Science can not even get when life started right

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How can scientists ever agree on when an unseeable, UN-reproducible act like the events that lead to the first organisms and LIFE in the general sense. . . When they can even provide a clear message to the world on when and how a human child's life begins?

Easily observed, re-producible, easily verified as that is.

The fucktardz won't do it.

WHY do you suppose that is?

Wrong thread, Cletus.

 

[abu afak]

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?

Which just shows live evolved/evolves to fit the planet's conditions.
So god did not create the conditions/us originally.
`
`

 

[Slade3200]

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?

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?!

READ the damn article numbnuts.

The Bible is all I need

 

[esalla]

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?

You seem to be the one who got it 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"​

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 DNA

Which according to science required Oxygen in large enough quantity to do it. They now know that is not true.

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.

For those incapable of opening and reading a link...

These days, scientists generally agree with the idea that the original recipe for life was pretty simple, but they’re not sure what ingredients were necessary for those early life forms to make the leap into complex forms of life, like animals. Many scientists theorize that, since all complex life — involving cells that have multiple components — now relies on oxygen to breathe, it must have happened at a time when there was plenty of oxygen in the air. But the scientists behind a 2018 study published in Nature report that oxygen in the atmosphere didn’t rise to significant levels until after complex life arose — suggesting that oxygen wasn’t all that important after all.

Actually there are no links with life genesis formation. In fact links are often less than nothing

 

[alang1216]

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?

You seem to be the one who got it 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"​

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 DNA

Which according to science required Oxygen in large enough quantity to do it. They now know that is not true.

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.

For those incapable of opening and reading a link...

These days, scientists generally agree with the idea that the original recipe for life was pretty simple, but they’re not sure what ingredients were necessary for those early life forms to make the leap into complex forms of life, like animals. Many scientists theorize that, since all complex life — involving cells that have multiple components — now relies on oxygen to breathe, it must have happened at a time when there was plenty of oxygen in the air. But the scientists behind a 2018 study published in Nature report that oxygen in the atmosphere didn’t rise to significant levels until after complex life arose — suggesting that oxygen wasn’t all that important after all.

You mean because it's on the internet I need to believe it? Sorry, if this ("Many scientists theorize that, since all complex life — involving cells that have multiple components — now relies on oxygen to breathe, it must have happened at a time when there was plenty of oxygen in the air.") was ever true it hasn't been for almost 100 years. I believe it is called a Straw Man.

 

[james bond]

You seem to be the one who got it 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"

He didn't get it wrong, but Darwin and those scientists who came after Darwin did assuming an oxygen rich atmosphere. This was from a 2018 Nature article. Did you even read the Pocket article as you snidely bring up stuff from 1929? Is that what you believe as best theory?

The article said oxygen wasn't important at all and you believe in water vapour which is oxygen.

 

[alang1216]

You seem to be the one who got it 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"

He didn't get it wrong, but Darwin and those scientists who came after Darwin did assuming an oxygen rich atmosphere. This was from a 2018 Nature article. Did you even read the Pocket article as you snidely bring up stuff from 1929? Is that what you believe as best theory?

The article said oxygen wasn't important at all and you believe in water vapour which is oxygen.

Got something from a science journal where a scientist assumed the early Earth had an oxygen rich atmosphere? I don't know what you think I believe about water vapor.

 

[Hollie]

You seem to be the one who got it 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"

He didn't get it wrong, but Darwin and those scientists who came after Darwin did assuming an oxygen rich atmosphere. This was from a 2018 Nature article. Did you even read the Pocket article as you snidely bring up stuff from 1929? Is that what you believe as best theory?

The article said oxygen wasn't important at all and you believe in water vapour which is oxygen.

None of the above matters when you live in a fantasy world of gods, demons, talking snakes and other absurdities.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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?

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?!

READ the damn article numbnuts.

The Bible is all I need

Until you get sick. Or until you want to do just about anything that involves more than sitting and reading the Bible.

 

[Moonglow]

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?

Henneguya salminicolathat a creature that lives in zero oxygen locations on the planet.

Scientists have found the first animal in the world that doesn’t need oxygen to live

'Our discovery shows that evolution can go in strange directions,' said lead researcher Dorothee Huchon

nationalpost.com

 

[Slade3200]

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?

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?!

READ the damn article numbnuts.

The Bible is all I need

Until you get sick. Or until you want to do just about anything that involves more than sitting and reading the Bible.

There is nothing more needed out of life than sitting and reading the Bible

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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?

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?!

READ the damn article numbnuts.

The Bible is all I need

Until you get sick. Or until you want to do just about anything that involves more than sitting and reading the Bible.

There is nothing more needed out of life than sitting and reading the Bible

Maybe for you. I can think of much better ways to waste my time.

 

[ReinyDays]

READ the damn article numbnuts.

I didn't get far until I found what appears to be some fairly serious mistakes ... early life used the fermentation pathway for energy ... not respiration ... photosynthesis had evolved, but all the oxygen generated early on was quickly used to oxidize the free iron in the water forming the great rust belts found throughout the world ... and once all the free iron was oxidized, the oxygen was free to collect and kill damn near everything ... so, starting 2 billion years ago, it was just cyanobacteria in the whole wide world ... everything evolved from these few species that survive the Oxygen Catastrophe ...

Photosynthesis continued and slowly the oxygen concentration built up ... and as soon as able, multicellular organisms evolved taking advantage of whatever amount of oxygen was available ... this is all still in the oceans, land is still barren without any life at all ...

The article claims these oxygen level were still to low for multicellular organisms to form ... but without any explanation of any kind why that would be so ... "It might not have happened, therefore it didn't happen" ... classic pseudo-science ...

As far as I know ... the very oldest rocks we have in hand that could contain fossils ... in fact ... do contain fossils ... thus we don't know when life originated on Earth ... all the evidence seems to have been crumpled and subducted back into mantle and melted ...

 

[ding]

Timeline of the evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ChemEngineer]

The article said oxygen wasn't important at all and you believe in water vapour which is oxygen.

Well, no. You can breathe pure oxygen but you cannot breathe pure water vapor (H2O).

 

[ReinyDays]

Well, no. You can breathe pure oxygen but you cannot breathe pure water vapor (H2O).

Pure water vapor at 100ºC ...

 

[ding]

Well, no. You can breathe pure oxygen but you cannot breathe pure water vapor (H2O).

Pure water vapor at 100ºC ...

Aren't we breathing some water vapor now?

 

[ChemEngineer]

Well, no. You can breathe pure oxygen but you cannot breathe pure water vapor (H2O).

Pure water vapor at 100ºC ...

Aren't we breathing some water vapor now?

"you believe in water vapour which is oxygen. "

H2O is NOT O2, is it?

 

[ding]

Well, no. You can breathe pure oxygen but you cannot breathe pure water vapor (H2O).

Pure water vapor at 100ºC ...

Aren't we breathing some water vapor now?

"you believe in water vapour which is oxygen. "

H2O is NOT O2, is it?

That's true. I'm breathing in both.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Well, no. You can breathe pure oxygen but you cannot breathe pure water vapor (H2O).

Pure water vapor at 100ºC ...

Aren't we breathing some water vapor now?

"you believe in water vapour which is oxygen. "

H2O is NOT O2, is it?

That's true. I'm breathing in both.

The science lesson for today is concluded. We're all breathing in oxygen and water vapor.
Has anyone learned anything? Almost certainly not. But I'll add some of my musings and you will learn.
What is the danger of suffocation from oxygen deprivation in a closed room?
First, how much air do we inhale and exhale per minute? Answer: About 1 cubic foot.
Next, how much oxygen do we remove from that volume? Answer: About 1% of the 9%, leaving 8%.

So a room 12 x 10 and 8 feet high will permit one occupant 120 x 8 x 9 minutes of oxygen or 8640 minutes which equals 144 hours before exhausting all the oxygen. Sleep well. Before ever approaching this limit, the carbon dioxide concentration would undoubtedly cause adults to hyperventilate and wake up, opening windows or/and doors.

One evening, I was sleeping in my Volkswagen camper in the snowy mountains and I had the bright idea to heat it with a catalytic heater inside the camper with my wife and me. Window slightly cracked. I woke up around 1 am with a splitting headache from either carbon dioxide or oxygen shortage and turned off the heater before we all died. Don't you do this. Charcoal briquettes are far worse. They produce carbon monoxide, very deadly.

In his book, Counting the Eons, Isaac Asimov, an ignorant atheist (but I repeat myself) said "If you breathe underwater through rubber hose that is long enough, all the air will not be exhausted and you will suffocate." How stupid of Isaac, for two reasons.

1. Straightening a snorkel puts your chest down deep enough that the water pressure prevents you from taking a single breath.
2. BUT EVEN IF YOU COULD inspire at 50 feet deep, say, you could exhale through your nose, and inhale through your mouth. I've done it by cracking the valve on a scuba tank, testing survival technique in case of total regulator failure.

"If you throw an object up in the air, it goes on forever." - Isaac Asimov, Ibid

I wrote to his publisher pointing out his silly mistakes. What a doof. He was afraid to fly in commercial jets, and abandoned God when his prayer to pass a chemistry exam was not "answered."