Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Darwin speculated on the origin of life, a speculation backed up with the most profound understanding of life in existance at that time. Today we know a great deal more having built on the foundation that Darwin provided.
We know quite a bit more concerning abiogenisis than you state. From Fox's protocells to the building of complex molecules, even the source of the chirality in the molecules of life, a great deal has been discovered in the last few decades. Of course, we have much yet to discover, but the work is advancing rapidly. And it looks like the question is not what the path was, but which path was taken.
Yes, more like a vine or a bush than a tree. However, that takes absolutely nothing away from the speculations of Charles Darwin. He was far ahead of his time, and his work was absolutely wonderful, whether on finches or worms.
You know what amazes me?
The fact that people who think they know about science can be so completely wrong. Like your assertion that hypermilage techniques only work for ICE, you are demonstrating a complete ignorance of basic science here. There is a significant difference between organic chemistry, which you correctly point out we are making progress in understanding, and abiogenesis. We have solid theories to explain how all the building blocks came to exist, but we have no idea how life started. All we can state for certain is that it did, and that might be nothing more than an illusion.
Perhaps you should take a basic course in electricity, and how an electric motor reacts to load, compared to an ICE.
Yes... DNA is speculation...
I was watching this special on BBC.
It's totally amazing. Especially when it comes to the development of the "eye".
The examples are great and compelling.
Now, what's "odd", BBC listed the program under "religion".
What is especially wonderful is the enormous amount of evidence backing up the "theory".
I was watching this special on BBC.
It's totally amazing. Especially when it comes to the development of the "eye".
The examples are great and compelling.
Now, what's "odd", BBC listed the program under "religion".
What is especially wonderful is the enormous amount of evidence backing up the "theory".
There is a lot of evidence backing up the theory. But there is room for other opinions, still.
I was watching this special on BBC.
It's totally amazing. Especially when it comes to the development of the "eye".
The examples are great and compelling.
Now, what's "odd", BBC listed the program under "religion".
What is especially wonderful is the enormous amount of evidence backing up the "theory".
There is a lot of evidence backing up the theory. But there is room for other opinions, still.
What evidence backs up the "Tree of life?"
Windbag doesn't believe DNA can identify a murder victim or baby's daddy.
---Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life[/url]
I was watching this special on BBC.
It's totally amazing. Especially when it comes to the development of the "eye".
The examples are great and compelling.
Now, what's "odd", BBC listed the program under "religion".
What is especially wonderful is the enormous amount of evidence backing up the "theory".
Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life
I was watching this special on BBC.
It's totally amazing. Especially when it comes to the development of the "eye".
The examples are great and compelling.
Now, what's "odd", BBC listed the program under "religion".
What is especially wonderful is the enormous amount of evidence backing up the "theory".
Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life is a 2009 television documentary about Charles Darwin and his revolutionary theory of evolution through natural selection, produced by the BBC to mark the bicentenary of Darwin's birth. It is part of the BBC Darwin Season. The presenter, David Attenborough, outlines the development of the theory by Darwin through his observations of animals and plants in nature and in the domesticated state, visiting sites important in Darwin's own life, including Down House, Cambridge University and the Natural History Museum, and using archive footage from Attenborough's many nature documentaries for the BBC. He reviews the development of the theory since its beginnings, and its revolutionary impact on the way in which humans view themselves - not as having dominion over the animals as The Bible says, but as part of the natural world and subject to the same controlling forces that govern all life on Earth.
speculation does not disqualify a theory from being scientific if the theory is based in empirical observation. i think evidence and experience does guide darwin's inference and those which are maintained at the cutting edge of issues like abiogenesis.Is it? The idea behind the tree of life is based entirely on speculation.
Is it? As far as I can tell there is science there.
Darwin speculated on a primogenitor that is the source of all life on Earth. Since we know less than nothing about abiogenesis, the entire foundation of the tree of life is speculation. Additionally, most biologists look at life more like a vine than a tree, because the interrelationship between species is a lot more complicated and intertwined than a tree can accurately depict. Would you prefer outdated and obsolete to speculation?
speculation does not disqualify a theory from being scientific if the theory is based in empirical observation. i think evidence and experience does guide darwin's inference and those which are maintained at the cutting edge of issues like abiogenesis.Is it? As far as I can tell there is science there.
Darwin speculated on a primogenitor that is the source of all life on Earth. Since we know less than nothing about abiogenesis, the entire foundation of the tree of life is speculation. Additionally, most biologists look at life more like a vine than a tree, because the interrelationship between species is a lot more complicated and intertwined than a tree can accurately depict. Would you prefer outdated and obsolete to speculation?
isn't your 'less than nothing' speculation?
darwin considered heredity in divining his theories. he used what he did know to inform an idea of where life came from, rather than total biblical conjecture. obviously such is scientific, as there certainly isnt an onus on full understanding of a matter to qualify arguing possibilities concerning it.
Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life
I was watching this special on BBC.
It's totally amazing. Especially when it comes to the development of the "eye".
The examples are great and compelling.
Now, what's "odd", BBC listed the program under "religion".
What is especially wonderful is the enormous amount of evidence backing up the "theory".
Darwin knew less than we do about DNA, and had nothing more than conjecture to base his primogenitor on.
darwin considered heredity in divining his theories. he used what he did know to inform an idea of where life came from, rather than total biblical conjecture. obviously such is scientific, as there certainly isnt an onus on full understanding of a matter to qualify arguing possibilities concerning it.
Really?
Please point to what Darwin said about abiogenesis that is anything like what is known today.
Let me google that for you
Darwin knew less than we do about DNA, and had nothing more than conjecture to base his primogenitor on.
And yet we have genetics today that shows he was right. We can construct genetic trees to determine lineage and branching points.
darwin considered heredity in divining his theories. he used what he did know to inform an idea of where life came from, rather than total biblical conjecture. obviously such is scientific, as there certainly isnt an onus on full understanding of a matter to qualify arguing possibilities concerning it.
Really?
Please point to what Darwin said about abiogenesis that is anything like what is known today.
evolution and abiogenesis are two different things
