Poll: Do you support evolution?

[theultimateend]

I'm a bit saddened that this is really a contest. The evidence is clearly in favour of evolution. I say this as a Christian.

So yes, Chalk me up as one for team science I guess.

I do find it strange that a topic that can be explained in a matter of minutes is so hotly debated.

At the basic functional level it is anything but complicated.

Certainly, just as every sensible person, regardless of religion, does. Straight up, if you don't believe in evolution you're not bring sensible, and that's not a controversial statement. In fact this thread almost has no discussion value, really.

Yes.

 

[Yopaz]

Snip for zero understanding of evolution

there is no macro/micro divide.
we have forced your "macro" evolution, we've seen fruit flies evolve over the space of months, or is that still too "micro" for you, fish evolve in response to pollution, moths evolve to change color when air quality changes the color of the trees they rest on.

there is no "devolve", this isn't fucking digimon. a species changes, it does not necessarily improve.

Actually there is a divide between macro and microevolution, but there's some disagreement in how it should be defined.. Microevolution is usually used with subtle changes which might lead to macroevolution while in some cases it is believed to be a result of punctuated equilibrium (stasis followed by rapid change). Common example when it comes to microevolution leading to macroevolution is the evolution of the eye types around.

Also moths don't evolve to change colour in response to the environment. There needs to be moths with the specific colour scheme (or moths with seasonal changes as a part of their genes). The moths that have the advantageous phenotype will grow in numbers due to natural selection.

you people irritate me, i wish you would actually read on a subject before pretending you know about it.

I'd like this part of your comment to be singled out for the hilarity of it.

 

[ShutUpJames]

there are practical issues with atheism (you can either delude yourself into thinking life has meaning and thus there's a point to scientific inquiry, or be a nihilist and spend the rest of your life contemplating suicide).

it's impossible to live happily and consistently as an atheist

So what you're saying is that you can't be happy, unless you believe life has a purpose. But you also can't choose your own purpose and anyone who thinks they can is simply lying to themselves... Riiiiiight.

Way I see it is that religion can teach you how to find meaning in life, how to be happy, how to be a good and moral person, but it is NOT a prerequisite for any of those things. Happiness is not a rollercoaster with a sign up front that says "You must be at least this spiritual to ride."

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

1. Okay, so obviously I agree with "micro-evolution". I can see the small scale changes happening and species diverging and resistances appearing and the like. This is all adequately shown in numerous experiments and in human farming activities since forever. These processes exist and enable creatures to adapt to their environment or at least stop dying to it.

2. This is due to two reasons, first that from what I see today in large scale experiments (farming, pet breeding, etc) is that captive populations are most likely to devolve rather than evolve. They move to a smaller genetic base in response to outside stress and become weaker for it.

3.Second, in mathematical models, given an arbitrary gene injection rate into any given population of individuals regulated by some outside environmental function, one of two things happen. Either the population perfects itself to the local maxima (through micro-evolution) and never changes enough to benefit from other local maxima the environment presents (no macro) or the injection rate is too high and the population never stabilises, so instead of becoming fit for the environment the constant changing of their genome makes them unfit for everything.

4.Also "macro-evolution" is inherently untestable. Every prediction it makes into the future within a reasonable timescale will not differ from what we see in "micro-evolution". We will see species adapt to the environment as per usual, but we are not going to see the largescale physiological changes within our lifetime. We have the fossil record, but unless we're going to properly map out ancestry by pulling DNA from the bones (and thus voiding their supposed age), all we have are speculations based on similarities in bone structure backed up by guessed dates which are verified by the bones which are verified by the guessed dates. In any case, it would be nice for "macro-evolution" to make some predictions which we could go ahead and verify instead of hiding behind long time frames that we cannot ever test over.

5. It would also be nice if "macro-evolution" had a concrete starting point for life. But again, "macro-evolution" is untestable. So if we do find some way of kick-starting life naturally, even if in the most contrived and unlikely manner, "macro-evolution" will latch onto it as "proof", whereas there is no fail condition and never finding an appropriate starting point for life will just be down to lazy scientists.

1. The only difference between micro and macro evolution is time. Its in the name itself. If species adapt, and species can become separated geographically, those species will take different routes for different environments. Eventually they will be very different to eachother. Thats evolution.

2. Devolution isnt a word. Evolution isnt creatures becoming "Bigger" or "Better" its surviving. Wolves for example became weaker and friendlier when some individuals realised leeching from human colonies was easier and more secure than hunting. Humans were more likely to allow small friendly wolves nearer the camp and let them have scraps. These wolves survived without having to chase anything or hunt properly. Not to mention selective breeding isnt about "improving" the animal for the animals sake, its about making it better for US. So of course it might become worse at surviving but thats because we have artificially ruined it.

3. Those mathematical models are less than worthless and im kinda saddened it isnt obvious to you. Why? Because in the real world the environment changes. In the real world you have predators, competition from outside a species and competition within a species AND adaptation from within the plants themselves. In the real world there is no "Peak" because circumstances change a LOT. The world changes, weather changes, climate changes, the predator hunting you gets faster or smarter, the plants being eaten gets tougher or climbs higher and the other species competing with you get better at getting the resources before you can. All of this means you cannot reach a peak. Its a race with no finish line since ALL contestants AND the finish line are constantly redefining the race. And if for some reason a species DOES become VERY successful suddenly its over populated. You have too many individuals for the currently available resources. So some need to move or die. And if they move to a place they cannot or probably wont return from evolution can occur. Humans evolved from apes who lived in forests, however our ancestors moved to the savannah probably to escape from this kind of over population and we adapted for that environment instead, which is why there are differences. Its more effective to try and eat the food no one else is trying to eat. Every niche will get filled over time.

4. The fossil record is far more accurate than you say. Heres a pattern for you (THANKS QUAXAR!)

Its damn good. Not to mention carbon dating is far more accurate than you say it is. There are challenges yes, if a mineral has changed form or been damaged and such it makes the dating incorrect. And MANY creationists would have you believe that, somehow, the experts in this field are TOTALLY unaware of this and someone with no training at all can spot it easily while they cannot. But of course they are, its told to them on day ONE of their training how to overcome this. You can examine the crystalline structure of a mineral before you carbon date it to know its past, if it HAS changed form or been melted and when. This is standard procedure and carbon dating is only used on samples that past muster. People are rigorous. They WANT to date things properly. If you find an issue with how they do it they will fix it or spend their lives trying. And they did fix it.

Theres also more biological proofs. Like retro viral DNA which is a prediction evolution makes. A retro virus inserts DNA into your cells where virus's are produced. If during this time the infected cell is a testicle cell or an ovary cell your children get the viral DNA in their DNA forever. And so will their children. It wont DO anything but its an easy marker of inactive non human DNA. Humans have 7 as a species ALL shared from when our population was low 7 times and an individual got the virus. The further away a relative is the less viral DNA they have in common with us and visa versa. The chimp and gorilla have the exact same 7 we do. Orangs have 4. The smaller great apes have less. This matches predictions about the tree of life.

5. MY FAVOURITE! WE DO! WE DO WE DO WE DO! And i LOVE it. MANY experiments have been done to show how the buildings blocks for life spring from non life. Amazingly, and this is awesome proof, if you take ancient earths atmosphere, add water and add electricity (lightning) you get DNA and amino acids forming. Its true, heres the test to prove it, it has been repeated time and time again. What a MASSIVE coincidence that when evolution predicts life arose the atmosphere has the PERFECT conditions to form biological matter from non living matter. The two match perfectly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

Its called abiogenesis. Its a very well understood area and the evidence supports it being possible. Hell in a single human lifetime we made DNA and amino acids from a random process. True, in real life it took millions of years for life to pop up in these conditions because these building blocks need to interact JUST right to make it so but its proof it could most certainly happen. The scientists did all the work and all you had to do was google it. Who was lazy again?

 

[EclipseoftheDarkSun]

Theistic Evolutionism: because there are practical issues with atheism (you can either delude yourself into thinking life has meaning and thus there's a point to scientific inquiry, or be a nihilist and spend the rest of your life contemplating suicide), time is relative, and why would God have removed any doubt of His existence by spoiling hundreds of years of research anyway? Giving Moses a simplified version of events makes a great test of faith, too.

Before I get replies from butthurt, "hail science" militant atheist types, think about why Nietzsche and Sartre were opposed to German anti-semitism, or why Richard Dawkins wrote his own Ten Commandments, all while preaching that morality, good and evil, don't exist and that people shouldn't act like they do.

Short version: it's impossible to live happily and consistently as an atheist, but evolution is fact. Therefore, theistic evolutionism is the best way to reconcile fact with truth.

Well, your post was a great joke. As an atheist, I have no problem with evolution at all. And the phrase 'The best way to reconcile fact with truth.' makes no sense whatsoever, since facts have to be true to be accurately described as facts, otherwise they'd be called fiction. The imperfection of the human body and human behavior relative to some body and behavior ideal speaks volumes for the idea that we evolved - lower back pain is a dead giveaway and fits with the idea of us coming down from the trees as well as the tailbone, obviously a holdover from our ancestors having tails etc etc. The idea of God is just another manifestation of people coming up with theories before facts are considered, rather than the reverse which makes far more sense. Coupling this with politics of course - telling people what to do based on your own pet theories of morality. Evolution doesn't need the intervention of a supernatural being (that's the difference between natural selection by the environment/other species vs artificial selection e.g. humans breeding dog and cat subspecies). Morality exists in our great ape cousins, you should learn about them before you claim that religion is where it comes from.

 

[EclipseoftheDarkSun]

Also moths don't evolve to change colour in response to the environment. There needs to be moths with the specific colour scheme (or moths with seasonal changes as a part of their genes). The moths that have the advantageous phenotype will grow in numbers due to natural selection.

Bzzt! Wrong. Evolution consists of natural variation in offspring coupled with natural selection for those that best fit the environment/interact with other organisms in that environment. What you just described *IS* evolution.

Variation in moths. Natural selection for those moths that best fit the environment who go on to have offspring that are more likely to be like their parents. The gene pool (of the species/pool of organisms) has thus shuffled. That's evolution.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Theistic Evolutionism: because there are practical issues with atheism (you can either delude yourself into thinking life has meaning and thus there's a point to scientific inquiry, or be a nihilist and spend the rest of your life contemplating suicide), time is relative, and why would God have removed any doubt of His existence by spoiling hundreds of years of research anyway? Giving Moses a simplified version of events makes a great test of faith, too.

Short version: it's impossible to live happily and consistently as an atheist, but evolution is fact. Therefore, theistic evolutionism is the best way to reconcile fact with truth.

Oh dear. You think only militant atheists will be offended by the statement "YOURE NOT HAPPY! AND IF YOU ARE YOURE A LIAR! BE SAD YOU LYING FILTH!"? Its a liiiiiiiittle inflammatory. Maybe? Perhaps? Anyway.

I dont give a fuck about this dawkins bloke or anything he has to say. Period. I dont want to think about why he does the things he does because the best thing about atheism is my beliefs are my own. What another atheist thinks about atheism doesnt matter to me in the slightest.

The point of scientific enquiry is to make me happy and make others around me happy using those advances which in turn makes me happy. I enjoy learning. I like discovery. Im not particularly sure WHY but i do. So I get involved. I also like helping people and seeing them happy. Inventing and helping people with science makes people happy. So I'm going to be a doctor (WHOOO MED SCHOOL IN A MONTH ). Im happy. Im consistant. There isnt a "Point" in the sense that there is an objective point but i dont need or want one. The fact that making others happy makes me happy is also why im moral.

If the great apes manage to be happy without god so can I XD My dog manages it too. Its hardly difficult. They also both manage fairly easily to be moral. Its not a great task to manage both without religion. And you claiming that it is amuses me. You cant rationalise the world as well as my dog? Nice one. If animals can do it why cant i? They are happy and moral atheists. Im a happy and moral atheist.

Im happy and consistent >

 

[EclipseoftheDarkSun]

Which is because we're social animals, not because God created us and dictated a moral code.

 

[EstrogenicMuscle]

Nah, I defy evolution with my sexuality. By finding pretty much none of the things people tell me I was supposed to have evolved to find attractive, as attractive. That's what people keep telling me at least.

"Ewww you don't think that girls with anything lower that DD breasts are attractive, you're going against millions of years of evolution, you're a genetic failure! You're a beta! You're objectively unattractive! You're failed selection! Your genes don't belong in the pool!"

Said Evo. Psych enthusiast 9001.

No, seriously, I believe in evolution. Doesn't everyone who isn't certifiably crazy, like evangelical Christians?
Anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is being completely and utterly ridiculous and is what is making people like me lose faith in humanity. Anyone who doesn't believe in evolution needs to read a book and get educated. Because not believing in evolution is just like believing that the world is flat. Full stop.

My opinion on evolutionary psychology is a bit different, though. In fact, I'm pretty skeptical of a lot of psychology in general. Psychology as a whole is a very flawed field. You'd think that bringing science into the matter like evolution would immediately help matters. But it's not, it's making things worse. It's a fledgling science with loads and loads of racist and sexists putting in their opinion that because something is seen in society, it must be neurological. So many unsubstantiated claims, it's unreal. It's like they took the scientific concept of evolution and put everything bad about the field of psychology in there.

People who take very seriously most of the claims made in the field need to be aware that neurology has a long way to go to verifying these hypotheses. And, to put it frankly speaking, most evolutionary psychologists are talking completely out of their ass.

If you thought that Satoshi Kanazawa had particularly uncommon views within the area of evolutionary psychology and was an outlier, you'd be wrong.

 

[MiskWisk]

Short version: it's impossible to live happily and consistently as an atheist, but evolution is fact. Therefore, theistic evolutionism is the best way to reconcile fact with truth.

I personally live quite happily and consistently as an atheist and you have just stated that your opinion is incontrovertible fact, backed up by your opinion.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

I think we should focus on supporting gravity instead because if this thing doesn't get enough support, we are all fucked.

 

[Joccaren]

I believe in neither. 'Believe' implies some level of faith, implies that I do not know which is correct and which isn't but I have chosen anyway. This is not true.

I'm under the similar way of thinking.

But my conclusion is - who cares how the world was created? Has it not occurred to people that, seeing as we don't naturally, instinctively know the reason, we're not supposed to know or care about the how or why?

I wouldn't go so far as we're not supposed to now, more that we don't really need to know. Its not relevant to this day and age, beyond knowledge seeking. There are a few things we could learn from it, and it would probably help us better understand and model the universe, but our time would be better spent looking at what there is now, and how to manipulate that, then looking at the exact details of how it all began.

 

[Chromatic Aberration]

The idea that the speed of light is a local constant would lend to some examples like that being basically useful. Any variances would be small enough to be inconsistent. But this would certainly explain why I didn't have a ton of coursework that used the constant.

Eh? The light speed in vacuum is not only a local constant - it's a basic one. All of todays physics builds upon the idea that the speed of light is a fundamental constant. In fact, the observation (for instance seen in the Michelson-Morley experiment from 1887) that the
speed of light is constant even though one moves (which should change the speed relative to you) forms the backbone on which special
(and by extension, general relativity, too) is build.

Granted, there are theories which predict that some of the most fundamental constants aren't constants but change slightly on cosmic timescales. For all intents and purposes, however, current physics rests upon the assumption that those are indeed constant - and this also includes general relativity which explains for instance why light can be bend by gravitational effects and somesuch.

As an addition, I recalled that you can indeed also write your energy-dispersion E = \sqrt{(m_0 c^2)^2 + (pc)^2} in the form E = mc^2. The crucial point is that in this case the mass m is not the rest mass m_0 of the particle but m = m_0 * gamma where gamma is the gamma factor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_factor] known from special relativity that includes the relative speed of what you are looking at to the speed of light. So you can write the energy in the short form if you are careful what you mean with the mass here.

Not to mention the entropy rule is only correct in a closed system.

A nitpick: what you are talking about is an isolated system. In physics one usually differentiates between,

Isolated systems: No energy and particle exchange with the environment
Closed systems: No particle exchange with the environment
Open systems: Both energy and particle exchange with the environment

Just to make sure you use the right terminology

Again, I am not into quantum theory. They use the word "created" but then they also use "implications" which I take to mean that it's not scientific fact. There is sort of a mystic quality to the last observation that I appreciate. Perhaps science will prove this to be completely false. I simply can't look at this information without being "affected" or with a "heart of stone" or "like a machine spitting out answers to questions" as though the topic of the universe is vapid (again, I'm referring Charles Darwin).

Quantum theory is a complicated mess. There are various interpretations to what the stuff that the math says actually means. Suffice to say, though, the effects you cited - virtual particle production through the energy time uncertainty, the vacuum not as an empty void but a boiling sea of virtual particles - is sort of a basic phenomenological interpretation to explain stuff that happens when you couple Quantum Theory with Special Relativity in the Quantum Field Theories that form the backbone of elementary particle physics today.

So while there is considerable freedom in trying to find out what the math means it's very much certain that predictions build upon it work. For instance, the transistors in your computer were in essence build upon predictions from Quantum Mechanics.

I agree that the OP is blatantly biased, but wow this is great information! You know, the carbon dating thing has always been "accepted" as not 100% accurate. I wasn't thinking about that...

I'd be careful with that. It seems to be a common argument to from the creationist sides to push their own agenda by making up shit that supposedly disproves "carbon dating" and somesuch. Bassik a geologist had, to my knowledge, wrote some interesting posts to disprove some of those claims back in the day - most notably that some specific dating techniques which where never meant to be applied to larger timescales don't work on those scales, implying that others don't work, too which is obviously a fallacy.

EDIT: Also BrassButtons is correct with regards to the post you quoted. Be very careful about what it says.

 

[Chromatic Aberration]

Theistic Evolutionism: because there are practical issues with atheism (you can either delude yourself into thinking life has meaning and thus there's a point to scientific inquiry, or be a nihilist and spend the rest of your life contemplating suicide)...

...or, you know, just don't care and derive some simple pleasure from the fact that people are happy by improving their lives with the things science offers, like you know, not dying a gruesome death by the hands of some cruel disease or having to scavenge for food all day, or being torn apart by a wild predator...that kind of stuff

----think about why Nietzsche and Sartre were opposed to German anti-semitism...

Nietzsches relation with anti-semitism was a complex one and cannot readily be reduced to being opposed to it. It's sadly a bit more complicated and keep in mind that he went insane already as early as 1889 which was quiet a time before things...errr....got out of hand...

Short version: it's impossible to live happily and consistently as an atheist...

Pfffffffffff...bwwwwhahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahahahhahahaaha!

Reading serious threads in OT is sometimes so much fun.....

 

[Sizzle Montyjing]

It's not a question of belief.
It's not even a question.
Evolution is just correct.

 

[Yopaz]

Also moths don't evolve to change colour in response to the environment. There needs to be moths with the specific colour scheme (or moths with seasonal changes as a part of their genes). The moths that have the advantageous phenotype will grow in numbers due to natural selection.

Bzzt! Wrong. Evolution consists of natural variation in offspring coupled with natural selection for those that best fit the environment/interact with other organisms in that environment. What you just described *IS* evolution.

Variation in moths. Natural selection for those moths that best fit the environment who go on to have offspring that are more likely to be like their parents. The gene pool (of the species/pool of organisms) has thus shuffled. That's evolution.

Yes, what I described is evolution I never claimed it wasn't.

I merely claimed that this was wrong.

moths evolve to change color when air quality changes the color of the trees they rest on.

This is wrong because they don't evolve to change their colour. The colour is already present, but due to natural selection the phenotype will increase in that population. This is evolution, your way of putting it is wrong.
You put it in a way that made it seem like evolution has a purpose rather than using it as an explanation of why things are. That is in fact one of the biggest misconceptions in evolution.

You clearly don't know evolution as well as you think you do, yet you have the audacity to tell others they have no right to speak unless they read up on it... I'll leave it at that.

 

[Trull]

check out dis opinion, yo.
I believe in god; and I believe one of the ways god exists is within energy. So, using this, the whole 'Gamma Ray Evolution' theory makes sense and supports both theories.

Otherwise, I could believe in the whole prometheus approach.

 

[Quaxar]

WHOOO MED SCHOOL IN A MONTH

What kind of weird Med School starts in August? Are you sure you didn't enrol in a homeopath summer academy by accident?

Also, concerning your last post:
"if you take ancient earths atmosphere, add water and add electricity (lightning) you get DNA and amino acids forming"
Is there a Miller-Urey recreation I haven't heard of that produced actual DNA and not just amino acids? I know the Yanagawa experiment was quite successful with increased earth conditions but while one of my lectures mentioned (or just badly formatted the text possibly) proto-cells I am a bit confused. Especially since I can't really verify it without a source where I don't have to pay 30 quid for the paper.
So far I can only confirm that they had an impressive amount of several amino acids using the <url=http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01808270>Springer version's preview function and changing the number of the <url=http://link.springer.com/static-content/lookinside/362/art%253A10.1007%252FBF01808270/001.png>preview .png from 001 to anywhere between 002 and 010. You'd think a big company like Springer would not let you do that but good for me I guess.

even they I can only find several amino acids (although qute an impressive amount), although since it's apparently impossible

snip

Suspicion turning to hope of confirmation. Seriously, some of these arguments are Hovind or Comfort level ignorance and I just can't believe in the time of Wikipedia anyone would still believe this crap about circular dating and "devolution".

We have the fossil record, but unless we're going to properly map out ancestry by pulling DNA from the bones (and thus voiding their supposed age), all we have are speculations based on similarities in bone structure backed up by guessed dates which are verified by the bones which are verified by the guessed dates.

DNA isn't magic, it's an organic compound susceptible to extreme temperatures and pH and in an environment full of microorganisms, as such it has an expiration date of around half a million years. That is why we have cells, because DNA needs a very precise environment to function.
And btw most fossils aren't bones any more, they are literally turned to stone, which makes it not easier to find DNA. And even then bones only really caught on with vertebrates, which are a mere 525 million years old, evolving during the Cambrian explosion. Most other bodily materials don't fossilize very well, which is why a lot of fossils are trace fossils, imprints of a dead creature or something left by them inside a material that later hardened, like mud or volcanic ash (for example the Footprints of Laetoli, <url=http://www.getty.edu/conservation/our_projects/field_projects/laetoli/images/laetoli3_2.jpg>exellently preserved 3.6mya old ash prints of an adult and a child Australopithecus afarensis <url=http://www.getty.edu/conservation/our_projects/field_projects/laetoli/images/laetoli1_2.jpg>walking on two legs side by side) or resin fossils (think of the mosquito from Jurassic Park).

It would also be nice if "macro-evolution" had a concrete starting point for life. But again, "macro-evolution" is untestable. So if we do find some way of kick-starting life naturally, even if in the most contrived and unlikely manner, "macro-evolution" will latch onto it as "proof", whereas there is no fail condition and never finding an appropriate starting point for life will just be down to lazy scientists.

So, yes Science is great. But Evolution is not science, as it does not inform us and thus cannot be disproven. Maybe when we have a collective data base of a million generations then we can look at this argument again and see whether the data shows trends of macro-evolution, but at the moment this just isn't possible.

I just have to ask you at this point... are you Kent Hovind?

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

[
What kind of weird Med School starts in August? Are you sure you didn't enrol in a homeopath summer academy by accident?

Also, concerning your last post:
"if you take ancient earths atmosphere, add water and add electricity (lightning) you get DNA and amino acids forming"
Is there a Miller-Urey recreation I haven't heard of that produced actual DNA and not just amino acids? I know the Yanagawa experiment was quite successful with increased earth conditions but while one of my lectures mentioned (or just badly formatted the text possibly) proto-cells I am a bit confused. Especially since I can't really verify it without a source where I don't have to pay 30 quid for the paper.
So far I can only confirm that they had an impressive amount of several amino acids using the <url=http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01808270>Springer version's preview function and changing the number of the <url=http://link.springer.com/static-content/lookinside/362/art%253A10.1007%252FBF01808270/001.png>preview .png from 001 to anywhere between 002 and 010. You'd think a big company like Springer would not let you do that but good for me I guess.

Ah crap two months :C Im way off base. Whoops!

I know that adenine can be produced in a hydrogen-cyanide/ammonia solution with a similar set up, so we definitely have nucleotide action. I THINK it was Joan Oro who did this. At least thats what my notes say. Heres the address ive linked in also in my notes (I love my notes). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0003986161900339. Its also on pubmed, the ID is 13731263. I think i was stretching to say DNA but hell it technically counts.

I dont know about Cytosine, Guanine, Thymine and Uracil but the existence of adenine alone is definitely a good sign for discovering perhaps the natural pathways toward the other nucleotides. A few interesting hypotheses im reading about involve the use of a reduced amount of amino acids in the first proto cell with an expanding amount as time went on. This would mean that the amino acids we have found in the primordial soup experiments might give us an idea of the structure of the proto cell even though they are not identical to the amino acids life is dependent on today.

Im particularly interested in if we find that Uracil is easier or in fact possible to synthesize in an ancient earth environment. If it is and we find Thymine impossible/harder it may indicate the first proto cells only had RNA and DNA developed later. Which is an extremely interesting debate. Im fascinated by the make up of the first proto cell.

 

[Ponyboy]

the water/ snow did not spontaneously develop. Energy was introduced(or is it removed in freezing?) to the H2O, then dissipated, returning to it's natural.