You seem to be the one who got it wrong:Origin of Life Theory Called Into Question by Volcanic Rock Study
Animals may have emerged under very different conditions.getpocket.com
They have been claiming for hundred years or more life needed oxygen to evolve into complex forms. Turns out they were mostly wrong, Very little oxygen was present when the first complex life forms evolved. If they got that wrong what else have they gotten wrong?
Learn something new every dayOrigin of Life Theory Called Into Question by Volcanic Rock Study
Animals may have emerged under very different conditions.
They have been claiming for hundred years or more life needed oxygen to evolve into complex forms. Turns out they were mostly wrong, Very little oxygen was present when the first complex life forms evolved. If they got that wrong what else have they gotten wrong?
Humans are rookies in the grand time scale. It's natural toOrigin of Life Theory Called Into Question by Volcanic Rock Study
Animals may have emerged under very different conditions.
They have been claiming for hundred years or more life needed oxygen to evolve into complex forms. Turns out they were mostly wrong, Very little oxygen was present when the first complex life forms evolved. If they got that wrong what else have they gotten wrong?
Origin of Life Theory Called Into Question by Volcanic Rock Study
Animals may have emerged under very different conditions.
They have been claiming for hundred years or more life needed oxygen to evolve into complex forms. Turns out they were mostly wrong, Very little oxygen was present when the first complex life forms evolved. If they got that wrong what else have they gotten wrong?
how can you know for sure???
Too bad that life is not made of randomly forming organic compounds. Life is made by organic compounds that are created and organized to do specific jobs by DNAYou seem to be the one who got it wrong:Origin of Life Theory Called Into Question by Volcanic Rock Study
Animals may have emerged under very different conditions.
They have been claiming for hundred years or more life needed oxygen to evolve into complex forms. Turns out they were mostly wrong, Very little oxygen was present when the first complex life forms evolved. If they got that wrong what else have they gotten wrong?
Haldane introduced the modern concept of abiogenesis in an eight-page article titled The origin of life, in the Rationalist Annual in 1929,[51] describing the primitive ocean as a "vast chemical laboratory" containing a mixture of inorganic compounds – like a "hot dilute soup" in which organic compounds could have formed. Under the solar energy the anoxic atmosphere containing carbon dioxide, ammonia and water vapour gave rise to a variety of organic compounds, "living or half-living things"
Did you just say that science said life needed oxygen to evolve and that very little oxygen was present when the first life forms evolved? So Oxygen was present??? What’s your point again?!Origin of Life Theory Called Into Question by Volcanic Rock Study
Animals may have emerged under very different conditions.
They have been claiming for hundred years or more life needed oxygen to evolve into complex forms. Turns out they were mostly wrong, Very little oxygen was present when the first complex life forms evolved. If they got that wrong what else have they gotten wrong?
Which according to science required Oxygen in large enough quantity to do it. They now know that is not true.Too bad that life is not made of randomly forming organic compounds. Life is made by organic compounds that are created and organized to do specific jobs by DNAYou seem to be the one who got it wrong:Origin of Life Theory Called Into Question by Volcanic Rock Study
Animals may have emerged under very different conditions.
They have been claiming for hundred years or more life needed oxygen to evolve into complex forms. Turns out they were mostly wrong, Very little oxygen was present when the first complex life forms evolved. If they got that wrong what else have they gotten wrong?
Haldane introduced the modern concept of abiogenesis in an eight-page article titled The origin of life, in the Rationalist Annual in 1929,[51] describing the primitive ocean as a "vast chemical laboratory" containing a mixture of inorganic compounds – like a "hot dilute soup" in which organic compounds could have formed. Under the solar energy the anoxic atmosphere containing carbon dioxide, ammonia and water vapour gave rise to a variety of organic compounds, "living or half-living things"
Good thing that crystals, e.g., diamonds, are created by natural processes. Mix chemistry, physics, and time and you can get some amazing things.
READ the damn article numbnuts.Did you just say that science said life needed oxygen to evolve and that very little oxygen was present when the first life forms evolved? So Oxygen was present??? What’s your point again?!Origin of Life Theory Called Into Question by Volcanic Rock Study
Animals may have emerged under very different conditions.
They have been claiming for hundred years or more life needed oxygen to evolve into complex forms. Turns out they were mostly wrong, Very little oxygen was present when the first complex life forms evolved. If they got that wrong what else have they gotten wrong?
You mean according you science required Oxygen. In reality science has known for a long time that oxygen was a late addition to the mix.Which according to science required Oxygen in large enough quantity to do it. They now know that is not true.Too bad that life is not made of randomly forming organic compounds. Life is made by organic compounds that are created and organized to do specific jobs by DNAYou seem to be the one who got it wrong:Origin of Life Theory Called Into Question by Volcanic Rock Study
Animals may have emerged under very different conditions.
They have been claiming for hundred years or more life needed oxygen to evolve into complex forms. Turns out they were mostly wrong, Very little oxygen was present when the first complex life forms evolved. If they got that wrong what else have they gotten wrong?
Haldane introduced the modern concept of abiogenesis in an eight-page article titled The origin of life, in the Rationalist Annual in 1929,[51] describing the primitive ocean as a "vast chemical laboratory" containing a mixture of inorganic compounds – like a "hot dilute soup" in which organic compounds could have formed. Under the solar energy the anoxic atmosphere containing carbon dioxide, ammonia and water vapour gave rise to a variety of organic compounds, "living or half-living things"
Obviously you did NOT read the damn article.You mean according you science required Oxygen. In reality science has known for a long time that oxygen was a late addition to the mix.Which according to science required Oxygen in large enough quantity to do it. They now know that is not true.Too bad that life is not made of randomly forming organic compounds. Life is made by organic compounds that are created and organized to do specific jobs by DNAYou seem to be the one who got it wrong:Origin of Life Theory Called Into Question by Volcanic Rock Study
Animals may have emerged under very different conditions.
They have been claiming for hundred years or more life needed oxygen to evolve into complex forms. Turns out they were mostly wrong, Very little oxygen was present when the first complex life forms evolved. If they got that wrong what else have they gotten wrong?
Haldane introduced the modern concept of abiogenesis in an eight-page article titled The origin of life, in the Rationalist Annual in 1929,[51] describing the primitive ocean as a "vast chemical laboratory" containing a mixture of inorganic compounds – like a "hot dilute soup" in which organic compounds could have formed. Under the solar energy the anoxic atmosphere containing carbon dioxide, ammonia and water vapour gave rise to a variety of organic compounds, "living or half-living things"
For those incapable of opening and reading a link...You mean according you science required Oxygen. In reality science has known for a long time that oxygen was a late addition to the mix.Which according to science required Oxygen in large enough quantity to do it. They now know that is not true.Too bad that life is not made of randomly forming organic compounds. Life is made by organic compounds that are created and organized to do specific jobs by DNAYou seem to be the one who got it wrong:Origin of Life Theory Called Into Question by Volcanic Rock Study
Animals may have emerged under very different conditions.
They have been claiming for hundred years or more life needed oxygen to evolve into complex forms. Turns out they were mostly wrong, Very little oxygen was present when the first complex life forms evolved. If they got that wrong what else have they gotten wrong?
Haldane introduced the modern concept of abiogenesis in an eight-page article titled The origin of life, in the Rationalist Annual in 1929,[51] describing the primitive ocean as a "vast chemical laboratory" containing a mixture of inorganic compounds – like a "hot dilute soup" in which organic compounds could have formed. Under the solar energy the anoxic atmosphere containing carbon dioxide, ammonia and water vapour gave rise to a variety of organic compounds, "living or half-living things"
I did read it and she knows as little as you do.Obviously you did NOT read the damn article.You mean according you science required Oxygen. In reality science has known for a long time that oxygen was a late addition to the mix.Which according to science required Oxygen in large enough quantity to do it. They now know that is not true.Too bad that life is not made of randomly forming organic compounds. Life is made by organic compounds that are created and organized to do specific jobs by DNAYou seem to be the one who got it wrong:Origin of Life Theory Called Into Question by Volcanic Rock Study
Animals may have emerged under very different conditions.
They have been claiming for hundred years or more life needed oxygen to evolve into complex forms. Turns out they were mostly wrong, Very little oxygen was present when the first complex life forms evolved. If they got that wrong what else have they gotten wrong?
Haldane introduced the modern concept of abiogenesis in an eight-page article titled The origin of life, in the Rationalist Annual in 1929,[51] describing the primitive ocean as a "vast chemical laboratory" containing a mixture of inorganic compounds – like a "hot dilute soup" in which organic compounds could have formed. Under the solar energy the anoxic atmosphere containing carbon dioxide, ammonia and water vapour gave rise to a variety of organic compounds, "living or half-living things"
Probably lots of stuff. But this is a tweak to a slider on a football stadium sized machine that is biology. . Not in any danger are ideas like abiogenesis, or evolution.Origin of Life Theory Called Into Question by Volcanic Rock Study
Animals may have emerged under very different conditions.
They have been claiming for hundred years or more life needed oxygen to evolve into complex forms. Turns out they were mostly wrong, Very little oxygen was present when the first complex life forms evolved. If they got that wrong what else have they gotten wrong?
