reply to post by JoshF
You are aware that there is a difference between micro and macro evolution right?
No. There isn't. Biological evolution is biological evolution. There are evolutionary effects that take place on a time scale that humans can see
during a lifetime, and effects that humans cannot see in a single lifetime. There is no difference between the two.
And even among scientists there are raging debates over the different theories that make up evolution, like Abiogenesis vs panspermia.
There is scientific debate about everything in science. Abiogenesis is not one of the "theories that make up evolution". Abiogenesis is not evolution,
and there is no Theory of Abiogenesis, only a collection of hypotheses that are being explored. Lots of ideas about Abiogenesis are being reviewed,
tested, confirmed, rejected, touted, ridiculed, accepted, put in the 'too hard basket', and pondered. That is how science happens, people put up
ideas, those ideas are discussed and tested. If they pass muster they are accepted, if they don't they are rejected.
If you are seeing 'raging debates' in science, then what you are seeing is the cutting edge of science, people pushing the boundaries of human
knowledge and that is absolutely a good thing.
Transpermia is something i believe in by the way which is an alternative to an evolutionary theory like Abiogenesis where life evolves from
Transpermia is not an alternative to evolutionary theory, unless you are extending Transpermia to include the falsification of the geological and
fossil record and the entire ecosystem of the planet earth as it exists today. If that is the case, it is actually no different that creationism,
requiring a supernatural being to effect it.
If you are limiting your idea of Transpermia to microbes or other even simpler living molecules seeding the earth, then you are talking about a
alternative hypothesis for Abiogenesis, which I repeat, for emphasis, is not Evolution. In other words, if primitive living molecules came to earth
from somewhere else, then some process is still required to get from there to where we are now. The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is the theory that
describes how that took place.
Furthermore, you are aware that organic compounds are found throughout the universe, right? So whether the organic compounds that came together to
form the first living molecules on Earth actually got here from some extra-terrestrial source (that would be transpermia right?) how would you tell
the difference between those and organic compounds that were indigenous to earth? In other words, what difference would it make?
I think I can give an answer to that that most Biologists would agree with: it doesn't make any difference at all, current hypotheses understand that
organic compounds have formed naturally both off planet and on planet. Further, life could have formed off planet, that is one reason so much effort
is being put into trying to find life on Mars. It is unlikely in the extreme that life could have formed off planet and then somehow made it to Earth
in a viable form - not impossible, just extremely unlikely.
The simple fact is that if life formed off planet, the conditions for life to form on Earth are much more conducive. Transpermia, while not
impossible, is unlikely, and just not required because the conditions on Earth are as good if not better than any non-terrestrial environments. And
that all means that it is Occam's Razor time.
Oh please don't make yourself out to be another one of those atheist e-crusader, it is really cliche.
You know nothing about me or my motives. In fact, I am neither an atheist, nor an e-crusader. I do, however, get irritated when people tell palpable
falsehoods, and even worse when they are being intellectually dishonest.
Your challenge left it open for someone to make assumptions about what you were driving at, thereby giving you the opportunity to "score points" while
rejecting them if they make the assumption you are talking about Intelligent Design or Spontaneous Generation or some such, just as you have tried to
do with this charge against me. If you don't believe in Creationism, why would you care if I am an atheist or not? All I am asking for is a bit of
edit on 2/2/2012 by rnaa because: spelling and grammar