Evolution
Out of context: Reply #28
- Started
- Last post
- 85 Responses
- monospaced0
Fuck it. whhipp wants some "scientific evidence" pointing toward how life originated. Before I start to explain, it's important to understand what science is and is not (not talking to those of you who understand the "method"). First, science is not a dogma and does not proclaim truths without proving them; science is a process, a tool for discovery and a process of questioning everything. Right now, science doesn't have "the" answer to how life originated, but it does have HEAPS of evidence pointing toward one, so much so it's silly to discount it. That being said, here's how it works, basically.
All living this are made of organic compounds, which contain the basic element, carbon. Carbon is important because it links together other elements to form complex molecules (water, etc), including amino acids. In DNA, the nucleotide sequence codes for the building of amino acids. Amino acids are important for life because they are the building blocks of protein molecules that make up ALL living organisms.
Then take in the timeframe and the literal "primordial ooze" that covered the planet for billions of years. Then take in all the conditions on this planet and you can see how the majority of all scientists and biologists everywhere pretty much agree that carbon-based life was a direct result of molecules forming and interacting and eventually reproducing (DNA coding). The rest is...history. Done.
- And don't even ask for citations and data. It's in every biology textbook in existence.monospaced
- Don't feel bad if you have to look up the big words. You're not a biologist or anthropologist, neither am I.monospaced
- Here's the very tip of the iceberg of evidence, in condensed form. http://en.wikipedia.…monospaced
- just a tiny bit more of evidence, it's only laughable that you would claim that science has none
http://en.wikipedia.…monospaced - http://en.wikipedia.…monospaced