RNA adaptor molecules that can bind activated amino acids and then by arranging them according to an RNA template using other RNA molecules such as the RNA core of the ribosome. This process would make the first proteins, which would simply be better enzymes than their RNA counterparts. ... These protein enzymes are ... built up of mini-elements of structure. " DNA finally appeared after the reverse transcription of the RNA.

www.panspermia.org...

[edit on 5-7-2005 by zhangmaster]



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 08:20 PM
link   
The experiment that proved spontaneous genesis to be incorrect can be described thusly:

Raw meat was placed into three containers - one open, one with a screen covering the top of the container, and one sealed. The first container contained maggots at the end of a time period and the second and third did not. This refuted spontaneous generation of larger life forms.

Thereafter, the microscope was invented.

An experiment followed wherein two containers were sealed with meat. One of the meats was treated with alcohol or something and the other was not. The one without alcohol treatment yielded bacteria and other low lifeforms - I don't think maggots were included, but that wouldn't be out of the question. The treated specimen did not attract or incubate any life forms. This lead to advances in sterilization and medicine.

I don't know much about flies, but I think I've read that certain types of flies' eggs hatch in less than a day and others can live in their hosts until conditions are ripe for hatching. I would look this up, but I'm about to eat dinner, know wha' I'm sayn'?


Zip

Spallanzani proved that microbes came from air.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 08:25 PM
link   
ahhhh, ok then. It was meat, not a dead body. I read that awhile ago but couldn't remember what he study was exactly.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Zipdot, I studied about this type of conditions on meat in biology when I was in college, but it was reasons for the meat to produce organism even in sealed conditions due to the fact that is organism living in the flesh to begin with, I believe that was the explanation as why.

Whoa, I forgot about all that, great topic and thread, it bring back heated discussions during class.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 09:34 PM
link   
In Responce to the Miller-Urey Experiment:

I have posted this on the site before but since you brought it up I thought I would repost it. Bear in mind re-reading the post myself it seems I was a little more argumentative in my earlier days here. Also I realize that you have acknowledged in your intial post that abiogenisis is a very shaky science at current as well.



In 1953, University of Chicago graduate student, Stanley Miller, working with Nobel Prize Laureate Harold Urey, simulated what they proposed was the make-up of the early atmosphere in a brilliantly conceived laboratory experiment. This "reducing" atmosphere contained hydrogen (H), methane (H+C), ammonia (H+N), and water vapor (H+O), but no free oxygen. By sending an electric spark (simulating lightning) through the mixture they succeeded in producing some simple amino acids, the building blocks of life and other organic compounds, and claimed a great triumph for evolution. This concept continues to be propagated today in "every" textbook and is used in support of the evolutionary, naturalistic way of thinking.

But now with more knowledge it has become abundantly clear that Earth's atmosphere has always had free oxygen. Water vapor readily breaks down into hydrogen and oxygen. Furthermore, we find oxidized minerals in rocks of every supposed age. Cells, whose ancestors are thought to have pre-dated the evolution of photosynthesis, likewise contain evidence that they lived in the presence of oxygen.

There are other problems with the experiment as well. The amino acid mixture produced contained only a few of the many necessary for even "simple" life, but many not used by any life. All amino acids were of both left and right-handed varieties, while life uses only left handed. Since the spark which formed the amino acids would much more readily have destroyed them, they had to be purposely removed from the system in a trap, thus concentrated in a manner most unnatural. Furthermore, such molecules could not have been stable without an ozone shield surrounding Earth.

Let's review. The experiment had the wrong starting conditions. It employed the wrong methods. It yielded the wrong products. Other than that, it was a wonderful experiment!


and



Another thing about biogenesis that I would like to make clear to everyone is that in the evolutionist eye the earth was a barren wasteland with a hostile atomosphere when the first amino acids just happened to bounce into one another and create life. This is just not possible and let me tell you why. The ultraviolet light coming from the sun is deadly and destructive, certainly not constructive the way that it would have to be to be in accordance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Thus life is only possible because of the ozone layer which prevents UV light from reaching the earth and because of the existence of photosynthesis of green plants, neither of which would have existed on a hypothetical primitive earth.


Again please excuse my harsh tone


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 10:27 PM
link   
I tend to agree with Blackjackal, perhaps not in the details, but in that we should really keep in mind that abiogenesis is a HUGE hurdle. Of course, modern organic chemistry has only been around for a little while, so why should we expect it to have solved one of the biggest questions in existence already?

Its a confusing issue, because on the one hand, the 'answer', the conditions that are required to make life, let along any sort of evidence that that was the condition of the early earth, is not in sight; but on the other hand, stuff that was once thought immpossible, like the organization of really complex non-living materials, is possible, no 'god' is needed inside the bottle.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Yeah, I'm aware of the problems with the Miller-Urey experiment, but the science is new, and as such, I don't see anything that could absolutely dismiss the entire experiment as being a meaningless fraud or whatever or something that shouldn't be expanded and developed. I don't see much to argue against in your post, but I think I should mention that the handedness of the amino acids is more or less meaningless.

I would also note that the process to generate life through whatever conditions, perfect or imperfect, may take place over a schedule that sees many generations of scientists come and go before any usable results are achieved.

As a whole, I think that the state of such experiments is basically crude, and I think that we are neglecting countless variables that may help or hurt the process, but I find the science fascinating and look forward to future developments in this area.

I find it impressive that the Miller experiment saw basic results in a week, and Venter's virus took two weeks to be successful, however, this may be damaging to abiogenetic research as well, because although we have seen speed in these results, we still haven't seen much developing beyond their immediate results. I would think that by now, we would have a very advanced version of the Miller experiment and everybody would be de-socked.
Zip

[edit on 7/5/2005 by Zipdot]



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
Another thing about biogenesis that I would like to make clear to everyone is that in the evolutionist eye the earth was a barren wasteland with a hostile atomosphere when the first amino acids just happened to bounce into one another and create life. This is just not possible and let me tell you why. The ultraviolet light coming from the sun is deadly and destructive, certainly not constructive the way that it would have to be to be in accordance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Thus life is only possible because of the ozone layer which prevents UV light from reaching the earth and because of the existence of photosynthesis of green plants, neither of which would have existed on a hypothetical primitive earth.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics argument is a fraud, one that is easily believed by those that have no idea about thermodynamics and only knowit as a simplified and popularized expression. As to the UV light argument: that only holds for life formed at the surface. Some speculate that life started in clay, protected from the UV radiation from the sun, or deep enough in the sea. Hence, both arguments are misleading and false.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 11:35 PM
link   
let me point out that the second law of thermodynamics is a law because it has been observed and tested and demonstrated. it is a law, its not a fraud. you say it is because you dont like it. well oh well get over it.

Oxygen would prevent life from evolving if it took place outside of water on dry land.
if it took place in water, the amino acids would unbond with eachother and bond to the water, so it couldnt of happened in water.
also if there was no oxygen there was no ozone. that means that life could not have evolved. UV radiation is harmful to life.
UV also destroys amonia, one of the gases used in the experiment in the lab when they were trying to make life.

spontaneous generation has already been proven wrong. life begets life.
life cannot evolve with or without oxygen. life cannot evolve in water.

face it life cannot evolve from non-living material.



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by B1luetooth
it is a law, its not a fraud.

The law is not a fraud, your argument that it implies life cannot be formed is. It stems from an incorrect interpretation.



Originally posted by B1luetooth
also if there was no oxygen there was no ozone.

Some bacteria don't need oxygen.



Originally posted by B1luetooth
that means that life could not have evolved. UV radiation is harmful to life.
UV also destroys amonia, one of the gases used in the experiment in the lab when they were trying to make life.

That's not a limiting condition for life to form just below the earth's surface or under water, where there is no UV.



Originally posted by B1luetooth
spontaneous generation has already been proven wrong. life begets life.
life cannot evolve with or without oxygen. life cannot evolve in water.

That has to be the most moronic statement ever. Without water, life doesn't even exist in the first place. Most of our body is water.



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   


The law is not a fraud, your argument that it implies life cannot be formed is. It stems from an incorrect interpretation.

actually is was an experiment that was done not an interpretation. it was done by miller and urey(however you spell their names) and they didnt use oxygen because they knew that their product would oxydize, and that cant happen. also they didnt use water either becuase they knew that amino acids dont bond to eachother in water, they bond quicker to the water than they do eachother.




Some bacteria don't need oxygen.


thats not a bad point, however, what did the bacteria eat? because in order to survive you need energy in the form if matter so that it can be eatin so that you can survive.
the whole thing with oxygen doesnt make that statement that life needed oxygen to breathe. its making the statement that without oxygen there cannot be ozone and ozone blocks UV light (somewhat)
also if there was no ozone. UV radiation destroyes amonia, one of the gases needed to make amino acids.




That has to be the most moronic statement ever. Without water, life doesn't even exist in the first place. Most of our body is water.


kind of puzzling picture here isnt it. they cant form in water but most of the body is made up of water. well its not the actual body that has the problem. you have to get the amino acids together first. and like I said before. they dont bond together in water. they will bond to the water faster than to eachother.
also miller and urey only made 2 amino acids in their experiment, there are 20 required to make life and they all have to be left handed . they got right handed and left handed.
and by the way, the 2% of amino acids in the experiment was a prodcut along with ther other 98% that was toxic to that 2%. that is not a success.



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by B1luetooth
also miller and urey only made 2 amino acids in their experiment, there are 20 required to make life and they all have to be left handed . they got right handed and left handed.


Please refer to my link above regarding "handedness." This is not a valid or meaningful argument against anything.


Originally posted by B1luetooth
and by the way, the 2% of amino acids in the experiment was a prodcut along with ther other 98% that was toxic to that 2%. that is not a success.


This, also, is meaningless. Please see the reply to this argument here. These two arguments of yours that I have cited are popular creationist (website) claims that are entirely without merit.

Zip



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 07:44 PM
link   
and why are they without merit? because they make your thoery look dumb?
or they make what you believe in look dumb? or it because they make your religion look dumb.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with science, science means to know. evolution does not fall under science.

evolution is not part of science however it is mixed in with science with hope to become science by association. thats like selling beer at football games, beer has nothing to do with football and it does not become athletic by association with football.

Evolution is not science. and it has never been proven and much evidence is against it.



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by B1luetooth
Evolution is not science. and it has never been proven and much evidence is against it.

You keep saying things like this, but don't bother to present any. This is because there is no evidence that refutes evolution. THe question is, are you aware of this, or do you just assume that there is because other people tell you so?



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 09:13 AM
link   
It has to do with the pushing of creationism, Nygdan, while science has to prove its theories all the time, creationism doesn't have to do anything but to go against science and evolution.

What the member in question doesn't realized is that Evolution is the base of the Biological sciences as a course of studies.

Perhaps he don't even have taken biology or had bypass the subject either in school or in college due to his "religous" believes.

Either that or he went to christian schools where the subject of biology is on creationism only or bible studies to understand it.

So he doesn't understand that with the statement of

[ Evolution is not a science] he is actually involving the entire biological sciences as a whole.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by B1luetooth
Evolution is not science. and it has never been proven and much evidence is against it.


I thought this sounded familiar.


Expert.. perhaps when you return again you might last a little longer by not repeating the same baseless, ignorant slogans. The last time you were here [and the time before that, and the 'allie' you created] .. you didn't povide proof against evolution despite insisting there is.. and you never will because there isn't any. I am sorry but evolution is a fact so cannot be disproved.

btw. Santa does not exist.

[edit on 25-7-2005 by riley]



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
It has to do with the pushing of creationism, Nygdan,

Actually, humourusly enough, if you notice, it has to do with there being a hell of a lot of liars and frauds associated with the creationist movement, such as the guy i was talking to above, who was actually a banned member of the site, who was too stupid to leave once asked to and far too stupid to not get caught when he broke back in.



while science has to prove its theories all the time, creationism doesn't have to do anything but to go against science and evolution.

Indeed, this is why often the 'arguements' from the creationist movement are arguements against evolution, rather than for creation. Its also why the more recent tack is to push 'questioning' evolution in high school science classrooms, not presenting support for creationism in the professional science journals.


What the member in question doesn't realized is that Evolution is the base of the Biological sciences as a course of studies.

I think he/she doens't realize a heck of a lot, including that we can see thru their charade.


Perhaps he don't even have taken biology or had bypass the subject either in school or in college due to his "religous" believes.

I suspect you are correct.


Either that or he went to christian schools where the subject of biology is on creationism only or bible studies to understand it.

Not all christian schools, however, teach frauds like creationism. lots of them teach actual science, since their faith is strong enough to not fall apart at 'scientific' questioning.



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Not sure if you guys heard about this discovery from Oct. '04. Didn't see it in your post Zipdot, certainly seems relevant. BTW Zipdot nice work


Missing Link to Life Found?

Basically Reza Ghadiri, Luke Leman and Leslie Orgel of the Scripps Research Institute believe they may have discovered the mechanism by which amino acids became peptides on early Earth.


"There are multiple ways you can make peptides," said Ghadiri.

Not many of those ways, however, would be very efficient or likely under the conditions of early Earth.

Suspecting that COS might be an unsung hero, Ghadiri and his colleagues exposed a watery solution containing amino acids to COS at room temperature. It worked. The COS produced ample peptides. The researchers got even more peptides if they added dissolved metals like lead or iron to the mix.

"We tried it even in ocean water and it works," said Ghadiri. "It's quite efficient."


Here's a paper on it from Scripps Research institute- Carbonyl Sulfide Forms Peptide Bonds

Spent some time looking around and found no rebuttals, creationist or otherwise.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Hi Zip, Great thread you started here. Looks like mostly the educated are responding. The Internet is great for allowing instant research and dangerous for all of the bad info mixed in. I find it very hard not to blazingly rip into the bible thumping creationists. The following is not for them.('
')

I’d like to just throw out some random thoughts to the serious thinkers before I get into fully reading your references and their references and so on.

1) The conditions on earth that allowed life to develop have been steadily changing. I think that the conditions that started the evolution of life (from RNA, Petides, Primordial soup, etc.) Would kill current life. So it is hard (if not impossible) to prove by demonstration here in a lab. Perhaps this is part of the top-secret tests up in the space station.

2) The earth is an extremely rare planet. One of the things I haven’t seen mentioned about it is that, it is one of the very few planets that has an abundance of heavy metals. These metals make up the molten core, which has it own life, so to speak. The movement of this molten core appears to be responsible for the plate tectonic movement and volcanoes as well as the magnetism we know of. Additionally this planet has provided a habitable environment for millions of years at a time. (Location, location, location) We have not been able to find another planet that; has an orbit around a similar star (allowing stable temperature), that has so many heavy metals, that has so much water and oxygen, that has a similar atmosphere, that has plate tectonics. Maybe we are alone.

3) The oxygen level is another thing to consider. The development of life here has gone through some incredible steps that for what ever reason people seam to feel necessary to be reproduced to prove evolution. I’m not so sure this can be done. Sort of like saying to prove that the nuclear explosion happened we would need to observe it by having a camera at ground zero and show the replay. ('
')
At one time I am certain there was no oxygen and no atmosphere here. Neither are needed to support life in the form of microbes. This is something that had to develop. At each stage of the earth’s development the changing environment allowed evolution to take a small step in a different direction. This most likely was/is a one-way trip. (Until the next mass extinction)

4) Working with pure pharmaceutical water you learn that there is no such thing as completely sterile. A wet surface will always grow gram negative in our environment. (I stress “in our environment”) One of my colleagues says that all you need is light, water, and food. With that you will have life. Although he doesn’t know exactly what he is saying, the gist of it is that to support life all you need are certain basic things. Right now we believe that all you need is water and food. Sulfur is a food source for some microbes and water is everywhere, just not abundantly everywhere. They have been able to extract an uncontaminated sample of rock from a few miles down in the earths crust. In this sample they found sulfur and microbes similar to those at the oceanic riffs and those on meteorites and those in the Yellowstone park geysers.

5) Ozone is produced by a specific wavelength of UV light (around 254nm) Ozone is destroyed by a wavelength that is a little as 5 nanometers different in wavelength. Ozone is not pollution, as the news people in Los Angeles would have you believe. The ozone is the result of the suns UV light hitting the pollution (water vapor, dirt, elemental oxygen) and creating the ozone from the available oxygen. The ozone is trying to clean up the smog (dirt and water vapor). The holes in the ozone layer at the poles are not new they are cyclic. They are the result of the amount of UV light there. When there is long period of darkness the ozone is depleted. When the light comes back the ozone is again created. 45% of the ozone that is destroyed is destroyed by water vapor. Another significant chunk of the damage (something like 20-30%) is from methane gas (Amazingly a huge amount comes from termites and cows). Then there are our chemicals. We probably only destroy less then 5%.

6) Global warming is also cyclic. We may be doing less damage to this planet then we think. 90% of the earths CO2 is dissolved in the ocean. There appears to be a balance between the level of CO2 and the amount of ozone together with the sunlight and the atmosphere to produce a self-regulating balance to maintain our habitable planet.


7) Is a mushroom spore really alive when it is dormant? How many dormant forms of life might there be in our universe?('
')


8) Get this book!!! www.forum2.org...

9) All matter in our universe (live or dead) is made up of the very same parts. Electrons, Neutrons, and Protons. Nothing new is created the pieces are just rearranged.

10) The myth of a deity is limited to the things we do not know and that is shrinking. You can’t prove myth wrong. Isn’t that right Santa? If they want equal time in public school for creation myths then the churches should give equal time to explain what a theory is, then they would understand evolution.







 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join