Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Independent)   Life may have started underground, says scientist I.M. Morlock   ( independent.co.uk) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

989 clicks; posted to Geek » on 09 Dec 2013 at 12:41 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-12-09 04:51:50 PM  
1 vote:

Ned Stark: itcamefromschenectady: Quantum Apostrophe: TheShavingofOccam123: Subby, life might have arrived here underground--in dust and rock. From out there, among the stars.

Or are you so earth-centric that you think we're the only place that could invent life?

/I better shut up...I might be burned at the stake

Until you have evidence, you have a religion.

The evidence is that fossils date back to nearly the very beginning of the earth, and it's not reasonable to assume that non-living material turned into living creatures in such a short time yet took billions of years to turn multicellular. The universe existed for billions of years before the earth, so the logical inference is that life already had developed within the planetoids / rocks that smashed together to create the earth.

Every step in complexity of life has taken about half the time as the step before it. If it took several billion years for life to develop past single cells, then it likely took twice as much time to develop from non-living creatures - which implies life is older than the earth. Adding about 10 billion years to the age of life is similar to the age of the universe determined independently, so that acts as additional corroboration.

Believing that life arose from nothing in a few million years several billion years ago is like believing that humans evolved in a few hundred years just before recorded history started. Everything we observe about life indicates that it has been making exponential progress for a very long time.

You're torturing the hell out of our single test case to make you point.

And what are "steps in the complexity of life"? Definition, examples, and your reasoning why we should accept these steps as actual properties of living things and not arbitrary categories invented by humans for ease of classification.


You're asking for precision for an argument that doesn't require precision. That doesn't mean the progression we see is an illusion. The first evidence of life appeared over 3.5 billion years ago. Multicellular life at 2 billion years ago. Animals somewhat less than a billion years ago. Tetrapods less than half a billion years ago.  It doesn't make sense that the very first step should have been much quicker than the second step. Another point is that if life arises from nothing in a short period of time (relatively) why aren't we overrun by aliens given the age of the universe? It is simplest to assume that life has been evolving since the beginning of the universe, or at least when it was cool enough and that single-cell life is actually highly evolved and all over the place.
2013-12-09 04:36:51 PM  
1 vote:

itcamefromschenectady: Every step in complexity of life has taken about half the time as the step before it. If it took several billion years for life to develop past single cells, then it likely took twice as much time to develop from non-living creatures - which implies life is older than the earth. Adding about 10 billion years to the age of life is similar to the age of the universe determined independently, so that acts as additional corroboration.


There have been some recent experiments which suggest that the step from single-celled to multicellular life is quite small. Also the chemical composition of the universe has been changing over time, starting out with mostly hydrogen and helium. You need to go through a couple of generations of stars before there are enough heavy elements to create organic compounds, so the age of life isn't necessarily much longer than the age of our solar system.
2013-12-09 04:04:03 PM  
1 vote:

Quantum Apostrophe: TheShavingofOccam123: Subby, life might have arrived here underground--in dust and rock. From out there, among the stars.

Or are you so earth-centric that you think we're the only place that could invent life?

/I better shut up...I might be burned at the stake

Until you have evidence, you have a religion.


The evidence is that fossils date back to nearly the very beginning of the earth, and it's not reasonable to assume that non-living material turned into living creatures in such a short time yet took billions of years to turn multicellular. The universe existed for billions of years before the earth, so the logical inference is that life already had developed within the planetoids / rocks that smashed together to create the earth.

Every step in complexity of life has taken about half the time as the step before it. If it took several billion years for life to develop past single cells, then it likely took twice as much time to develop from non-living creatures - which implies life is older than the earth. Adding about 10 billion years to the age of life is similar to the age of the universe determined independently, so that acts as additional corroboration.

Believing that life arose from nothing in a few million years several billion years ago is like believing that humans evolved in a few hundred years just before recorded history started. Everything we observe about life indicates that it has been making exponential progress for a very long time.
 
Displayed 3 of 3 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report