/sci/ - Science & Math

In 1981 he published a remarkable book entitled Life Itself: Its Origin and
Nature, in which he set out his view that DNA could not, in fact,
have arisen on earth “by chance,” but rather that the seeds of life and
of all future evolution, most likely in the form of simple, resilient
bacteria, must have been sent here in spaceships by an alien civilization.

OP: So why isn't the public informed that our top scientists have found rock solid proof against evolution and are holding creationist views?

your text has nothing to do with evolution though

>>5784230
The theory of evolution states that life evolved from the prebiotic soup by series of random mutations and natural selection.Since scientists today know that DNA was here ever since the beginning, that destroys the whole random mutation/natural selection argument.
This was clear from my post.Also, if you don't know what the theory of evolution says, I suggest you stay out of the thread

>So why isn't the public informed that our top scientists have found rock solid proof against evolution and are holding creationist views?

Absolutely nothing you've posted supports this in any way. Answer: It isn't true.

>>5784237
>being this much in denial
What don't you understand, the father of genetical science, and every major scientist in the field, have switched from an evolutionary model and are looking at outside influences for why life occurred.They now know life did not, in any way, originate on Earth.

The guy that discovered PCR believes that he's experienced aliens. Pauling fucked up the initial formation of DNA and he's won two nobel prizes. The foundations of medical science are pre-germ theory. Luminiferous ether was a prominent belief when classical physics was well established. Science is not a religion, it is a search for explanations. Evolution is the best fit theory with evidence backing it. We should avoid deifying science or take evolution as dogma, otherwise we're just as bad as those that accept religion at face value, accepting without evidence.

I would also like to emphasize that, at the moment, there's absolutely no evidence for the panspermia model.Well, even here there are some things to say, for example, Crick based his ancient aliens theory on some very good ( IMO ) historical data and the complexity of DNA itself.If someone wishes to pursue this line of though I'll answer questions about it.

Crick thought that aliens made DNA.

But yeah no, go read some books on evolution. It's not "the origin of life" it's the "change in life". Back to /x/.

My Biology teacher told my class a lot of top/intelligent scientists were a bit off in the head/went crazy/believed in weird theories. Just 2 days ago he was talking about Crick and his aliens.

>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2307459/Worlds-expensive-letter-Francis-Cricks-note-announcing-DNA-model-discovery-son-sells-5-3M.html
>How is this letter worth that much?

>>5784219
>>5784220

The idea that DNA was sent to Earth by other life forms, although technically possible, seems extremely unlikely. There don't appear to be planets anywhere close enough to Earth to be sending DNA across in a craft or probe of some sort.

>>5784262
>Evolution is the best fit theory with evidence backing it.
But that's the problem, that's not the case anymore.Atm we have no model for how life came to be.Evolution has been cast aside for the reasons stated above.They know DNA was here since the very beginning and that there's now way it's the result of evolution.
>We should avoid deifying science or take evolution as dogma
I totally agree, that's why one of the things I wanted to know is why aren't people being told this.Evolution is being lectured in schools as we speak, children learn that life is the result of random mutation, time and natural selection, while all the scientists in the field know this is false.You might argue that even if DNA was implanted here, after that moment, evolution took it's course but from what I've been reading about this, DNA determined a lot of our make-up, not to mention we have genes in us that can't be traced, that appeared out of no where.

>>5784268
>>5784270
>Crick is crazy because he disagrees with me
>>5784271
You somehow think you know what technology aliens might have.

>>5784220

>he calculated the odds
of this happening as just one chance in a 1 followed by 260 zeros.
This is what I'm curious about...

>>5784277

You somehow think you know aliens exist.

>>5784279
And remember, that was BEFORE they found out DNA was here since the beginning.The 1 to 260 zeros odds were based on DNA evolving over a long period of time in an evolutionary context.Only after they looked at all life forms on Earth they realized DNA was here since the beginning.So the odds are even greater.

>>5784277

>Crick is crazy because he disagrees with me
>because he disagrees with me
>Crick is crazy

Haha, simply produce an innocent anecdote and you're jumped on by misunderstood anons.

>>5784281
I know for a fact aliens exist.Beyond the wealth of scientific data, going over a century, proving they come here often, I've even seen one of their crafts twice, and it disappeared right before my eyes.
I don't want to derail the thread but you might want to research things before you talk about them.There's a reason Crick believed in aliens you know.

>Mullis writes of having once spoken to a glowing green raccoon. Mullis arrived at his cabin in the woods of northern California around midnight one night in 1985, and, having turned on the lights and left sacks of groceries on the floor, set off for the outhouse with a flashlight. On the way, he saw something glowing under a fir tree. Shining the flashlight on this glow, it seemed to be a raccoon with little black eyes. The raccoon spoke, saying, "Good evening, doctor," and he replied with a "hello". Mullis later speculated that the raccoon "was some sort of holographic projection and… that multidimensional physics on a macroscopic scale may be responsible". Mullis denies LSD having anything at all to do with this.[34]

Based Kary Mullis

"Our DNA was encoded with messages from that other civilization. They programmed the molecules so that when we reached a certain level of intelligence, we would be able to access their information, and they could therefore "teach" us about ourselves, and how to progress. For life to form by chance is mathematically virtually impossible."

>>5784283

>So why isn't the public informed that our top scientists have found rock solid proof against evolution

Your rock solid proof is probability?

>This gave birth to the panspermia hypothesis since scientists realized this discovery dismantled the evolutionary theory.

Isn't evolution a part of panspermia?

>>5784295
Yes Crick also said that from what I remember.The reason for his statement is a pretty good one.About 97% of the DNA doesn't not actually help create anything DNA related but, instead, follows Zipf's law.Zipf's law pertains to languages, in other words it's a message.By comparison, the 3% of the DNA that actually makes us, does not follow Zipf's law.

>>5784301
>Your rock solid proof is probability?
If you can't read well don't come into the thread.
I also said that they know DNA was here since the beginning.
>Isn't evolution a part of panspermia?
Scientists agree that there's no evidence what so ever for panspermia.There's a reason they call it a hypothesis you know.Actually there's more evidence pointing to the ancient aliens theory than the meteor/cosmic dust one.

>>5784243
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121212130709.htm

>>5784235
Here you have a made a massive and very common mistake:

The theory of evolution by natural selection
and
The theory of abiogenesis and biopoiesis

Are completely separate entities.

You may argue that one leads to the other but that same argument could be used on any theory and does not validate or invalidate any hypothesis of the adjoining related theory.

>>5784304
>it's a message

arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1303/1303.6739.pdf

>>5784319
The paper talks about fixing Carbon in an abiotic environment.Do you understand the monumental difference between DNA and a simple molecule.This has nothing to do with what is known by scientists, they are aware how certain elements combine in the abiotic soup, they are also aware that DNA is not the result of this.This was clear from the OP.If you can't read don't post.

>>5784322
>The theory of evolution by natural selection
>and
>The theory of abiogenesis and biopoiesis
Theory of evolution evolved since Darwin.In it's final form it started with the first organism and from there natural selection took it's course.Since DNA was before this, it is not the result of evolution, it's the other way around, evolution is the result of DNA.

>>5784326
Thanks' I'll give it a read.

>>5784337
Yes... that is correct.

>>5784337
I'm really not sure what you are getting at here.
What you said is 100% true, evolution is a result of DNA.
The "prebiotic soup" idea is from the various ideas you find within abiogenesis. Abiogenesis has well over 20 different hypothesis, none of which have formed a solid theory. It's full of issues and conjectures.

Making the leap to say that the problems in a hypothesis within abiogenesis invalidate the theory of evolution is wrong.

>>5784309

>I also said that they know DNA was here since the beginning.

Yes, I know you said that.
I'm concerning the point you made regarding:
>top scientists have found rock solid proof against evolution
when, I don't see any 'proof' let alone it being 'rock solid' dismantling the theory of evolution.
The only part I see is:
>"Based on an average protein about 200 amino acids in length (others are much bigger), he calculated the odds of this happening as just one chance in a 1 followed by 260 zeros."

And the fact this would be even greater after discovering DNA was present since the beginning.
But it's just a probability that could very well be wrong as many unknown factors could have contributed to "a single fully assembled protein made up of a long
chain of amino acids emerging as a result of chance". Over a billion years m/any things can happen.
Also, how did he calculate this probability? What did he take into account?
And when you say "top scientists": Who else?

>Scientists agree that there's no evidence what so ever for panspermia.There's a reason they call it a hypothesis you know

My fault on that part I misread, I meant to ask why you mentioned in the OP that the discovery "dismantled" the TOE?
Panspermia is just a extra/optional layer on top of the TOE.

You do realise that experiments have been conducted where RNA apeared spontaneously? RNA is the 'start' molecule, as it is self-replicative ànd contains translational information. DNA appeared once some kind of glyco-lipid capsule e.g. a membrane came into existence.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064512000486

and

Armen Mulkidjanian (University of Osnabrück); Anoxic geothermal fields as cradles of early life: From the RNA World to the first cells.

James Attwater (Cambridge University); RNA-catalysed RNA replication.

>>5784354
>Panspermia is just a extra/optional layer on top of the TOE.
Panspermia is a hypothesis regarding the survival of extremely resilient bacteria in space and the idea that they bring life to other planets.

The panspermia hypothesis relates to how life could arrive on a planet.

It is not in any stretch of the imagination part of the theory of evolution.
It also does not describe the phenomenon of abiogenesis.

0/10

>>5784350
>Abiogenesis has well over 20 different hypothesis, none of which have formed a solid theory. It's full of issues and conjectures.
That's true.
>Making the leap to say that the problems in a hypothesis within abiogenesis invalidate the theory of evolution is wrong.
The whole idea with science is that, unlike religion, it has facts not faith.A hypothesis is, by definition, something that is not proven by facts.
At this point you have 2 options, If you think abiogeneis is possible than you must also think God is possible, or, you must believe none of them to be possible.You can't be selective based on prejudice.

>>5784219

Panspermia is the theory that life was seeded by 'space sperm' on a comet/meteor, in a nutshell: fucking the earth. There are a few criticisms, for one that DNA molecules decompose rapidly before it has enough time to travel from one system to another.
Also, there are no life on the other planets of this solar system, the only hypothesis would be if Earth was a space magnet.
Crick believed this but more specifically "directed panspermia" which involves aliens fucking the earth.
There is no 'scientific' evidence proving aliens exist much less the fact they bukkake'd all over earth.

Before I'm bombarded with conspiratorial theories:
>So why isn't the public informed that our top scientists have found rock solid proof against evolution and are holding creationist views?

There is no rock solid proof against evolution.

>>5784354
>But it's just a probability
Now you're just being in denial. We are not talking about a 1 in 100 or in a 1000 chance.It's 1 in 260 zeros, and that was before they realized DNA was here since the beginning.

>>5784372

>Also, there are no life on the other planets of this solar system, the only hypothesis would be if Earth was a space sperm magnet.

fixed

>>5784372
>There is no 'scientific' evidence proving aliens exis
There is tons of scientific evidence that proves intelligent crafts visit Earth, like I said in >>5784291
If you don't know about the subject, don't talk.

>>5784291
only crackpots believe in ufo's carrying aliens who are visiting the earth.

>>5784376

>Now you're just being in denial.

How? I don't disregard probabilities, they're just not the best way of saying things are for certain because there's always going to be that percentage that will induce the scenario that things are not.

Also why didn't you quote what I said afterwards:
>could very well be wrong as many unknown factors could have contributed to "a single fully assembled protein made up of a long
chain of amino acids emerging as a result of chance".
>Over a billion years m/any things can happen.
>Also, how did he calculate this probability?
>What did he take into account?
>And when you say "top scientists": Who else?

If you're ignoring this then surely I'm not the one in denial?

>We are not talking about a 1 in 100 or in a 1000 chance.It's 1 in 260 zeros, and that was before they realized DNA was here since the beginning.

Again, you've already mentioned this in OP and a few other posts..

>>5784376
Do you understand the probability of the atoms in your body being where they currently are in the configuration they are in now starting from the creation of the universe is immensely less than the probability of life existing in the universe?

>>5784379
Well in that case I have bad news for you.It seems that a good percentage of European scientists are crackpots because the Tunguska Explosion has been studied for 100 years by top scientists from France to Russia, and the conclusion was this:It was not a meteor nor a comet.Whatever it was ( scientists refer to them as the Tunguska bodies ) it must meet the following criteria:
1) It caused the nights to be brighter than the days for a few nights before the Tunguska explosion.
2) It had the power to resist gravity since it was able to fly from one point to another and one of them left orbit.
3) When the bodies both reached the same area, for some reason, one of them exploded causing an explosion the equivalent of 1000 to 3000 times the power of Hiroshima.
4) The blast itself was strange.For example:It was nuclear, it caused genetical mutation in the Tunguska flora, and, it did not explode in a spherical pattern, instead, a cloud formed from which rays came out.This was even clearly visible at the site, some areas were scorched like hell while close to them were areas perfectly fine.
This was the conclusion of european scientists.Got a problem, take it up with them.
I would also like to mention that the scientist were upset about the media coverup that still exists today, the media still refers to it as a meteor, even thou the meteor model has been scrapped for decades.

>>5784383
>Also why didn't you quote what I said afterwards:
I didn't read anything after I saw you think a 1 in 260 zeros chance is unconvincing.I came here for serious discussion not trolling.Also, like I said, the 1 in 260 was before they realized DNA was here since the beginning.The Chance is now much, much bigger.

>>5784399
Such a study was never done, you're just getting things out of your ass because you don't have an argument.
I did my part and pointed towards some of the best science that exists today.If you can't come up with anything equally convincing that don't bother posting.

>>5784378

And I'm assuming they're conspiratorial theories.

Why are you referencing the Tunguska event? That was just a comet/meteorite: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/03/tunguska_event_fragments_found/

That supports your point 'if' you didn't mean to type intelligent and refer to crafts as comets/meteorites.

>If you don't know about the subject, don't talk.

That's not how it works. You're asking a question with the basis that "aliens exist, there's scientific evidence for it", a basis the majority of /sci/ do not hold (but the majority in /x/ holds).

And the answer to your question:
>So why isn't the public informed that 'a' top scientist believes in panspermia
is because top scientsts (actually most) find the theory of evolution is more plausible than panspermia and the do not hold believe that there is scientific evidence (or rock solid proof) that aliens exist.

>>5784407
see
>>5784398
I said it twice and I'll say it again.If you want to know if something is true or false read about it yourself.Quoting what the media says it's borderline retarded for any board on 4chan, let alone /sci/.We work with facts here and the facts point in one direction.>>5784398

>>5784403
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.
I'm posting things that i pulled out my ass.
Like absolutely everything else in this thread...
i...i thought that was the game here?

>>5784417
>Like absolutely everything else in this thread...

>being this buttravaged
I'm sure you know a lot more about evolution and genetics than Crick and the rest of the top scientists that are looking for the code in the DNA, and came up with the panspermia model to replace the old evolutionary one.

Proof that aliens exist, here in this thread guys.

Proof that evolution is wrong too.

>>5784431
Do you have something to contradict the conclusions of european scientists?I don't think so, if you did you wouldn't act like an imbecile.But don't let me stop you, go ahead, amuse us with your stupidity.

>>5784400

>I didn't read anything after I saw you think a 1 in 260 zeros chance is unconvincing.

You are able to type 4 paragraphs and expect people to read all of it...

Yet you simply stop reading a post, in this case not even half the volume you typed, whenever you deem a sentence/claim as false/trolling, not even to explore the reasoning behind it.

>Also, like I said, the 1 in 260 was before they realized DNA was here since the beginning.The Chance is now much, much bigger.

This is trolling.
I've presented a number of questions relating to the 'plausibility' of this probability, yet I'm bombarded with the same repeated fact that doesn't contribute to any "serious discussion".
Bye.

Look at me guys, i'm a fucking moron.
Pay attention to me.
Aliems are realllll
Evolution is wrongggg
because reasons

>>5784436
>whenever you deem a sentence/claim as false/trolling,
I don't think I'm being subjective here.Anyone who is not convinced by a chance that big must be retarded, in denial or trolling.
We are talking about a chance bigger than 1 in 1 followed by more than 260 zeroes.
>This is trolling.
Posting scientific studies done by the top scientists in the field is trolling? Am I on /b/?
Good riddance.

>>5784440
Just look at the front page threads here on /sci/ and take a moment to establish where you are.
If you really are as intelligent as you think you are, you would have realised the mistake you have made.
I'm a moron, and even i can understand why this is a pointless endeavour.

>>5784420

>Quoting what the media says it's borderline retarded for any board on 4chanme from a direction too.

I strongly disagree although it does depend 'what' media.

I also think giving facts with no sauce is more retarded.

But OP ... if according to you evolution is wrong and aliens are real, then how did aliens evolved? Or do you think they were created? Then why need aliens? You might as well say humans were created.

>>5784444
>I strongly disagree although it does depend 'what' media.
Than you have no place on /sci/.There is nothing scientific about the media.In journalism they study rhetoric more than anything else, that alone should make you stay away from the MSM.
>I also think giving facts with no sauce is more retarded.
Now you're just nitpicking, the info in the OP can be found with one simple google search and you know it.
Just let it go guys, this entire thread you've done nothing to discuss Crick's findings and their implications.You have insulted, made up things, picked on irrelevant issues, admit it, you have no place in this thread and no place on this board.

>>5784440

>I don't think I'm being subjective here.

I think you are. You're also not being very scientific ie. ignorant. You're supposed to read the whole post, not ignore half of it because of one opinion.

>Anyone who is not convinced by a chance that big must be retarded, in denial or trolling.

So if a top scientist told you he calculated there's a chance bigger than 1 in 1 followed by more than 260 zeroes that unicorns existed 2 billion years ago you'd believe him and that

anyone who questions this probability/would like to know more about how this calculation came about etc. ie. "who is not convinced" must be retarded, in denial or trolling?

>We are talking about a chance bigger than 1 in 1 followed by more than 260 zeroes.

I predicted you'd copypasta this for the nth time.

>Posting scientific studies done by the top scientists in the field is trolling? Am I on /b/?

Nope. I didn't say that was the reason I find your posts troll worthy worth.
>If you actually read the last sentence I went on to explain:I've presented a number of questions relating to the 'plausibility' of this probability, yet I'm bombarded with the same repeated fact that doesn't contribute to any "serious discussion".

>Good riddance.
I'm staying, I'm entertained.

>>5784447
>then how did aliens evolved?
Don't know and I didn't claim I did.

>>5784455
Look, the problem is simple. Crick and the rest of the top researchers in genetics believe, at this point, that life was brought on Earth.Some say it was a meteor/comet/cosmic dust, others it was aliens.Regardless of the theory, none of them think DNA originated on planet Earth.Now I understand that those of you who think of evolution, like christians think of Jesus's resurrection, have a problem with these findings but don't take it out on me.If you think you know better than Crick and the rest of the scientists involved in panspermia research do, then by all means, go argue with them, if you succeed in proving them otherwise you will become famous and respected.There's no point to argue against the theory with me.

>>5784453

>Than you have no place on /sci/.

That really isn't up to you. I could say the same thing about you for the number of things you have ignored.

>There is nothing scientific about the media.In journalism they study rhetoric more than anything else, that alone should make you stay away from the MSM.

All the media does (scientifically referring) is report on findings/discoveries/news.

If a news article reported that a new element was discovered, it would make sense to link it to anon. As well as having sauce to the discovery it provides a summary of the breadth information that needs to be communicated to anon as to which anon can move with and explore.

>Now you're just nitpicking
Something you were just doing.

>the info in the OP can be found with one simple google search and you know it.
I wasn't referring to the info in the OP and you know it.
>>5784398

>you've done nothing to discuss Crick's findings and their implications.

I've been asking a few ignored questions?

>You have insulted, made up things, picked on irrelevant issues, admit it, you have no place in this thread and no place on this board.

I really see you in this light.

>>5784471
>All the media does (scientifically referring) is report on findings/discoveries/news.
Wrong, there is no law against lying in the media, there have been US cases that agreed to this, the media can say anything it likes to boost profits.They can say whatever they want.
The rest of your post, like everything you've said until now, does not address the OP and simply attacks my person or makes up things.Like I said in >>5784460
>If you think you know better than Crick and the rest of the scientists involved in panspermia research do, then by all means, go argue with them, if you succeed in proving them otherwise you will become famous and respected.There's no point to argue against the theory with me.

>>5784460

I understand the problem:
>>5784372

>Now I understand that those of you who think of evolution, like christians think of Jesus's resurrection
That's a terrible assumption to make. The theory of evolution is still a theory. Christians don't take Jesus's resurrection as a theory, they take it as fact.

>have a problem with these findings but don't take it out on me

The only problem is the aliens part. I'm fine with the comet/meteorite theory (which many scientists take to).

>.If you think you know better than Crick and the rest of the scientists involved in panspermia research do, then by all means, go argue with them, if you succeed in proving them otherwise you will become famous and respected.There's no point to argue against the theory with me.

The whole point of this thread was to answer:

>OP: So why isn't the public informed that our top scientists have found rock solid proof against evolution and are holding creationist views?

ITT: It's been discussed. It's been answered. It's been disagreed. It's been argued.

>>5784235
... except that's not evolution. Evolution literally means "change over time". The theory of evolution by natural selection just explains how and why the species that exist today arose from a common ancestor.

>ninth grade biology
>underage b&

>>5784235
... except that's not evolution. Evolution literally means "change over time". The theory of evolution by natural selection just explains how and why the species that exist today arose from a common ancestor. This is high school biology.

>>5784473

>Wrong, there is no law against lying in the media

There's no law against "telling the truth".

Also, you have to borderline retarded to believe 'every' article you read.

On the other hand, you have to be borderline retarded to take 'everything' in the media as false.

If a new element was discovered and the media reported on it why wouldn't you believe it? Especially since it would have pictures of the element, the name of the scientist(s) who made the discovery (even pictures of them) and a link to the report of the investigation made by the experimenters themselves.

Obviously, you use common sense and use your own judgement when taking into account the media.

>The rest of your post, like everything you've said until now

But everything does address the OP, nothing is made up (only the questions) and I haven't attacked you (unless you count my last post which only because of your 'attempted' attacks on me).

Still going i see.

>>5784473

>Wrong, there is no law against lying in the media, there have been US cases that agreed to this, the media can say anything it likes to boost profits.

IT'S THE ILLUMINATI

>>5784479
>I'm fine with the comet/meteorite theory
Why, there's no evidence to support it.Like I said in a previous post, from an atheists perspective there's as much evidence for God as there is for the meteor/comet theory.
>The only problem is the aliens part.
Why, there's strong evidence to point in this direction.>>5784291
In the book you'll find enough evidence ( scientific studies) , and that's only for the Tunguska explosion.As for proving ancient aliens, this is historical domain and even here the evidence is solid.Actually, it was mostly on this evidence that Cricked based his opinion.
If you don't know why Crick and other scientists believe in aliens then you have to start reading on the subject and then come talk with me.Until then there's nothing to argue since you don't know anything about the issue
>ITT: It's been discussed. It's been answered. It's been disagreed. It's been argued.
Don't make things up.Most of this thread has been made of anally frustrated individuals throwing invectives at me.Little has been debated, like I said, if any of you disagree, take it out with the panspermia research scientists.
Besides, I was talking about why the general public isn't informed, the amount of coverage about this is close to zero.I think people should know they might've been created

>>5784243
This isn't support for a creationist model, though. The creationist model states that all life began as it is on Earth 6000 years ago. This panspermia states that basic lifeforms (eg, RNA) were introduced to Earth from the stars, eg by a comet or meteor. Anyone who thinks that aliens brought life to Earth on purpose is senile.

You seem to be holding a stereotypically Christian belief that when a scientist says one thing, it means that all of science says it. This is not your Church; the bishops are not infallible or all in communion. There are actually ongoing arguments among scientists (eg, many-worlds vs Copenhagen interpretations of quantum physics). And because you're an expert in one area doesn't mean you're an expert in all areas, or even all of the one area. That's just how science works.

>>5784484
>The theory of evolution by natural selection just explains how and why the species that exist today arose from a common ancestor.
No, natural selection begins with the first life form, not when you want to.Since DNA existed at that point, it's not the product of evolution, the other way around actually.I've already said this, read the thread before you post.

>>5784272
>DNA determined a lot of our make-up,
... yeah ... It's genetic material. But it evolves, keep in mind. Every animal has unique DNA.

>we have genes in us that can't be traced, that appeared out of no where.
Aka "mutations". They happen. That's a fact of meiosis.

>>5784494
For starters, the scientists involved in the Tunguska research blamed the media for lying about the event.The KGB intimidated researchers.One scientist, after he announced that he found some great genetic discovery regarding Tunguska flora, disappeared the next day and was never found again. If it was just a meteor why the cover up.

>>5784506
>But it evolves, keep in mind
Yes, but according to it's original design.Once something implants DNA on a planet, it determines a lot of how life will evolve.
>Aka "mutations".
They do, but how much did they influence evolution?Remember, we still don't know what 97% of the DNA does, except that it does not seem to affect life formation directly.Some think it's a blueprint, others a message.Crick thought it was a message because it respected Zipf's law.

>>5784502
>natural selection begins with the first life form, not when you want to.
Sure, sure it does. Of course. The first life form existed in nature: check. But that doesn't mean that evolution has /anything/ to do with the properties of that first life form.

>Since DNA existed at that point, it's not the product of evolution, the other way around actually.
You're still assuming that the first life form had DNA, when DNA could have just as easily evolved out of RNA. Just because one man thinks something, no matter how intelligent or well-known he is, doesn't mean that it's right. And besides, even if DNA was of extraterrestrial origin, it doesn't mean that the first life form had DNA, it means the first life form on *Earth* had DNA and that we need to push back our estimate for where life began. That is all.

Ooop, i can't help but keep coming back to read this.
Now the KGB are in on the conspiracy.

>>5784510
>But that doesn't mean that evolution has /anything/ to do with the properties of that first life form.
So you're agreeing?
>You're still assuming that the first life form had DNA,
I'm not assuming, this is considered scientific fact at the moment.
Also, this isn't one man.We are talking about the scientific community here, they've been looking at all lifeforms on Earth, even at some of the most old, that they know did not evolve and stayed in their form for a very long time, and they all have DNA.There is no transition, no nothing.You could say that the 1 in 260 zeroes chance happened and then all traces of it vanished but that's just grasping at straws.There's a reason scientists are going for the panspermia model but even that's poor, because there's no evidence of it.The only thing at this moment that has evidence is ancient aliens, reason why Crick, being a true scientist, believed this to be the case.

>>5784513
>Yes, but according to it's original design.Once something implants DNA on a planet, it determines a lot of how life will evolve.
Past your assumption of intent in regards to life's presence, that's still wrong. Every time a multicellular organism reproduces, the genetic material of the offspring is a random selection of the parents' DNA, making a full genome, with the addition of a mutation. This child will grow up with the mutation. Thousands of mutations happen, let me tell you; very few of them are ever expressed. However, when they are, if they are benficial to the organism and assist it in its growth in the environment, it will grow and reproduce, passing on that mutation. Those without the mutation, who are not adapted to the environment, will die. If, suddenly, another mutation becomes beneficient due to a change in the environment, the organisms with that mutation will flourish and the ones with the old one will die. This is, simply put, evolution.

>They do, but how much did they influence evolution?
They do everything to influence evolution. See above.

>Remember, we still don't know what 97% of the DNA does, except that it does not seem to affect life formation directly.Some think it's a blueprint, others a message.Crick thought it was a message because it respected Zipf's law.
And most think it's nothing of value or don't have an opinion. Hence the name "junk DNA".

Conclusions:
>Evolution is wrong but no scientist will admit it
>Life came from space aliens and DNA contains a special message for us
>Tunguska was aliens
>There is incontrovertible proof for all of this but none of you will listen
>Evolution, abiogenesis and panspermia are basically all the same theory.

http://thermodynamicoriginoflife.wordpress.com/uvtar/
Read this. Compelling hypothesis how the molecular beginning of life arises from the properties of DNA/RNA and early earth conditions.

>>5784524
> the genetic material of the offspring is a random selection of the parents' DNA,
From what I know we still don't know how that selection takes place.Something isn't random just because we don't understand it.
>with the addition of a mutation.
This is again, assumption.We don't know if the mutation is random or based on DNA code.Remember, we still don't know what 97% of the DNA does.
>This is, simply put, evolution.
Yes but evolution according to natural selection or DNA code? Don't bother answering because if the top scientists don't know this neither do us, I just wanted to point this out.
> Hence the name "junk DNA".
Since scientists agree they don't know anything about it calling 'junk' is simply wrong.The correct thing to say is: We don't know.

>>5784519
>So you're agreeing?
No, I'm saying that evolution has nothing to do with whether or not the first organism had DNA.

>I'm not assuming, this is considered scientific fact at the moment. Also, this isn't one man.We are talking about the scientific community here, they've been looking at all lifeforms on Earth, even at some of the most old, that they know did not evolve and stayed in their form for a very long time, and they all have DNA.There is no transition, no nothing.You could say that the 1 in 260 zeroes chance happened and then all traces of it vanished but that's just grasping at straws.There's a reason scientists are going for the panspermia model but even that's poor, because there's no evidence of it.The only thing at this moment that has evidence is ancient aliens, reason why Crick, being a true scientist, believed this to be the case.

...

Wait a fucking second, let's look up the scientific definition of "life".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Biology

Homeostatis, growth, response to stimuli, sounds good so far. But then we run into ...

"Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells — the basic units of life."

And what is in every cell? DNA.

Fuck.

So yes. By definition, life IFF DNA. You're right, the earliest lifeforms had DNA. Because all lifeforms have DNA. And RNA, and proteins. That's the central dogma of molecular biology.

So I take it all back. Under this (IMHO) fucked-up definition of life (I mean, viruses don't count as life because they're not surrounded by a phospholipid bilayer? What was the reasoning behind that), you win. I freely admit and accept that I was wrong.

But it's still got nothing to do with evolution.

>>5784533
>hypothesis
The scientific community is filled with hypothesis about everything.Mirror matter, dark matter, parallel worlds, intelligent design.This gets us nowhere.I wanted a thread about facts and strong theories, anyone can make up hypothesis.A scientist should go where the evidence takes him, not look for hypothesis that agree with his worldview while disregarding everything else.

>>5784537
>I'm saying that evolution has nothing to do with whether or not the first organism had DNA.
>But it's still got nothing to do with evolution.
I understand you think evolution can happen even if DNA was introduced here but until we know what the rest of the DNA does and how it interferes with evolution, we can't really make up our minds.After all, if DNA was created its makers had something in mind.

If there's a code hidden in our DNA, what does it say?

>>5784534
>From what I know we still don't know how that selection takes place.Something isn't random just because we don't understand it.
>We don't know if the mutation is random or based on DNA code.
But it is random if it's statistically random. And it is.

>Yes but evolution according to natural selection or DNA code? Don't bother answering because if the top scientists don't know this neither do us, I just wanted to point this out.
There is no "evolution according to DNA code". Molecular biology (aka "DNA code") is the best evidence for Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection we have yet. So both.

>Since scientists agree they don't know anything about it calling 'junk' is simply wrong.The correct thing to say is: We don't know.
That's right. We don't know. Occam's razor says that it's junk. That's where the probability and evidence is leaning. But we don't know for sure, so it could be anything, like you say. It could be a message from aliens, or a blueprint for evolution, or the product of pi and e written in base four. But in order for that to work, it would have to be preserved, and lots of mutations occur in the ... what should I call it? "Unused"? No, that would probably offend you, too. How about "unknown DNA", or "uDNA" for short? So if a "message" or "blueprint" is in our uDNA, it will be horribly garbled and mangled by now.

>>5784542
>I understand you think evolution can happen even if DNA was introduced here but until we know what the rest of the DNA does and how it interferes with evolution, we can't really make up our minds.After all, if DNA was created its makers had something in mind.
Okay, I'll give you that. I agree with you. I do think that, and the probabilities and evidence are in my favor (that evolution happens in response to the environment). I agree that we need to figure out what uDNA does. I agree that there is a possibility that somewhere in the uDNA are the strands that are responsible for the process of chiasmata, which causes mutation and the cause of which is currently not understood. I also agree that, if the unlikely situation of DNA being "created" were true, its makers had something in mind. On that note, I disagree about how much we can make up our minds about evolution in response to our ignorance about uDNA, but whatever. That's a minor bone to pick, right?

>>5784543
Don't know yet, I don't even know if it has been decoded.
>>5784544
>But it is random if it's statistically random. And it is.
I though you didn't like statistics.
Anyway, since one does not know what was intended with the DNA, we can not assess if the current form is random or not.Also, if evolution happens over very long periods of time I fail to see how a statistic done over a few years is relevant.
>There is no "evolution according to DNA code".
Like I said before, since we don't know what most of the DNA does you can't really say that.You assume what says in the books is the final word but that's not how science goes, the books always change, it's always been this way, that's the whole point of research, to change the books.
>Occam's razor says that it's junk.
Again you bring probability based on nothing.Why is it more probable it's junk?Show me the study that proves this.
>It could be a message from aliens,
It does follow Zipf's law.
>But in order for that to work, it would have to be preserved,
Exactly, do you know scientists have found out that DNA is best way to preserve information.Why do you think Crick called it a technology?That 97% of the DNA that follows Zipf's law is incredibly resilient.

>>5784540
A scientific hypothesis isn't something completely disconnected from facts. It's a model that fits what is known but has wiggle room for alternate explanations. If you're not interested in evaluating ideas suit yourself.

>>5784558
>if the unlikely situation of DNA being "created" were true,
Why is it unlikely? Since it has been here from the beginning in it's most complex form there's only one explanation, panspermia, either accidental or intentional.Like I said, Crick was an atheist, do you think it was easy for him to call DNA a miracle:

Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature (1981)

>An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against.

And let's not forget about the alien phenomena, no matter how much some people hate it, at this point the amount of evidence for it is overwhelming.From astronauts, NASA scientists to top researchers.The only reason people don't believe it it's because of the media.
We must ask ourselves what are they doing here so oftenly.On what I've read I have some ideas.Anyway, people should think more about it.

>>5784565
>A scientific hypothesis isn't something completely disconnected from facts.
Not completely but it's not far either.Like I said, there are hypothesis for everything out there so I don't see the point in talking about them.You can't have a serious conversation based on 'It's possible'.

Pages and pages and pages of pointless dialogue.

>>5784571
Please, there is a reason that the paranormal board is seperate from the science board.

>>5784560
>I though you didn't like statistics.
What? No! I love statistics! If anybody said otherwise, it's wasn't me.

>Anyway, since one does not know what was intended with the DNA, we can not assess if the current form is random or not.Also, if evolution happens over very long periods of time I fail to see how a statistic done over a few years is relevant.
A few years, with thousands of children and animals. This is not a small statistic.

>since we don't know what most of the DNA does you can't really say that.You assume what says in the books is the final word but that's not how science goes, the books always change, it's always been this way, that's the whole point of research, to change the books.
You're implying that I base my opinion on "books". I know how science works. But there is no theory of evolution according to DNA code. I don't even know what that would mean. Could you explain that to me, or is this going to be another part of my post that you'll not reply to?

>Again you bring probability based on nothing.Why is it more probable it's junk?Show me the study that proves this.
There is no study "proving" it. However, basing some Bayesian probability off of the fact that it has not yet been found to code anything despite our best efforts, it's usefulness is not coming off to likely.

>It does follow Zipf's law.
Sure. So do population ranks of cities in various countries, corporation sizes, and income rankings.

>Exactly, do you know scientists have found out that DNA is best way to preserve information.Why do you think Crick called it a technology?That 97% of the DNA that follows Zipf's law is incredibly resilient.
Except for mutation. So itsy bits of it would be changed over thousands if not millions of years. The uDNA in humans is not the same as the uDNA in fish.

>>5784587
There is nothing paranormal about alien spacecraft.Like I said in previous posts, I'm interested in serious conversation regarding facts, I've read what scientist, NASA engineers, astronauts, army personnel and historians have to say about the UFO phenomena ( and I'm still reading ).If you wish we can discuss the findings, if you are aware of them, but I'm not interested in your preconceived ideas, if you want to spout your opinions without backing them up go on /b/.

>>5784590
>A few years, with thousands of children and animals. This is not a small statistic.
In comparison with billions? Common...
>But there is no theory of evolution according to DNA code. Since they don't know it yet how can there be, there not going to do the same mistake with evolution, make a theory only to find out they're wrong.
>There is no study "proving" it.
Well facts is what I'm interested in.
>Sure. So do population ranks of cities in various countries, corporation sizes, and income rankings.
In other words, data generated by intelligent creatures and not evolution.
>Except for mutation.
I thought we already agreed we don't know how the DNA gets modified and transmitted.

>>5784609
***
>>But there is no theory of evolution according to DNA code.
Since they don't know it yet how can there be, there not going to do the same mistake with evolution, make a theory only to find out they're wrong.

>>5784600
>nothing paranormal about alien spacecraft
I'll give you that. However believing that they regularly appear over Earth certainly falls under paranormal activity, and likely indicative of mental illness.

>>5784571
>Since it has been here from the beginning in it's most complex form there's only one explanation, panspermia, either accidental or intentional.
Yes, I love accidental panspermia. There's actually a lot of independent evidence supporting it. I've got no problem with it. But that's not "created" DNA.

>And let's not forget about the alien phenomena, no matter how much some people hate it, at this point the amount of evidence for it is overwhelming.
Yeah, I'll give you that. (Although that means that they might have DNA, in which case ...) What are your ideas for their intentions?

>90 replies to this garbage
>muh probabilities of protein folding
Did everyone fail freshman biology or something? Protein folding is directed by primary sequence, not by the molecule itself sampling more low entropy states than allowable before the heat death of the universe.

>>5784627
I've been finding it all quite entertaining to be honest.

>>5784609
>>5784610
>In comparison with billions? Common...
Okay, okay. I agree it's not significant. But it matches the data.

>Well facts is what I'm interested in.
When we don't have facts, we have to make do with what we have and likely guesses. Aka probabilities.

>Since they don't know it yet how can there be, there not going to do the same mistake with evolution, make a theory only to find out they're wrong.
Well, if you're proposing that you know how to make a DNA-based evolution that's not natural selection, be my guest. But DNA still supports natural selection, not contradicts it.

>>So do population ranks of cities in various countries, corporation sizes, and income rankings.
>In other words, data generated by intelligent creatures and not evolution.
Population ranks and corporation sizes? That's not quite deterministic.

>I thought we already agreed we don't know how the DNA gets modified and transmitted.
No, we do. Chiasmata. We just don't know why or what causes it.

>>5784627
It seems that >>>/x/ has invaded and is now having an internal discussion on /sci/.

>>5784627
IKR freshman science. Although we're not really talking about that right now. Basically, the discussion is on whether or not junk DNA might have any bearing on the process of chiasma by which mutations in DNA occur.

MUH ALIENS

>>5784617
>and likely indicative of mental illness.
If I'm crazy than scientist, NASA engineers, astronauts, army personnel and historians are also crazy.
>>5784618
>There's actually a lot of independent evidence supporting it.
Post it.
>What are your ideas for their intentions?
To put it in their own words, as related by abduction 'victims', it's to create a more durable form.See, this is where history meets science.All the peoples of the world have folklore talking about meetings with beings that mate with them or that need to take care of alien offspring.People who have been abducted tell the same story as pretty much every tribe/nation in the world has.Even Crick talks about the historical data, how the early humans were told they come from the sky.
From what I gather, these creatures are not of this world.For starters, time moves a lot faster in their world.Some abduction victims have returned home after days thinking it was only a few minutes.History relates the same thing.Either were talking about fairies, chinese supranatural beings or shamans in the americas and their spirits, all said that when they return from an encounter with them, time passed very fast, minutes to years.
I'm reading about DMT and LSD research at the moment and I'm fascinated by the number of people who see the same things astronauts ( like Gordon Cooper, Edgar Mitchell, Vladimir Kovalenok, Leonid Kizim, Vladimir Solovyov ) saw in space and the same creatures depicted by abduction victims and historical record.
Unfortunately LSD and DMT research has been made illegal so that line of research is not possible anymore.

>>5784635
>But DNA still supports natural selection, not contradicts it.
I didn't say it contradicts it, I said that until we know how it influences or makeup, we can't say for sure.We don't know if it interferes with 'mutations' and how DNA is transmitted.
>Population ranks and corporation sizes? That's not quite deterministic.
It is the product of strictly human behavior.
>No, we do.
So at this point if you look at the DNA of two people, you can tell how their children are going to be?

I can't be sure, but it reads alot like the same guy arguing with himself.

ITT: not geneticists

>>5784683
Then enlighten us professor.

>>5784220
>rock solid proof

>>5784689
This has been debated in the thread, read it first.

>>5784686
I'm not sure I want to go through the whole thread, but give me a few minutes and I'll respond to some of OP's assertions.

>>5784659
>>5784672
>>5784659
>Post it.
Well, the Wikipedia page is full of evidence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia)), but most notably in my mind is not an empirical test but a projection. With Moore's law, we can track back the exponential increase of the number of transistors on an integrated circuit back to when there was just one, the beginning of the integrated circuit in the 1960s. Similarly, we can track back the rate of increase of the number of scientific papers to Isaac Newton's time. When this was tried with life, using a doubling period of 376 million years, we projected back to a date of 9.7±2.5 billion years ago, which is billions of years before the Earth was formed.

Also, although it doesn't quite support your remarkable-DNA theory, I just want to randomly bring up the the RNA world and Purple Earth hypotheses. A perusal of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry
discusses these and other alternate biochemistries.

>your alien theory (sry not going to quote all of it)
I'm not discrediting this as paranormal, but seriously, /x/ has a lot of people that have similar theories. It should act as a sort of a bouncing-board if you need one. It's pretty obvious that /sci/ is hostile to alien theories. As long as you stay away from the "tulpas" and Spirit Science shit, it's not too bad. Sort of.

>until we know how it influences or makeup, we can't say for sure.We don't know if it interferes with 'mutations' and how DNA is transmitted.
Yes yes yes, you've said that already. I understand.

>It is the product of strictly human behavior.
Correct.

>So at this point if you look at the DNA of two people, you can tell how their children are going to be?
*We cannot predict the mutation. It is ___random___* But we understand how the mutations occur, through the process of chiasma aka crossing-over of chromosomes. Comprende?

>>5784696
>but most notably in my mind is not an empirical test but a projection.
That's not evidence, that's a simulation, simulations give you the result of the data you put in them, since we don't have data about what entered Earth's atmosphere billions of years ago we can't simulate anything.
> It's pretty obvious that /sci/ is hostile to alien theories.
So that's how it is, some one comes with scientific data from all types of researchers and you put the matter in terms of hostility.
>Yes yes yes, you've said that already. I understand.
Than stop arguing against it.
>It is ___random___
That sounds more like we don't know what causes it and we assume it's random.

>>5784219
>Francis Harry Compton Crick
Okay, first of all, Crick is smart, but he's also famous for some seriously crackpot shit late in his career.
>nothing less than an ancient, high biotechnology
I rest my case.
>DNA is only ten atoms wide
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmno.
and as
>What bothered Crick was the absolute improbability of even a single fully assembled protein made up of a long chain of amino acids emerging as a result of chance
Oligonucleotides form themselves, dumbshit. DNA sits deep at the bottom of an entropy well. It's not like they're that exotic or difficult to make. Hell, basic enzymes do it at room temperature at atonishing rates.
>Based on an average protein about 200 amino acids in length (others are much bigger), he calculated the odds of this happening as just one chance in a 1 followed by 260 zeros.
I'd love to see his lab data on that.
>This gave birth to the panspermia hypothesis since scientists realized this discovery dismantled the evolutionary theory.
There's no actual proof for panspermia - you know that, right? Don't talk about dismantling when you have no proof.
>>5784220
One book with no proof is no basis for a paradigm shift.
>>5784235
The theory of evolution does NOT state that life came from any sort of "prebiotic soup". That would be the theory of abiogenesis.

>This becomes even more interesting when you consider that scientists today know DNA was present here since the very beginning of life on Earth, since it can be found even in the most ancient life forms.

It's assumed that RNA preceded DNA as the dominant self-replicating molecule on EARTH.


OP is a troll

Just skimming this thread from front pages, for you alien guys, it doesn't exactly resolve the issue of the origin of life, just moves it to an alien world. So then how did life arise on the alien world and we're back to square 1.

>>5784707
>That's not evidence, that's a simulation, simulations give you the result of the data you put in them, since we don't have data about what entered Earth's atmosphere billions of years ago we can't simulate anything.
Did you read the rest of that paragraph? It has nothing to do with Earth's atmosphere or anything. It's saying that either life didn't begin on Earth or it began incredibly accelerated. Don't criticize evidence for your theory, that's just stupid. Also, read my link.

>So that's how it is, some one comes with scientific data from all types of researchers and you put the matter in terms of hostility.
>you put the matter
Fantastic. There are people in this thread mocking you and telling you to go to /x/ because aliums=paranormal, I support you, point out what's happening, and you attack me.

>That sounds more like we don't know what causes it and we assume it's random.
I never said we know what causes it, I said that we know how it happens you know what? Just shut the fuck up, I was having an enjoyable, intelligent conversation with you and trying to reason with your batshit insane thoughts about aliums and extraterrestrials, and I even give you evidence in support of you theory then "OH NO MAH EMPRIICAL EVIDENCE" Hypocrite. Where was Crick's empirical evidence when he said that DNA was advanced and was planted by aliens? That's the basis of your entire fucking argument, and it's based off of a conjecture of a senile past-his-prime scientist who only won the Nobel prize because he stole the theory from some bitch. "Doesn't this support creationism?" Just leave /sci/ and go back to /x/, you fucking asperger.

>>5784721
Spaces go after periods.

>>5784713
>for some seriously crackpot shit late in his career.
Says who, you.Who cares what you think, you're nothing in comparison to Crick.
>I rest my case.
Excellent rebuttal professor.
>t's not like they're that exotic or difficult to make. Hell, basic enzymes do it at room temperature at atonishing rates.
If you think Crick and the rest of the scientists are wrong about the impossibility of DNA being formed on the planet than you will definitely win a Noble.So, what are you waiting for?
>I'd love to see his lab data on that.
That research is very well know, it's one google search away.
>There's no actual proof for panspermia - you know that, right?
Not only do I know that, my entire point was based on the lack of proof for the comet/meteor theory.As for the aliens one you need to read the thread.The same for the rest of your post.Read the thread first and then come and post.

>>5784721
>Says who, you.Who cares what you think, you're nothing in comparison to Crick.
>Excellent rebuttal professor.
>That research is very well know, it's one google search away.
>you need to read the thread.The same for the rest of your post.Read the thread first and then come and post.
pic related

>>5784720
>a conjecture of a senile past-his-prime scientist who only won the Nobel prize because he stole the theory from some bitch.
Says who, you. Who cares what you think, you're nothing in comparison to Crick.

>>5784717
>It's assumed that RNA
I already said I want facts or good theories.People can assume anything they want.The scientists have already made it clear why they think of panspermia.
>So then how did life arise on the alien world and we're back to square 1.
I did not say I know nor did ask about this.If you want make another thread about it.
>>5784720
>Did you read the res
Just because something agrees with me doesn't mean I have to like it, I never liked simulations, you can make anything with them.
>and you attack me.
I hate this us vs them attitude.Facts are facts, you should go where they point you, this isn't about taking sides.
As for the rest of your post, you seem very mad when you can't answer some questions and I don't plan to respond to your insults.

>>5784726
>huurr ur trolling
Do you have anything serious to post except memes?

Seriously, i can't imagine anyone is genuinely responding to this.
It has to be the same guy talking to himself. Any sane person would have stopped responding about 20 replies into this thread.

>>5784727
>Says who, you. Who cares what you think, you're nothing in comparison to Crick.
I didn't say nor acted like I'm better than Crick.

>>5784726
answer: just stupid.

>>5784733
I mean, I'd welcome a real discussion on the biochemistry of oligonucleotide and oligopeptide formation. That shit's rad yo. But the whole panspermia thing seems unnecessarily complicated.

>>5784738
>I mean, I'd welcome a real discussion
Judging by the posts you made in this thread I don't think you can handle a discussion let alone a 'real' one.

OP believes that Crick is some divine prophet.

OP still can't differentiate between evolution and biogenesis after 100 posts.

>OP

>>5784746
>OP believes that Crick is some divine prophet.
>OP still can't differentiate between evolution and biogenesis after 100 posts.
[citation needed]

>>5784745
At least I know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution.

>>5784498
>Why, there's no evidence to support it.Like I said in a previous post, from an atheists perspective there's as much evidence for God as there is for the meteor/comet theory.
We've found meteorite impacts. The effects fit known models. We've never found a piece of gods.

>>5784519
>I'm not assuming, this is considered scientific fact at the moment.
No it's not. Read a book. Or wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis

Fuck. I thought this had gone already.

>>5784534
>This is again, assumption.We don't know if the mutation is random or based on DNA code.Remember, we still don't know what 97% of the DNA does.
Actually, we do. Human DNA is at least 50% jump, 3% coding regions, and 1.5% gene regulation regions. Sure, the other 40%, we don't know what it does, but the good bet is on mostly more junk.

>How can it be random!?!?
Also learn some basic biology, like mitosis and meiosis. Seriously, take some high school bio at least before dissing something you don't even understand.

>>5784540
Intelligent design is not a scientific hypothesis. It is not a scientific theory. It is not scientific. It is not testable.

Dark matter has good compelling evidence for it, but it's still in the early stages.

Mirror universe is something you see out of cheesy scifis. Where the fuck did you get this from?

The manyworlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is not a testable hypothesis. The multiverse hypothesis of cosmology may be testable, indirectly, but that's just a guess at the moment AFAIK.

>>5784560
>intended with the DNA
That assumes a designer. That has not been demonstrated.

>Also, if evolution happens over very long periods of time I fail to see how a statistic done over a few years is relevant.
It's called science, the principle of uniformity, inductive reasoning, etc.

>>5785868
>junk DNA
OP confirmed for AP biology dropout

sage this thread to the firey pits of hell.

>>5784571
>And let's not forget about the alien phenomena, no matter how much some people hate it, at this point the amount of evidence for it is overwhelming.From astronauts, NASA scientists to top researchers.The only reason people don't believe it it's because of the media.
No, it's really not. That's why it's not in peer reviewed journals. That's why their evidence is about as good as your average religious claim, e.g. "you gotta believe me, I saw it!". Come back when you get some better evidence than you saw it.

>>5785873
OP, you so funny

>>5784696
>using naive doubling model
Did someone drop you on your head as a baby, repeatedly?

Are you not aware of the several mass extinctions in earth history? Using a simple doubling model is beyond retarded for so many reasons, that I am laughing at you. Why would you think that? Learn a basic thing about ecology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity

>>5785870
Do you want me to whip out the studies? Are you going to quote ENCODE, for example? This should be amusing.

>>5785879
Not OP.

>>5785880
I would love to see your studies.

>>5785873
There's a hell of a lot more UFO sightings and alien abduction claims than "God sightings".

>>5785887
Are you sure? Can you cite statistics on that?

>>5785881
whoops, I meant to quote the same post you did. derp.

>>5785887
Hence: "about". I actually agree.

>>5785889
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNA
Come on. Do you not even know about telomeres and centromeres? IIRC that's like 10% of the human genome right there. What about pseudogenes like the broken vitamin C gene in primates? Or the boken telomere/centromere in the "middle" of human chromosome number 2 from the recent fusion of the two ancestor great ape chromosomes? And LINEs and SINEs and transposons, that accounts for a good 40% of the human genome. You think that has function? Lol.

>>5785898
Just because it's noncoding doesn't mean it's junk, dumbass. Telomeres and centromeres are vital to cell function, and transposons have their own important functions. There are some inactive genes in our DNA, but those bits do not account for anywhere near 40% of the genome.

In other news: wikipedia isn't a source.

>>5785905
You have a curious definition of "function" if you say that centromeres and telomeres have "function" relative to their size.

Furthermore, you conveniently failed to address the obvious central point of LINEs, SINEs, and transposons, which were claimed to account for about 40% of the human genome.

>>5785898
There was a breakthrough last year that found that a lot of the "junk" DNA plays a key role in folding and chaperoning.

>>5785910
>relative to their size.
who said anything about relative size? No one, that's who. I said they have important genetic functions, and they do. Try removing the centromeres from your cells and see how far you get.
>Furthermore, you conveniently failed to address the obvious central point of LINEs, SINEs, and transposons, which were claimed to account for about 40% of the human genome.
Those also have important genetic functions. lrn2genetics.

I still dont understand why people refer to it as "junk" DNA, it is simply "locked" currently, until the proper environmental conditions for translation arise.

>>5784219
Because Francis was simply wrong. Evolution did not need 200 amino acids or a single protein. All evolution needed was a self replicating molecule and an environment that induced errors in replication. From that, all else is inevitable.

Once the first self replicating molecule survived it's environment, evolution was born.

>>5785912
That's the ENCODE study, whose newspaper reported conclusions have been widely criticized as inaccurate.

>>5785917
>Those also have important genetic functions. lrn2genetics.
Such as?

>>5785994
transposons are major evolutionary agents. You can thank them for many of your homologous genes.

So do aliens exist and did they create life on Earth or not? I can't wade through all this bullshit.

>>5786003
And LINEs and SINEs?

Exactly what is your position here? I'm defining junk DNA as DNA that can be removed from a genome, so that a creature grown with that DNA shows no noticeable or measurable phenotype differences. What is your definition?

Under my definition, surely you agree that pseudogenes are non-functional, e.g. junk, right? So, we're quibbling over how much of the human genome is junk. LINEs, SINEs, make up 40% IIRC, and they do nothing to affect the phenotype of the cell, e.g. they are junk.

Judging my the amount of probabilities for life occurring in the universe, it's not so surprising that it happened. That doesn't mean it's any less wondrous of an occurrence, though, just like observing the night sky through a telescope doesn't depreciate its beauty. If anything, it adds to it.

This part is personal belief, but I don't think intelligence, or consciousness, or whatever the fuck this is, would sprout from a universe that is fundamentally neither.

>>5785864
>We've found meteorite impacts.
And you know they had DNA on them, cool story.

>>5785865
>hypothesis
Are you blind, I already said I'm no interested in hypothesis.Do you know what a hypothesis is, it's basically a fairytale, the very definition of hypothesis is that nothing supports it.

>>5785868
>Also learn some basic biology,
I don't think you understand, there's no such thing as random.

>>5785869
>Mirror universe is something you see out of cheesy scifis.
There are scientists behind it.Anyway, you're derailing the thread.

>>5785871
>It's called science, the principle of uniformity, inductive reasoning, etc.
In other words more assumptions and not proof.

>>5785870
That wasn't OP you moron.

>>5785879
That wasn't OP dipshit.

>>5785873
>No, it's really not.
I see, so you've read the scientific papers on the matter.Please debate them for me, what do they say and why are they wrong.

>>5785935
>I still dont understand why people refer to it as "junk" DNA,
They refer to it as such for the same reason they refer to anything they don't understand as random.It's because humans have a problem saying 'I don't know', so when you ask them what does the rest of the 97% of the DNA does they say; That's just random junk.

>>5786007
Yes and Yes.

>>5785984
You didn't actually contradict their findings regarding DNA being here from the beginning.Until you do that the only conclusion will be DNA did not originate on Earth and if you successfully contradict the findings you'll win a Nobel.So what are you waiting for?

>>5786435
No, I said that we found pieces of the comet for Tungusta (sp). Please read.

>>5786440
>there's no such thing as random.
Talk about useless pedantics.

>>5786441
No. There isn't. There's the multiverse hypothesis of cosmology, and the manworlds of quantum mechanics. No "mirror worlds".

>>5786444
Proof is only possible if you permit something to be true. We live in reality, where science works. If you reject all premises, then you have nihilism.

>>5786452
We've done experiments where we have taken out large pieces of the mouse genome. Result? Perfectly fine mouse.

A lot of most animal's genome is completely useless.

>>5786472
>No, I said that we found pieces of the comet for Tungusta (sp). Please read.
That was a news article, the scientific studies done there for the last 100 years ( 1908-2008 ) found no such thing.Like I said in other posts, the scientists themselves complained the media kept lying about their findings.
>Talk about useless pedantics.
So you don't actually have something to say to this.
>No. There isn't.
You have a problem using google or something?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_matter
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/418687/first-evidence-that-mirror-matter-may-fill-the-universe/
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/08/could-mirror-matter-be-the-hidden-mass-that-holds-the-universe-together.html

>>5786474
>If you reject all premises,
I don't reject all premises but you can't have a serious conversation using only estimates, guesses and hypothesis.These things have their uses but not here.

>>5786475
If the rest of the DNA is supposed to be a blueprint than that proves nothing.You took away what could've been not what it is.

>>5786503
I don't understand what that means. The fact plain as day is that at least 10% of the mouse genome (IIRC 10%) is junk because we removed it, cloned a mouse from that DNA, and it was perfectly fine. The number is probably much higher, around 50% at least for the human genome.

But really, that's great that you have a definition of "junk DNA" so that even demonstrably useless, completely nonfunctional DNA is "not junk". Talk about bullshit.

>>5786454
And Crick didn't actually prove DNA was here in the beginning either. He made an assumption. Nobody was there to take a picture and record the first replicant.
You're trying to establish an impossible standard; a form of sophistry.
Occams razor establishes that any self replicating molecule will do. We don't need to start with DNA. In fact, all evidence points to RNA showing up long before DNA. But we don't even need that for evolution to start.

jesus christ is this thread still going on

>>5786475
And I disagree with their findings too.
Evidence: our own DNA has exact copies of many viruses embedded in it; albeit methylated. We are largely immune to these virii. But, if we were to cut them out, we would become immunologically naive to the virii. Thus, we have concluded that such embedding is somehow a part of our immune response. The more we embed it, the less dangerous it becomes.
The exact mechanism is unknown.
Thus, I doubt there is any 'junk' DNA in us. Everything there is there for a reason - we just don't know the reason yet.

>>5786610
>Thus, I doubt there is any 'junk' DNA in us. Everything there is there for a reason - we just don't know the reason yet.
Psuedogenes jackass. What "purpose" or "function" is in that?

Or the inactive centromeres in the middle of human chromosome number 2?

>Everything there is there for a reason -
And do you normally make a claim without any evidence? Or are you religious?

>>5786614
Err, also deactivated, broken genes. The fuck is the "purpose" or "function" of the broken vitamin C genes in the great ape clade? It's junk.

>>5786610
>We are largely immune to these virii. But, if we were to cut them out, we would become immunologically naive to the virii.
What? Going to need a citation on this.

>>5786614
Oh I see - you don't know the reason, therefore there is no reason.
And you think I'm the religious one.
Your arrogance is showing - and it's really buttugly.

>>5786619
Why don't you give a reason jackass? Enough of your pretentious shit.

1. What happened is there were bubbles of something, like oil, in water.
2. molecules inside the bubble helped keep the bubble intact, leading to more
bubbles.
3. over time, the bubbles with the right combination of molecules survived and
multiplied.
4. also, the earth was much more radioactive in the past. there were many more
decaying isotopes around. this might have helped kickstart life.

>>5786548
>I don't understand what that means.
You don't understand because you didn't read the thread.If you did you would know that many scientists think it's a message, so the fact that they can remove it without it affecting the creature means nothing.

>>5786600
>Nobody was there to take a picture
You could say the same thing about the theory of evolution.Fact remains that every creature they looked at, no matter how unchanged by time, has DNA.
>>5786600
>Occams razor
Only high school kids use Occam's razor, Occam's razor is not a valid scientifical argument.
> all evidence points to RNA
False, there's no evidence that points towards ARN, there's a reason they call it a hypothesis faggot.

>>5786649
Read the thread first, that theory might work for another planet, just not ours, for reasons stated in this thread multiple times.

Fuck, it's back again. I thought it was really gone this time.

>>5786851
Could it have happened on Mars and then panspermia-itself to Earth?

>>5786848
>Only high school kids use Occam's razor

>i don't know so clearly it's aliens

the audacity.

>absolute improbabilityof even a single fully assembled protein made up of a long
chain of amino acids emerging as a result of chance – no matter how
nutritious the prebiotic soup or how many billions of years the ingredients
were allowed to stew. Based on an average protein about 200
amino acids in length (others are much bigger), he calculated the odds
of this happening as just one chance in a 1 followed by 260 zeros.

No. He didn't. Fred Hoyle may have made a similar calculation. But in any case the entire argue is statistically bogus.

It only calculates the odds of one particular protein forming. Not of 'any' protein forming. Due to simple chemical facts, some proteins are more like to form than others. It would take a far more intricate calculation to determine the odds of any protein capable of supporting self-replication out of the huge number of possible proteins.


tl;dr : I call Bullshit.

If a tree falls in the woods... why did daddy leave?

>>5786910

Who was phone?

>>5786869
Anything could've happened, but Crick and others found it more probable that it was aliens.This is because of the DNA and the way it's built, like he himself said, it looks more like a technology than something resulting from evolution.
>>5786881
Show me one scientifical paper offering Occam's razor as proof of anything.
>>5786901
The only audicaty belongs to people like you who disregard something without first contradicting the amount of evidence proving it.
>>5786908
You're picking on his statistical analysis, that is by no means the strongest evidence pointing towards his theory.

>>5786924

I can tell you what his wife said.

"Sounds like Science Fiction."

>>5786924
>it looks more like a technology than something resulting from evolution.
Keep in mind that evolution has had the entire existence of the universe to create things. So what may appear to be "technology" is, in fact, not.

Watson was not a cultural marxist; he knew of the truth

>>5786989
"truth"

>>5786926
'his wife' is not a valid scientifical argument, try again.
>>5786942
Only if you prove accidental panspermia, otherwise you have to accept Cricke' theory for the very simple reason the scientific community accepts as fact that DNA has been here from the beginning, for reasons already stated in this thread.In the absence of accidental panspermia and considering the existence of DNA since the beginning is atm fact, the conclusion is only one, intentional panspermia.
>>5786989
That's true although not related to the thread.

>>5787008
truth = reality and NOT social constructs, political ideologies, marxism, etc.

So, yes, the "truth", which is also supported by IQ stats as a function of race.

>>5787028
>Implying i care about anything in this thread
>Implying i'm not just commenting with bullshit every time i see this on the front page
>Implying i've read anything in this thread since >>5784337

itt: crackpots

There are already good theories of how life started on earth, there was a link to a youtube vid posted not long ago on the research done by some Harvard Profs.

The fact that we didnt have a satisfactory enough theory of the origin of life does not entail it came from god or aliens, you crackpot.

>muh ancient aliums

Are /sci/ trolls too uncreative to come up with something new?

>>5787075
>good theories
The only good theory at the moment is intentional panspermia

>>5787079

So, let me get this straight. The only "good" hypothesis is that someone planted life on Earth. Well, how did that life evolve? Did someone plant life on their home planet? Surely you see how mind-boggling retarded this ends up being. It's creationist-level crap.

>>5787104
>how did that life evolve
That's a different problem all together.
>Surely you see how mind-boggling retarded this ends up being. It's creationist-level crap.
The only thing that's 'crap' is sticking to dogma because the TV said so.At the moment the scientists are heading with a panspermia model.Anyone who still claims life originated on Earth falls into the same category with people who think the world was created last Tuesday.The evidence is crystal clear and it's everywhere, in every living thing, including the very first organisms on the planet.If you wish to continue believing in completely unscientific ideas then do it somewhere else.If you don't like these findings go argue with the very best of the scientific community, I'm sure they would love to hear from you how the DNA came to be right when conditions on Earth became suitable for life, because they couldn't figure it out, hence the panspermia model.
Also, while you're at it, don't forget to pass by all the astronauts, military and commercial pilots, scientists, NASA engineers, and many others, who have seen and studied the UFO phenomena, go explain them how things that don't exist have a radar signature, leave radiation where they've been ( and in the bodies of those who came close to them ) and cause mutation in nearby fauna.I'm sure they will be interested to hear your ideas to.

I'm not saying it was aliens, but it was aliens.

>>5787145

>>5786839
>If you did you would know that many scientists think it's a message
Oh boy. Why I did I waste my time on this idiot.

>>5787181
>>5787699
Great rebuttal guys, don't bother making any scientific comments or anything, this is /sci/ after all, where it's easier to make fun of Shinichi Mochizuki's alleged micro-penis than say anything intelligent.I guess I shouldn't be surprised, most of /sci/ is still in high school or college and knows little about anything.This thread clearly shows it, most people here didn't even know what the theory of evolution says, they thought it begins with multicellular organisms, many had no idea about Crick, his findings or that top scientists in the field are moving towards a panspermia model.To put it simply, I might have as well made this thread on /b/.

>>5788605

At first I thought op was speaking jokingly. Now I understand he's just a troll, though trolling /sci/ seems like an unrewarding effort. I don't even want to read the whole of the thread, so I'll just say what was probably said already: that life on Earth didn't originate here doesn't disprove evolution, you dolt. Evolution doesn't explain how life began (that's what abiogenesis studies), but how it changes. So if it really was aliens, it doesn't matter, since we still can observe evolution in action. And even if we were all created 6000 years ago by an old man with a funny beard living on the clouds it still doesn't say anything about evolution, because that's just not how this whole issue works. Just look at how many breeds of domesticated animals we have created. If evolution weren't a fact it simply wouldn't be possible.

>>5788741
>since we still can observe evolution in action.
We can observe mutations but that doesn't prove it's the result of the theory of evolution.You, like pretty much every other asshole in this thread, show that you don't even know what the theory of evolution says.It's not enough for mutations to happen to prove the theory of evolution, they must be random and go through a process of natural selection.Since the DNA influences how this selection occurs, and from what we've noticed until now about how mutations appear when they are needed, this findings disprove the theory of evolution.If you would've read the thread instead of posting like an idiot, you would've known this since it has been addressed.
If you plan on replying have the decency to read the thread first.

>>5788781
If we're lucky, you will spare us your idiocy and another bump in a few hours.

>>5789069
Looks like you're shit out of luck.