Changes

Talk:Origin of Life

2 bytes removed, 04:06, December 30, 2008
moved own comment to more relevant position
::: Yes, we know gravity exists because we observe its effects, and we know life originated because it exists and could not always have existed, but we ''don't'' know that it originated naturalistically, because that was not observed nor is that logically deducible, unless you first start with the ''assumption'' of naturalism. Neither is even the rough timescale (the one you are referring to) known, for the same reason. No, the precise method by which terrestrial life occurred is ''not'' scientifically better understood, because scientists have nothing but explanations that don't fit what we do know. If you want to get pedantic about people claiming that gravity doesn't exist, then no, you have not shown that, because ''one person'' (singular) is not ''people'' (plural). If you don't want to be pedantic, then I'm not talking about the odd crackpot that rejects abiogenesis, but millions of people and thousands or tens of thousands of scientists.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:01, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: The "chicken or egg" problem has been solved for some time now. The answer is neither: RNA. This was shown with the [http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Spiegelman-Monster Spiegelman Monster]. [[User:WilliamBeason|WilliamBeason]] 23:06, 29 December 2008 (EST)
257
edits