http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/list/7.page JForum - http://www.jforum.net [i]I am just wondering weather you think That they are real or not.
[/i]
[b]I mean come on, people are seeing something if not Aliens then what are they seeing?
[/b]
[u]Here is an interesting link that I like it has some cool Videos.[/u]
http://www.history.com/shows/ufo-hunters]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734058.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734058.page GMT ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734062.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734062.page GMT ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734063.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734063.page GMT [/quote]

Or have we already seen them, there has even been stories that the USA government have made contact with Aliens but you can't know how much of those reports or true.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734069.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734069.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734073.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734073.page GMT

Yeah that sounds like a great book might read it some time.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734074.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734074.page GMT [/quote]

Or have we already seen them, there has even been stories that the USA government have made contact with Aliens but you can't know how much of those reports or true.[/quote]
True, but why keep it a secret to the world? If the US did/does have/had alien contact?]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734077.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734077.page GMT [/quote]

Or have we already seen them, there has even been stories that the USA government have made contact with Aliens but you can't know how much of those reports or true.[/quote]
True, but why keep it a secret to the world? If the US did/does have/had alien contact?[/quote]


Well the reason that I have heard is that they don't want the US/World going into a huge panic. ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734078.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734078.page GMT
/thread]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734086.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734086.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734088.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734088.page GMT
[quote]Well the reason that I have heard is that they don't want the US/World going into a huge panic.[/quote]
I suppose, but it seems many of the population has been...papering..? For 'aliens'.
But I don't know, we probably never will know.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734098.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734098.page GMT
Very cynical of you.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734100.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734100.page GMT
I don't mean to offend anyone, but I think a lot of what I'll call "narrow-hallway" and "closed-door" religions are to blame. We can't even handle gay people, despite the fact that we just got over the whole civil rights debacle only a few decades ago (this being another reason I think aliens would rather ignore us right now; that we had such a thing in the first place is pretty damning). Imagine if some five-legged lizard-headed being now wanted to live next door to you and share the same rights you do. Some of us might be OK with that; some of us might even think it was cool. But I'm willing to bet quite a few people would rather shoot it in the head, regardless of whether it caused an intergalactic breakdown in diplomatic relations and the eventual destruction of our planet or total segregation from some galactic panel of intelligent beings. Christianity, for example, would be totally at odds with the existence of intelligent alien life and a lot of religious persons involved in it, especially those who either take sections of the bible literally or interpret things that aren't there would have serious problems. If God created man in his image, doesn't that make Klaatu the Blob Creature an inferior being? Shouldn't he be treated as such? And so on...

Until humanity can unite itself in such a way that these superficial prejudices and religious crutches no longer exist (I'm not saying religion is bad either; I'm saying religion used in a particular manner is bad), and stop killing itself, we're pretty much screwed. Aliens would do well to stay far away from us for both their own sakes and ours.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734101.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734101.page GMT I myself am Christian but everything you said makes sense and religion is often used in that exact way anyway. We really aren't ready for aliens lol, if we wanted to or someone did something stupid we could all start launching nucaler bombs and then...Well. Bye humanity.
With that in mind, aliens are a long way off.
]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734105.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734105.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734147.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734147.page GMT
I doubt they've visited us though.

Even if they have the ability to travel between stars at will, there are a lot of stars and ours isn't particularly intriguing from a distance.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734208.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734208.page GMT
Get real. You're saying that an alien race (whose technology is thousands of years more advanced then ours) travels millions of light years to our small and insignificant planet, and the first thing on their minds is to kill and enslave everything? I seriously doubt that for obvious reasons...]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734269.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734269.page GMT
What if it's dozens?

What if they have the technology to travel between stars but not the technology to stop a thermonuclear blast? (if such a technology is even possible) Humans are armed and dangerous, it's conceivable that an alien race may consider us a threat to their security, especially if we appear to be on the verge of building our own FTL ships (or worse, copying theirs)]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734281.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734281.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734348.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734348.page GMT
[i][b]We are aliens.[/b][/i]]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734360.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734360.page GMT [quote]People. Think for a second.

We are aliens.[/quote]

...
1. Owing political allegiance to another country or government; foreign: alien residents.
2. Belonging to, characteristic of, or constituting another and very different place, society, or person; strange. See Synonyms at foreign.
3. Dissimilar, inconsistent, or opposed, as in nature: emotions alien to her temperament.
n.
1. An unnaturalized foreign resident of a country. Also called noncitizen.
2. A person from another and very different family, people, or place.
3. A person who is not included in a group; an outsider.
4. A creature from outer space: a story about an invasion of aliens.
5. Ecology An organism, especially a plant or animal, that occurs in or is naturalized in a region to which it is not native.
tr.v. a·li·ened, a·li·en·ing, a·li·ens Law
To transfer (property) to another; alienate.

Under which definition we are aliens?]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734362.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734362.page GMT
Under which definition we are aliens?[/quote]
All the noun ones.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734373.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734373.page GMT
There is no such thing as aliens. Never was, never will.[/quote]

[quote=Some smarty pants guy] We are aliens, dork! [/quote]

[quote=Da first guy] Dur hur hur, nope. We don't have huge eyes and circle shaped flying vehicles[/quote]

[quote=The smarty pants dude] [/quote]

True story.

But anyway, it is nearly impossible for us to be the only life in the universe(s). No one at my school believes in them for one main reason: [b]The Book of Genesis[/b].

I don't like overly religious people.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734425.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734425.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734491.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734491.page GMT
There is no such thing as aliens. Never was, never will.[/quote]

[quote=Some smarty pants guy] We are aliens, dork! [/quote]

[quote=Da first guy] Dur hur hur, nope. We don't have huge eyes and circle shaped flying vehicles[/quote]

[quote=The smarty pants dude] [/quote]

True story.

But anyway, it is nearly impossible for us to be the only life in the universe(s). No one at my school believes in them for one main reason: [b]The Book of Genesis[/b].

I don't like overly religious people.[/quote]

Yes I agree, In [b]The Book of Genesis [/b]it says nothing about us being the only Creatures he made.People are seeing something or [i]somebody[/i].]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734577.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734577.page GMT ^this. Think of how many planets there are, and having only one with life on is EXTREMELY unlikely.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734690.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3734690.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3741367.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3741367.page GMT
My Great Grandfather from Wales lived to be over 100 yo.

He could pass for most pictures of grays, but that might have been 95 years of smoking and 70 working in coal mines.

]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3741688.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3741688.page GMT
So, I think that it is impossible for there to be no life somewhere else in the universe. It may not be spacefaring, however, and may just be animals, un-sentient. I think something is out there, however. Tell me what you think.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3852202.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3852202.page GMT
So, I think that it is impossible for there to be no life somewhere else in the universe. It may not be spacefaring, however, and may just be animals, un-sentient. I think something is out there, however. Tell me what you think.[/quote]

Still, that's only "I believe..." and "I think..." and so forth. Perhaps true, perhaps not, but I'm rather waiting for proof, not belief. There are so many possibilities, and that's why I'm waiting to see what may turn up.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3852206.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3852206.page GMT
What if it's dozens?

What if they have the technology to travel between stars but not the technology to stop a thermonuclear blast? (if such a technology is even possible) Humans are armed and dangerous, it's conceivable that an alien race may consider us a threat to their security, especially if we appear to be on the verge of building our own FTL ships (or worse, copying theirs)[/quote]

I find it pretty unlikely that they would be only dozens of years ahead of us. I mean with the universe being billions of years old, it seems far more likely that they'd either be unintelligent or thousands of years ahead of us. On top of that, with a different environment, culture, and possibly even thought process, their technology might be nothing like ours.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3852265.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3852265.page GMT
They may have splazors, energy shields, fusion reactors, 99% energy efficient photovoltaic cells, but they may not have FTL. Or even reliable space travel.

Saying a different civilisation to ours would have the same technological process is a load of... poop.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3852276.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3852276.page GMT
They may have splazors, energy shields, fusion reactors, 99% energy efficient photovoltaic cells, but they may not have FTL. Or even reliable space travel.

Saying a different civilisation to ours would have the same technological process is a load of... poop.[/quote]

They might be crawling around in much at the bottoms of lakes, too.

On might be inclined to believe there are "aliens" out there. I think life is possible, but there's no reason to presuppose any level of technology at all, technology we would grok, or that said aliens would see any reason to understand or communicate with us as "life" from their point of view.

[i]I always love how presupposition of "life" leads to the vision of bipedal humanoid, bilaterally symmetrical critters with a desire to make our acquaintance and the means to do so.[/i]

]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3852278.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3852278.page GMT
Yes, it's funny to see stereotypical forms of sentient life.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3852281.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3852281.page GMT
Maybe the first aliens we'll discover are non-sentient. Probably we'll only discover sentient life through radio waves, like in the movie "Contact". Whenever it happens, I guess this day will become a holiday, known as "Alien Discovery Day".

BUT a message through space would take lots of decades to be found and lots of decades to come back. Maybe, when we discover aliens, they're already extinct.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3852310.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3852310.page GMT
Their enviorment is probably different, and even if there were intellegent life, what if it didn't have much power to build many things and didn't like new enviorments, and so on. [b]Just because humans wants to travel and explore the universe it doesn't mean aliens want to. [/b]

I do believe there might be cells or some kind of multi-cellular organism somewhere in the universe, but intellegent life that travelled all the way to earth? Doubt it. ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3852312.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3852312.page GMT
I do believe there might be cells or some kind of multi-cellular organism somewhere in the universe, but intellegent life that travelled all the way to earth? Doubt it.[/quote]

As I said before, this is a very big universe. Maybe there ARE aliens that wanna explore. Maybe there are 6,655,495,457 alien races, but if two of them (including us) wants to explore the universe... Well, maybe we meet each other.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3852343.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3852343.page GMT
Have fun.

This is not an exercise in whether aliens are real, but what brand of sci-fi each of the posters ascribes to -- with the exception of Slyth, and probably me.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3852365.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3852365.page GMT
Eventually the pachysapiens would likely start farming, but would probably eat directly out of their fields rather than take the time to harvest, so these farms would more accurately be called pastures. Loose villages might develop, each formed by a few mutually-trusting families who build their shelters and pastures near each other. Farming would consist mainly of weeding and irrigation, unless more land had to be cleared for pastures (something pachysapiens would have been good at). The pachysapiens would be unlikely to have any livestock, since they would be large enough to retain heat internally, at least with the help of their shelters, without clothing, but they might develop a friendly relationship with generalist predators that hunt other herbivores that would try to feed from the pastures. These predators could eventually be domesticated for their use in hunting animals whose bones could be used for tools. But I'm not sure if civilization would ever really get started... anyone else want to tackle that problem?

In any case, the needs of a very different animal also caused it to develop technology that would at least be somewhat familiar to us humans. So an alien civilization wouldn't be TOO unlikely.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3852380.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3852380.page GMT
...but say we [i]did[/i] have space-travel, and we found another planet with [i]humans[/i] on it.

What would we do then?]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3852385.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3852385.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3853815.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3853815.page GMT

Such questions entertain me for hours on end, but I never find out an answer with real proof. I find many, many answers, some that are extremely far-fetched, and others too "inside the box". I think that wondering and never finding out the answer is OK. It's fun, trains your brain for things its not used to, and helps you understand the world and the things in(and out)side of it.

Back to the original question: Are aliens real?


Keep wondering about it. You'll find an answer that suits you.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3853821.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3853821.page GMT Guys...I think so.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3853864.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3853864.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3853873.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3853873.page GMT

In response to aliens, the answer is that we have not the slightest clue. If you subscribe to a chemical origin of life, then if you think really hard about it, especially considering the vast complexity required to make even a simple living cell, [i]we[/i] shouldn't exist, let alone life generated on other planets as well. If you believe in Creation, or some variant, then it is a lot more probable that life could have been made in other parts of the Universe, but it isn't certain either.

Sapience is another matter altogether, but if you have life in a suitable environment (for example, Europa probably is not one of them) then it is a possibility.

Contact becomes a less likely scenario, given that with our current knowledge of physics interstellar communication, let alone travel, is extremely time-consuming, meaning that if aliens do exist out there, it would be almost impossible for us to meet them. And if we do, it would probably be a probe and they'd probably be long extinct.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3853886.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3853886.page GMT
]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3855231.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3855231.page GMT
[/quote]

Also a lot of the elements are highly artificial anyway. By that I mean I'm pretty sure you don't bump across them in nature. If you do it's very rare.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3855235.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3855235.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3855488.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3855488.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3855490.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3855490.page GMT
@cardiackid, I do not doubt that there are millions of planets with the right physical conditions to support life. However, I strongly doubt that life can form purely from lifeless chemical reactions. Biological monomers can form easily. Simple polymers aren't too hard. But complex polymers, such as protein and nucleic acids (both of which are vital to performing the complex functions required by life) are far to complicated to be correctly assembled by chance. Then you've got to get enough of those polymers, stick them together in exactly the right way, and then several million molecules later you have a single cell. Then you have to hope that having the right parts will make it magically come to life, and then hope it survives long enough to reproduce.

tl;dr, chemical origins of life aren't going to happen.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3855511.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3855511.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3855532.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3855532.page GMT
Living organisms also have to acquire energy and resources, maintain homoeostasis, manufacture proteins and enzymes, undergo metabolism and so on. The replication of an entire cell is also a very complex process, much more complex than that of a single molecule. The cell must duplicate every important bit (for the simplest cells, this is simply the DNA) and ensure that there is an even amount of it on either side. Then it must manipulate the cell membrane to split the cell into two new cells. Mitosis is no simple chemical reaction.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3855562.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3855562.page GMT
@cardiackid, I do not doubt that there are millions of planets with the right physical conditions to support life. However, I strongly doubt that life can form purely from lifeless chemical reactions. Biological monomers can form easily. Simple polymers aren't too hard. But complex polymers, such as protein and nucleic acids (both of which are vital to performing the complex functions required by life) are far to complicated to be correctly assembled by chance. Then you've got to get enough of those polymers, stick them together in exactly the right way, and then several million molecules later you have a single cell. Then you have to hope that having the right parts will make it magically come to life, and then hope it survives long enough to reproduce.

tl;dr, chemical origins of life aren't going to happen.[/quote]

It's like having a tornado fly through a junkyard and miraculously assemble the scrap parts into a working airplane. It could still theoretically happen, but it's extremely improbable. That being said, when you have a whole planet with the right conditions for life for millions of years, it suddenly becomes much more feasible for one tiny microbe to form and manage to self-replicate.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3855604.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3855604.page GMT
@cardiackid, I do not doubt that there are millions of planets with the right physical conditions to support life. However, I strongly doubt that life can form purely from lifeless chemical reactions. Biological monomers can form easily. Simple polymers aren't too hard. But complex polymers, such as protein and nucleic acids (both of which are vital to performing the complex functions required by life) are far to complicated to be correctly assembled by chance. Then you've got to get enough of those polymers, stick them together in exactly the right way, and then several million molecules later you have a single cell. Then you have to hope that having the right parts will make it magically come to life, and then hope it survives long enough to reproduce.

tl;dr, chemical origins of life aren't going to happen.[/quote]

It's like having a tornado fly through a junkyard and miraculously assemble the scrap parts into a working airplane. It could still theoretically happen, but it's extremely improbable. That being said, when you have a whole planet with the right conditions for life for millions of years, it suddenly becomes much more feasible for one tiny microbe to form and manage to self-replicate.[/quote]
In my opinion you'd probably be waiting at least until the Universe tears itself to shreds by expansion multiple times over before you get a functioning cell (presuming the Universe proceeds to tear itself to shreds, of course). And that's if you're lucky, and assuming it is actually possible in the first place.

Take your air-plane example. To get something air-plane shaped is not too far-fetched. However, to get the functioning parts to be in the right places you often have to insert them in exactly the right way. You then have to plug all the wires in to the right places, and some of the wires would have to stretch from one end of the plane to the other. If you do it wrong, it won't work. If you do somehow manage to get all the parts plugged in and installed correctly, you then have to hope that the tornado also topped it up with fuel, grease and a fresh battery, without pouring the fuel all over the plane. And don't get me started on getting all the nuts and bolts into place. With those a plane would fall apart, but they are very fiddly to insert if you're doing it by accident. Then you need to hope that, even if the tornado is doing all the right things, it doesn't tear apart whatever work it has already done.

You say it is theoretically possible, but if you think about it then you can see that it clearly isn't. The same goes for a cell. Every single protein and enzyme has to be arranged correctly or it won't work, and the correct ones have to be assembled or the cell won't work. The given DNA also has to be functional for both that cell and any daughter cells. Getting either of those right is like slamming your face on the keyboard to create a working operating system with basic applications. If you take the odds if each key is pressed completely randomly then you could get something, albeit several trillion years later, but if you've ever slapped the keyboard to create random text it does not give even distribution to the probability of each key. Instead you get several letters repeating themselves.

Then there is another hurdle. Energy. Virtually every compound used to build and operate a cell requires energy to create. You could shoot lightning into the primordial soup, but that would just as readily prompt the complex compounds to fall apart, and would also kill any living thing you might have developed. Cells also use energy in the form of ATP. It is not a simple compound. Not something you would think would come by random chance.

Then you have to presume that simply having all the parts in the right places is enough to produce life. However, as far as I know, no evidence exists to suggest that life can be produced from a source other than pre-existing life. If a person, or any living thing, dies properly, there is nothing we can do to bring them back. This shows that there could be something more to life than simply chemical reactions. If this is so, then no amount of fizzing or chemistry will create a living cell.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3855609.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3855609.page GMT
Energy isn't as big an issue as you'd think. We have plenty of sources for it in the primordial Earth, namely hydrothermal vents. They're pretty neat, and do actually contain life to this day.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3855611.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3855611.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3855627.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3855627.page GMT
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM, lovely.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3855645.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3855645.page GMT
Cells do assemble themselves, but not from nothing. They assemble themselves from other cells, in a rather complex process (for a collection of chemical reactions) known as mitosis, or meiosis for gametes. Lipids do tend to arrange themselves into convenient bubble-shapes, but if that didn't happen then they wouldn't be a suitable material for a plasma membrane.

Proteins, however, do not assemble themselves. They require a rather sophisticated process to be assembled. DNA has to be split open (using protein-based enzymes), mRNA will form on the exposed DNA, the mRNA is transported to ribosomes (made from protein and rRNA), the ribosomes acquire tRNA with amino acids attached, which then line up with the mRNA to form a protein. As is the nature with proteins, even one amino acid out of line could prevent it from working.

A self-replicating molecule would not develop into the complexity of a cell. Mainly because a cell is made from millions of molecules, with thousands of varieties. Changes over time have limits, and of the biological molecules only nucleic acids have any power of replication, and they generally need help to do that. Nucleic acids can't do anything much without the help of proteins, which require nucleic acids to be made in the first place. The numerous cases of mutual requirement, such as I have just mentioned, unveil the frailty of the theory of evolution and chemical origins of life.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3855703.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3855703.page GMT
My knowledge of the latter theory is very lacking seeing as it's rather controversial and therefor is not taught in my school system, but there are some obvious holes in what you said. Energy really wouldn't be much of a problem, since the requirements for most basic endergonic reactions such as heat, light, or even electricity can naturally occur. Heck, nuclear fission can even happen naturally.

As in for how ridiculously improbable the whole thing is, I maintain my airplane example. There are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand on every beach on Earth. Since we can assume in relative safety that there are billions, if not trillions, of planets with conditions that could support life, with a "junkyard" that is quite literally unimaginable in size and millions of metaphorical "tornados" occurring every second, I still believe that life can and has chemically form. Granted, it's extremely rare for life to just pop up, but when we're talking on such a cosmological scale, even if we say that there is only a 0.00001% that a given planet with earth like conditions will have life at some point, there would still probably be hundreds of planets with basic lifeforms.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3855726.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3855726.page GMT [/quote]

Look up Thermophiles. They are specifically evolved to survive in such temperatures. From there, they form the basis of entire ecosystems that feast upon them.

Besides, you don't need to throw an egg into a fire in order to cook it. It's the same with life. It doesn't need to start at the epicentre of the Hydrothermal vents. It just needs to be close enough that the compounds are stimulated by the temperature increase.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3855782.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3855782.page GMT [/quote]

Look up Thermophiles. They are specifically evolved to survive in such temperatures. From there, they form the basis of entire ecosystems that feast upon them.

Besides, you don't need to throw an egg into a fire in order to cook it. It's the same with life. It doesn't need to start at the epicentre of the Hydrothermal vents. It just needs to be close enough that the compounds are stimulated by the temperature increase.[/quote]
I am aware of thermophiles and the hydrothermal vent ecosystems. However, the first cells would not be evolved for anything, let alone extreme heat.

Hydrothermal vents would be the most likely source of energy to generate biological compounds. However, as I have discussed earlier, creating a cell is a much more complicated process than can be achieved by randomly sticking monomers together. It requires precision and detail well beyond that of random chance.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3855798.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3855798.page GMT [/quote]

Look up Thermophiles. They are specifically evolved to survive in such temperatures. From there, they form the basis of entire ecosystems that feast upon them.

Besides, you don't need to throw an egg into a fire in order to cook it. It's the same with life. It doesn't need to start at the epicentre of the Hydrothermal vents. It just needs to be close enough that the compounds are stimulated by the temperature increase.[/quote]
I am aware of thermophiles and the hydrothermal vent ecosystems. However, the first cells would not be evolved for anything, let alone extreme heat.

Hydrothermal vents would be the most likely source of energy to generate biological compounds. However, as I have discussed earlier, creating a cell is a much more complicated process than can be achieved by randomly sticking monomers together. It requires precision and detail well beyond that of random chance.[/quote] then BBeast what is your hypothesis and what evidence do you have for it? ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3855806.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3855806.page GMT
My evidence is the sheer complexity of the biochemistry in even a simple cell. A high-school level of knowledge in biology should make you aware of how complicated a cell and its molecules are. For example, tiny faults in proteins cause them to fail. Further evidence is that a cell has not yet been made from scratch without using other cells (as far as I know).]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3855913.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3855913.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3855937.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3855937.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3856259.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3856259.page GMT
My evidence is the sheer complexity of the biochemistry in even a simple cell. A high-school level of knowledge in biology should make you aware of how complicated a cell and its molecules are. For example, tiny faults in proteins cause them to fail. Further evidence is that a cell has not yet been made from scratch without using other cells (as far as I know).[/quote]

The way I look at our universe is that its like a machine. First you need the work space which is space (this consists of 4 known dimensions: side to side, up and down, forwards and backwards and time), then there is the hardware which in this case is matter and energy (which are pretty much the same thing). But if it is to work it needs software of which I believe is thought.
Think about it. Thought is obviously so much more than pictures in your head. We have seen that thought must be interconnected through tests like the one where they taught a monkey to wash dirty food and then monkeys on the other side of the would started washing their food.
They also tested whether it was bound by time. They got a bunch of people and blindfolded them then got them to guess what cards they were holding up, then they did the same test over again only this time they were promised to be shown the cards afterwards. 9 of 10 people got more cards right the second time. This could indicate that thought is a fifth dimension.

So if this theory of mine is correct then we are all, in a sense, a part of god.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3856933.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3856933.page GMT
I'm not going to imbue you with a functional knowledge of thermodynamics, general chemistry, organic chemistry, or biochemistry, but SPORE. Your issues with the theory of evolution are due to your ignorance, willful or otherwise, and not due to faults in the theory. The theory of evolution does not say anything at all about the origin of life, though origins of life can be extrapolated using the theory and using evidence.

1) We have this big SPORE energy source in the sky called the sun. And then there is the energy source that's churning under our feet.

2) If you're going to argue about the complexity of life and tell someone that their definition of life is wrong, at least be consistent about what life is. The simplest cells do not simply "replicate their DNA" and then somehow constitute a living organism.

You say that proteins and genetic material are a chicken or egg case, but allow me to perform some magic.

I can go ahead and order a specific sequence of RNA, give it a soup with some building blocks ([i][b]no proteins needed![/b][/i]), have it replicate all by itself, name it Didzo's Lovely Ribozyme, and it still would not be considered life. I will then inject it into a potato to make it become sad. This knowledge isn't new and has been around for over 20 years. I can also take a protein, name it Didzo's Prion, and then make it make new Didzo's Prions using just about any protein around. I'll then inject it into a person and call it Mad Didzo Disease.

I can also take a human cell, change the genetic code here and there, and make it able to survive and replicate on its own outside of a human body for many generations. Is it alive anymore just because it's not part of it's human source?

But see, I can, in fact, create life from non-life. I can take a metabolically dead seed, give it water, and generate a living plant from it. I am a miracle worker.

Basically, what I'm trying to get at here is that your chicken or the egg example is broken. Also, the Chicken came first. The egg it was born in was formed by its pre-chicken mother who does not share the same genes as the Chicken.

3) Ribozymes happen to be enzymes, which are organic catalysts. Catalysts are things that help other things which may otherwise take gajillions of years to react do so with the need for far less energy and time. Now add lots and lots of molecules and lots and lots of catalysts and things will happen much faster than you would expect. It's like magic, except it really isn't.

4) Atoms of elements like to be in certain conformations more than others. You're in high school or something, so you should have at least had some chemistry and some knowledge of how chemical reactions work and what atomic orbitals are.

5) ATP isn't that complex. It's an amino acid with inorganic phosphates tacked on. If you're going to argue for intelligent design, then at least choose ATP synthetase or flagellar motors as examples. Those things are neat.

6) Since when was extreme heat an issue to early organisms existing near it? They weren't evolved for it? How would you know? And besides, evolution is not some conscious process that actively chooses what an organism is good for.

7) Resistance to change increases as complexity increases.

Our retinas are inside out and we have blind spots. A change to a more efficient retinal structure, such as what cephalopods have, would be optimal, though I don't see that happening.

Tiny faults in proteins will not necessarily break them. Many large proteins can take a significant amount of mutating before they will lose function, so long as the mutation doesn't cause an overall shift in the amino acids produced or does not occur in a vital site. Also, we complex multicellular organisms are much more sensitive to changes than simpler forms of life. Just because a protein change is more likely to produce failure in function rather than new function does not mean it will not happen at all. Just because humans can't suddenly change their metabolic pathways with a single mutation doesn't mean that other organisms cannot. It can, and does, happen in labs culturing bacteria. Bacteria can mutate rapidly and keep on replicating, so scientists often introduce artificial safeguards to ensure that specific strains used for biotech purposes are not able to survive if they do mutate.

--------------------------------------

Life is a system that builds upon itself in an environment that uses a set fundamental framework.

Edit: To your credit, BBeast, at least I am able to respond to your post. Sean's post exists in the 6th dimension, somewhere where I cannot venture.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3856940.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3856940.page GMT
Your already stuck in the 6th plane of reality.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3856995.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3856995.page GMT
I am aware of the function of enzymes. Enzymes only contribute to the complexity of life, as it is an extra, and not particularly simple, component required for cells to operate.

I am also aware that RNA can replicate itself, given free nucleotides. However, what is a molecule of RNA going to do all on its own? Genetic material and proteins generally need to work together to thrive.

I also know that the theory of evolution is not directly related to the chemical origins of life. However, if one of them is at fault, then it is most likely that both of them are at fault. Why? Because if evolution and chemistry couldn't create life as it is today, then intelligent design must be in there somewhere. Both the chemical origins of life and the theory of evolution rest on the absence of an intelligent creator. I am not saying a creature can not change over generations, but that change is limited.

You do have a point with how bacteria are capable of mutation on a large scale without adverse side effects. I had not entirely considered it.

And while I do know that atoms like to stick together in various ways, and not just random ways, when it comes to polymers like DNA and proteins where order is important but chemistry does not affect the order (unless we have one molecule affecting the other, as happens in metabolism) then they won't simply fall into functional shapes unless you are preposterously lucky.


By the way, I haven't used Wikipedia for this. Mostly just my high school and accumulated knowledge.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857009.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857009.page GMT
Genetic material and proteins are indeed necessary for complex interactions, but what's preventing complex interactions from developing? RNA replication is extremely error prone. It's part of why viruses are able to change quickly enough to avoid destruction. RNA viruses, even very small ones with minuscule genomes, do some neat things. Their RNA can bind with itself to "trick" some cellular proteins into interacting with them, even without having the necessary accessory proteins. Sounds like that's RNA doing an action that an entire protein complex is required to do in complex organisms. Now, here's the thing the weird thing. A small change to a small genome that must perform a specific function is generally catastrophic and the virus cannot replicate. The probability of a mutated genome to be able to proliferate successfully is absolutely minuscule. There simply is not much room to make mistakes. And yet, it happens. Why? Because the scale and frequency of this replication is immense. On a statistical level, the chance that you get a successful, beneficial mutation and that this beneficial mutant is properly packaged and encounters a cell that it can replicate in is [i]preposterously small, and yet it happens inevitably and it happens in a time scale it that geologically completely insignificant[/i].

Ribosomes, which are absolutely essential for translation of mRNA to protein, have both RNA and protein components. You assume that proteins and nucleic acids are two completely separate categories that just miraculously come together and require each other by default.

Many proteins will spontaneously form their final shapes without the need for any post-translational processing. We don't know how to predict how proteins will fold because our ability to model these sorts of chemical interactions is simply not there yet. But it is observable and we know it happens.

How can evolution only apply for small changes? What change is too big to count? What limits the change? A single recessive trait in a chicken can result in conical tooth growth (something that birds haven't been found with for 70-ish million years) and fetal death, while adding an extra two copies (a MASSIVE change) on a particular chromosome can cause down syndrome. Yes, down syndrome is hard to consider an advantage, but such occurrences are usually fatal. And the changes that bacteria can undergo in relatively small time-frames are anything but insignificant, but you dismiss them as such because they are small organisms. Two drastically different bacteria in physiological functioning may be closely related based on comparisons on highly conserved regions of genomes. How about plants? Scientists, through the use of, say, a particular bacterium, can drastically alter the function, growth patterns, drug resistances, and so forth of a plant. This only happens because there is already a preexisting method for such change that scientists are able to hijack for their own purposes. Foxes in Russia have been selectively bred over generations to become completely domestic, altering both their behavioral and physical expression.

So in spite of direct evidence that evolution does happen, you claim that it only sort of happens. Either heritable change occurs over time or it does not. Nobody is claiming that the theory of gravitation no longer applies outside of space that is viewable by a telescope.
]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857030.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857030.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857054.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857054.page GMT
It's a shame I was never interested by biology. So all I can really respond to is the OP.

I do believe that some sort of alien life exists, NOT BECAUSE I feel 'alone', but because it just makes sense. Considering the size of the universe, and the amount of stuff inside, logically at some point there will be a planet, that was just lucky enough for the right chemicals and conditions to coincide and create life. Or not lucky, considering what we do to it...

Or some being called God just felt bored and decided to experiment.

One interesting theory I've heard about the creation of life from a friend is that there is a god, and he's practically a child, in terms of experience. So he keeps experimenting, and learning, and would eventually mature. ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857061.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857061.page GMT
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097289/?ref_=sr_1

Unrelated to thread, film by the men of Monty Python fame. Turns out all the Norse gods are just children.

If you want more info, PM me. Otherwise, back to business.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857071.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857071.page GMT
It's a shame I was never interested by biology. So all I can really respond to is the OP.

I do believe that some sort of alien life exists, NOT BECAUSE I feel 'alone', but because it just makes sense. Considering the size of the universe, and the amount of stuff inside, logically at some point there will be a planet, that was just lucky enough for the right chemicals and conditions to coincide and create life. Or not lucky, considering what we do to it...

Or some being called God just felt bored and decided to experiment.

One interesting theory I've heard about the creation of life from a friend is that there is a god, and he's practically a child, in terms of experience. So he keeps experimenting, and learning, and would eventually mature. [/quote]
It's illogical to believe we're the only things living in the universe.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857082.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857082.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857093.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857093.page GMT yes.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857104.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857104.page GMT
Ah, there's that sweet little bit of rhetoric there. The "reality" of "aliens" is, by your admission, a matter of belief -- not truth, not proof, not observable or discernible data ---

Belief, like its close cousin "faith" may have a place in your personal system, but it still constitutes [u]nothing [/u] in reality.

The question was "Are Aliens real?" (sic)

not

"How Many Believe Aliens Are real?"

I do enjoy the chorus of agreement that makes me want to dust off the old snake oil bottles.

[u]Belief is a personal assertion, not proof, not probability, and certainly not based on LOGIC.[/u]

*** Unless you are asserting that other living things on the earth prove your statement, because then it would, of course, be correct, but not at all germane to the question at hand.




]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857119.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857119.page GMT
]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857121.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857121.page GMT
However, the one issue is that there is no evidence (at least with-in my knowledge) that your statements could be true. There is no evidence the other way either, though. This is where our paths split. You, along with other atheists, believe that it can. I, along with other creationists, believe that it can't, or at the very least did not for us.


But on to evolution. There are a number of things which don't seem to make much sense when looked at in respect to evolutionary pathways. If even one step in evolution is not possible, then the entire theory crumbles.

How would sexual reproduction developed? How does an organism go from "I'll split in two" to "Can we share gametes" and have organisms to share gametes with?

How did metabolic processes which we consider vital for living develop? Direct light or heat may have been sufficient for our little proto-virus, but a full cell uses metabolic pathways such as cellular respiration, photosynthesis and chemosynthesis to gain energy/energy compounds, without a sufficient amount of they will die, ie. they will be incapable of continuing metabolism indefinitely.

How did animals occur with startlingly different numbers of limbs? Losing limbs is easy enough, but gaining functional limbs is somewhat trickier. Bugs have at least 6 limbs, if not more, while vertebrates typically have four. They may be very different animals, but they would still have a common ancestor, which would have begun with no limbs.

How does a proto-fish develop lungs and go to land? The structure of gills and lungs are quite distinct, so they can't evolve from each other, and growing a sac filled with tendrils of capillaries connected to the outside is not the most convincing of stories.

Those are some of the challenges I can come up with. I am not saying outright that they are impossible. I am just saying that, to me, they do not seem likely to occur via evolutionary pathways.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857213.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857213.page GMT
2: The first life forms might have taken nutrients straight out of their environments: from a "primordial soup." Eventually living things started stealing nutrients from each other or processing them from sunlight, which is how we got to eating and photosynthesis.

3: Yes, the common ancestor of arthropods and vertebrates had no legs or even fins. Arthropods' legs aren't really even all the same; over the course of evolution they've been mixing up legs and pseudo-legs and antennae and mouthparts. Scientists are still working on the relations between the segments of different kinds of arthropod.

4: You are correct; lungs did not evolve from gills. (The gill structure actually became the ear.) Many living fish in stagnant water have organs that let them breathe air, I think it may be called a "swim bladder." These organs became the lungs of tetrapods.

These are all good questions, and they're all things scientists had to work hard to figure out.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857226.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857226.page GMT
However, the one issue is that there is no evidence (at least with-in my knowledge) that your statements could be true. There is no evidence the other way either, though. This is where our paths split. You, along with other atheists, believe that it can. I, along with other creationists, believe that it can't, or at the very least did not for us.


But on to evolution. There are a number of things which don't seem to make much sense when looked at in respect to evolutionary pathways. If even one step in evolution is not possible, then the entire theory crumbles.

How would sexual reproduction developed? How does an organism go from "I'll split in two" to "Can we share gametes" and have organisms to share gametes with?

How did metabolic processes which we consider vital for living develop? Direct light or heat may have been sufficient for our little proto-virus, but a full cell uses metabolic pathways such as cellular respiration, photosynthesis and chemosynthesis to gain energy/energy compounds, without a sufficient amount of they will die, ie. they will be incapable of continuing metabolism indefinitely.

How did animals occur with startlingly different numbers of limbs? Losing limbs is easy enough, but gaining functional limbs is somewhat trickier. Bugs have at least 6 limbs, if not more, while vertebrates typically have four. They may be very different animals, but they would still have a common ancestor, which would have begun with no limbs.

How does a proto-fish develop lungs and go to land? The structure of gills and lungs are quite distinct, so they can't evolve from each other, and growing a sac filled with tendrils of capillaries connected to the outside is not the most convincing of stories.

Those are some of the challenges I can come up with. I am not saying outright that they are impossible. I am just saying that, to me, they do not seem likely to occur via evolutionary pathways.[/quote]

Do not insult me by saying my statements are not true. Do not make binary categorical assumptions about my faith simply because what I present does not fit in your own box.

Once again you display your lack of understanding of what the theory of evolution is or what any scientific theory is. The theory of evolution is universally accepted by the scientific community (which includes creationists who aren't stubbornly ignorant, assuming you can accept the fact that "creation" can have a different definition than the one you have). The theory of evolution, like electromagnetic theory, the theory of gravitation, the germ theory of disease, cell theory, the heliocentric theory, the atomic theory of matter, and so forth, is accepted fact until some new discovery may call for the need to alter it.

A simple Google search of key terms I provided will give you plenty of additional information, and just searching Google Scholar with the same terms will give you more research articles than you would be able to read on months, assuming you could start to digest the language. Of course, I could just be part of a massive conspiracy trying to fool the world. The very technology used in a computer or in making most of the processed food and produce found at a supermarket may not be the result of science and the scientific process, but instead of a mixture of dreams, wishes, and sparkling pile of unicorn SPORE. Not that you will look any of this up anyway.

Just because you lack the will or ability to think does not change the facts of reality.

-------------

Short answers this time, since detailed ones don't seem to register that well.

1) Bacteria do things similar to eukaryotic sexual reproduction using things analogous to eukaryotic chromosomes.

2) Chemistry.

3) HOX genes do cool things like tell an embryo how many arms to grow and where to grow them.

4) Yup, and that's why no one is saying that gills turned into lungs. Though all you need for simple gas exchange is a wet membrane with almost direct access to a circulatory system.



]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857242.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857242.page GMT
Now, don't go giving me a lecture on fossils. I am aware that many fossils exist which are taken to be evolutionary transition states. I am aware of the general idea behind dating techniques. But keep in mind that evidence pieced together from fossils is like a jigsaw puzzle made from only a few parts. It can give you a general picture, but you can't be absolutely certain unless you have all the pieces of a whole scene.

As for dating techniques, they generally assume conditions to be mostly the same now as they were then (same radioisotopes levels, same geological behaviours, etc.). This is fine if you assume the Earth to be four billion years old, created by natural processes. However, consider this, if the Earth was only made, for example, 6000 years ago, by artificial means, then this could throw things out. Carbon dating would be inaccurate until carbon-14 develops to present levels and descends from the upper atmosphere, getting results from further in the past than was the reality. The process of making the Earth could produce unexpected changes in soil layering. And other radioactive elements may be different to expected. In some creation accounts (at least one, which to be honest is as many as I know in detail), the Earth is described to exist as an empty world beforehand, which could explain the presence of 4 billion year old uranium deposits.

Of course, nobody can confirm any of this either way, because nobody today was there. Even if it is possible for us to originate without any external assistance, that does not mean we did. We won't know unless we get a first-hand witness. We can simply make educated guesses.


Clearly this argument is aggravating the both of us to varying degrees. But I would like to thank you for the chance to learn a bit more about my point of view and refine it, learning what arguments are flimsy and, hopefully, find arguments which do have a hint of substance. A lot of this is me pondering and extrapolating what I know in a logical manner. This means most shortfalls in my points are representative of gaps in my knowledge, gaps of which I am generally grateful to have filled. I also do not intend to make anyone angry or upset, although I accidentally do so from time to time. Each time I learn a bit more about how not to do it again. I am sure that you would have experienced the process of learning, with its trial and error, many times before. Sometimes one just has to put themselves out there, or else they won't ever grow.


P.S. Just noticed your post there, Triop. Thank you for giving me a calmer, and still knowledgeable, response.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857263.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857263.page GMT
If you applied the same logic to the theory of gravity as you do to the theory of evolution, you would be saying: "Yes, this ball falls to the ground as you predicted, but you have no way of proving that the ball featured in this cave painting would have fallen with a comparable acceleration to the earth. Since there is no way to test the drop of that ball, the theory, as it stands, is mere speculation that can't be trusted. Instead, here is my modified theory of gravitation where each object at any given time may exhibit different properties of matter and the fact that they all currently act as predicted says nothing at all about gravity as a force as a whole. Furthermore, this theory is correct because it can never be proven wrong." Then again, I don't think you really would have much of an issue with this based on what you've been saying...

All of the evidence for the theory of gravitation is completely inferential. From a theoretical standpoint, physics is on far more shaky ground than evolution. We don't know what causes gravity, we just know that it seems to be a property of matter and that it is extremely weak to other forces that act similarly at atomic levels (the four fundamental forces). The reason most people don't use gravity as a point of argument is because the observed effects of gravity are taken for granted and are easily observed by simply existing. No need for a microscope or assays or cell cultures or genetic markers or PCR. And if you want to debate the nitty gritty details, you need to have a very strong understanding of physics and a multibillion dollar particle collider rather than be able to look at a chimp and go: "but this doesn't look like a person at all."

I'm sure you've completely missed the greater point of what I've been trying to do, so I will attempt to explain as directly as I can.

No one (worth arguing with) will ever be able to argue any point with you, whether it's science, theology, or philosophy and get anywhere since you do not have an internally consistent system of logic. This isn't a matter of my system differing from your system: it's a matter of you not having a system that you can abide by yourself. That, and not your examples themselves, is what's really broken here. Until you figure out what I mean by this, you won't be refining a single thing in your argument.

The reason I singled you out is that you are dangerously confident in the fragmented body of knowledge you posses and because you seem more capable than most other posters here to process what I say at any level. Aggravating people is a fantastic way to get them engaged. Cardickid aggravated Ashkelon enough to even make her ghost appear and post in the science section.

Ashkelon went for as direct a route as possible, but that isn't engaging enough for most people to possibly spark introspection, analysis, or change.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857267.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857267.page GMT

But if you don't mind me asking, out of curiosity, and as these points have remained unanswered thus far:

How does a gill turn into an ear (as Triop mentioned)?

And how does a virus turn into a cell?

And I will comment that not [i]everybody[/i] in the scientific community agrees with evolution in its entirety. Simply the majority.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857297.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857297.page GMT
2) Viruses have a huge amount of variety. While most viruses look very different morphologically from cells, there are some viruses that really blur the line between what is considered a living cell and what is considered a non-living virus. There isn't a consensus on whether viral or simple cellular life arose first, though viruses as we know them currently are parasitic to varying degrees and need living cells to proliferate. Mimiviridae blur the line though as they can be massive in size and very complex with features that are found in living cells. ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857301.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857301.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857302.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857302.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857303.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857303.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857344.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857344.page GMT
No.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857353.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857353.page GMT

But if you don't mind me asking, out of curiosity, and as these points have remained unanswered thus far:

How does a gill turn into an ear (as Triop mentioned)?

And how does a virus turn into a cell?

And I will comment that not [i]everybody[/i] in the scientific community agrees with evolution in its entirety. Simply the majority.[/quote]
It appears that we need to remind ourselves the very basics of evolution, via natural selection.

The evolution of a species occurs when a mutation deemed beneficial to the animal in question. Beneficial traits allow these animals to live longer and let them live long enough to pass on these beneficial traits to their offspring. Taking into account that there is, on average, at least five-hundred thousand to at least a million of each species on the planet. Detrimental mutations can cause the animal to die or get killed. Alternatively, the scenario could be that they are slowly being killed off, detrimental mutation or not. Once the beneficial mutation gets around that allows them to survive while the rest are dying, that is natural selection. A good example of this would be the rattlesnakes, which we are hunting and killing to endangerment. Snakes that don't rattle are more likely to live than snakes that do rattle. Thus we are approaching an age where rattlesnakes don't rattle as much as they did fifty years ago.

That's a very simple example of evolution: drastic changes in evolution occurs over a long period of time such as your [i]so aptly described[/i] case of "gills turning into ears". It's not that simple. If beneficial traits allow fish to survive on land for a long enough time, to the extent of surviving being beached (whether it be because of a slimy, filmy oil that keeps them hydrating or something) while the rest die, that trait can be inherited. Of course, more challenges would present themselves in the future where perhaps they'd need a trait to absorb more air. Whatever. Anything that can help them survive. Natural selection hold the stepping stones to evolution.

That being said, no, it's not as caveman as "gills turning into ears".

tl;dr, fish goes on land, grows lungs and gills fall off.

It's where seashells come from.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857413.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857413.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857548.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857548.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857559.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857559.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857564.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857564.page GMT
Or if you buy that brand new Subaru with flames crawling down the sides to replace that old SPORE car you got at a used car dealership. You scrap the old one, and play around with your new badass toy. It's about the same thing.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857569.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857569.page GMT
What the SPORE are you talking about.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857588.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857588.page GMT
I should grab some food. Getting cranky.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857601.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857601.page GMT
I should grab some food. Getting cranky.[/quote]

No one puts flames on a Subaru, ever.

And your dumbed down analogy is crappy and doesn't make much sense at all.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857615.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857615.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857621.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857621.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857670.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857670.page GMT
And we don't exchange our appendix for spare parts.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857704.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857704.page GMT With modern medicine and everything, it may eventually become unnecessary. But as of the fairly recent past, it's by no means an unneeded organ.
Just to throw that out.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857717.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857717.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857742.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857742.page GMT
What exactly do you base this on?

]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857834.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857834.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857849.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857849.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857854.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857854.page GMT
Last I checked the magic of modern medicine hasn't been able to prevent people from getting nasty food poisoning while gastrointestinal flora still serve as a strong protective factor.

Just because something shrinks doesn't necessarily make it useless. ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857862.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857862.page GMT
Gradually.

Gradually.

Letting the meaning of that word to sink in for a moment...]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857978.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857978.page GMT
If you really wanted to make a point about the possible vestigial nature of the appendix, you could've taken all of five seconds on Wikipedia and followed a link to an actual research paper.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.21357/abstract;jsessionid=468874E9D03EA4A39F6A88F3053BA5EE.d02t01

Oh no. Where did that come from? I think it's trying to say something. What's that? The appendix may hold certain important gastrointestinal flora, but is less useful in developed countries? Your point is valid, but how you arrived there is not. You may as well have said "Elephants are getting smaller; that means they are gradually becoming obsolete."

Oh, Didzo's point is also valid. However, he arrived there with facts.

In the future, please look before you leap.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857983.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857983.page GMT
In any case, it's nice to see you've come to play too Blackbird - albeit, you came with typical butt lovins.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857988.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857988.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857996.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857996.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857998.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3857998.page GMT
Then you wouldn't mind picking up my soap, would you?

The inherent problem in most of the genetic/evolutionary posts I've read here is they try to discuss single genes (or traits) in a complex organism in isolation. Obviously they are concomitant and can't be discussed in singularity. The same mutation that allows a longer beak may also result in keratin overgrowth in other structures like nails and feathers, disrupting the ability to perch or fly. This might be of no consequence to the bird, or may be detrimental. And there's the problem of a small enough gene pool to allow any trait (no matter how advantageous) to be fixed.

I'm not picking on anyone here, but it's easy to draw bad conclusions about the mechanism of a gene (or trait) without a broader approach to the organism as a whole.

]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3858041.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3858041.page GMT We arrived here because I brought up that if aliens are to exist then there has to exist a functional and likely mechanism for their origin, and the ease with which this mechanism works determines the number of aliens in existence. After an extended argument about how inanimate molecules could eventually form cells, biochemistry turned to evolution and here we are now.

Wandering topics make things much more interesting in this section. And discussions on aliens had reached the end of their usefulness in this thread.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3858048.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3858048.page GMT

Personally, I do think they're real, when I was younger, I used to engage in these forums a lot preaching about my opinion, if you'd like to see my statements, you can look at my old posts, but my grammar wasn't the best, but it's readable... I think

There are lots of statistics, information, documentaries about Aliens, but the statement I always use to backup my belief is "Why do they keep Area 51 private? Why do you never hear about the new technology they use?"

I believe in Aliens, alien abduction, the grays, etc. I used to do a lot of research on it awile back, I actually found a database on it awile back, it wasn't special, just a bunch of documents, it of course, was public, anyone could read it, but since it was a LONG time ago, I cannot remember the link, I think I got it from a code, which I put into google.

But enough of me, let us see how this discussion goes ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3858257.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3858257.page GMT
1. Military base
2. Prototypes/use by enemies*

It's pretty simple. You can't just walk into a military base.

*Some of these things you do hear about--the SR-71 Blackbird, for example.

[img]https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQchzOJnoWMs4cOfF8io8NZdAvRqY_YWOMHqN8StNpLjYj6OwhUcQ[/img]

Etc. etc. etc.

There are plenty of reasons to believe alien life exists in the universe. I think Area 51 is a pretty silly one though.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3858259.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3858259.page GMT
Area 51 is in the middle of a suburb now, and shares access roads with the housing developments. It's not exactly isolated in the middle of the desert. ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3858274.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3858274.page GMT This sign can now be finished.
[img]http://blog-imgs-49.fc2.com/t/w/i/twinsmuscle/rachelsign.jpg[/img]
When I was here last summer, I should have brought a sharpie and fixed it. Humans: 98. Aliens: [u]None[/u]]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3858281.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3858281.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3858320.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3858320.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3858560.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3858560.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3858597.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3858597.page GMT
But that's just what you believe.

]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3858602.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3858602.page GMT
But that's just what you believe.

[/quote]

Everybody's gotta have somethin', you know?]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3858604.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3858604.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3858656.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3858656.page GMT
Nope. No more ley lines, crop circles and pictographs.

Now it's just "I believe because..." followed by "no empirical data...".]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3858675.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3858675.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3858789.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/77722/3858789.page GMT