View Single Post
  #77  
Vechi 27.03.2010, 21:28:11
Traditie1 Traditie1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Data înregistrării: 10.10.2008
Religia: Ortodox
Mesaje: 1.719
Implicit

Citat:
În prealabil postat de konijiro Vezi mesajul
Gresit. Inseamna foarte/extrem/nemaiauzit de/al naibii de improbabil, dar nu imposibil. Cum pot sa spui ca e acelasi lucru?
Probabilitatea aparitiei vietii potrivit teoriei evo este de 1 la 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000
(numarul 10 cu 130 de zerouri dupa el). E atat de aproape de zero ca e practic zero.


Citat:
Treaba asta cu distanta "potrivita", conditii chimice "imposibile", substante care nu aveau cum sa apara, sunt niste prostii, si da, s-a raspuns la ele de enshpe mii de ori pana acum.
Nu sunt prostii si raspunsurile la ele nu au cum sa fie decat fofilari. Una singura dintre aceste conditii daca lipseste viata nu putea aparea (vorbim de aparitia vietii, nu de conditiile vietii). Nu mai pomeni ca s-a raspuns nu-stiu-unde ca asta e praf in ochi. Daca mentionezi niste raspunsuri da macar un copy-paste, altfel discutam ca bezmeticii.


Citat:
Nu exista distanta potrivita. Viata, asa cum exista ea pe Pamant acum, este consecinta chestiilor pe care le enumeri tu mai sus, nu scopul. Formele de viata actuale au aparut datorita distantei Pamant - Soare potrivite (printre alti factori), dar daca distanta era alta, ori nu apareau deloc, ori aratau cu totul altfel. Pui carul inaintea boilor.
Chiar daca exista distanta potrivita (optima in cazul pamantului) mai sunt multe alte conditii care trebuiau sa existe ca viata sa apara. Postez din nou acest articol care explica aceasta:


Life is often portrayed as spontaneously arising from some sort of "primordial soup". There it is ... quiet, tranquil, warm nutrients in a primitive sea, a lightning strike in the distance is imparting the energy of life ... soon life will be emerging to the shores... Hold it, not so fast here! To go from a barren lifeless planet to a one filled with living things, we would have to pass through a number of stages:
  1. EARLY ATMOSPHERE -
    For starters we need a favorable environment for life to evolve and be sustained.
  2. SIMPLE ORGANIC MOLECULES -
    We need a means of constructing the building blocks of life.
  3. LARGE MACRO-MOLECULES (proteins, DNA, RNA, etc.) -
    Some the simple molecules must be assembled into biologically useful large molecules.
  4. BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS -
    Biological systems such as energy conversion must be constructed.
  5. LIVING CELL -
    And finally, all these molecules and systems must be assembled together to form a highly complex living cell.
When each of these steps are examined scientifically, we see that each has tremendous problems and requires large leaps of faith to believe that they ever happened. To explain the origin of life by non-supernatural means we must have a plausible explanation for each of these steps. An artist's conception of lighting striking a sea of organic soup and then jumping to self-replicating life is woefully inadequate. In fact, it is very misleading.
Although the origin of life by mechanistic means is routinely taken for granted by the popular press, it is, in reality still a mystery to evolutionary scientists


The early Atmosphere

Our current atmosphere consists primarily of oxygen (21%) and nitrogen (78%) and is called oxidizing because of chemical reactions produced by oxygen. For example, iron is oxidized to form iron oxide or rust.

The presence of oxygen in a hypothetical primordial atmosphere poses a difficult problem for notions of self-assembling molecules. If oxygen is present, there would be no amino acids, sugars, purines, etc. Amino acids and sugars react with oxygen to form carbon dioxide (CO2) and water.
Because it is impossible for life to evolve with oxygen, evolutionists theorize an early atmosphere without oxygen. This departs from the usual evolutionary theorizing where a uniformistic view is held (i.e. where processes remain constant over vast stretches of time). In this case the present is NOT the key to the past.
Instead, they propose a "reducing" (called thus because of the chemical reactions) atmosphere which contains free hydrogen. Originally, they postulated an atmosphere consisting of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), carbon monoxide (CO), ammonia (NH3), free hydrogen and water vapor. Newer schemes exclude ammonia and methane.
There is a problem if you consider the ozone (O3) layer which protects the earth from ultraviolet rays. Without this layer, organic molecules would be broken down and life would soon be eliminated. But if you have oxygen, it prevents life from starting. A "catch-22" situation (Denton 1985, 261-262):
Atmosphere with oxygen => No amino acids => No life possible!
Atmosphere without oxygen => No ozone => No life possible!
In must be noted at this point that the existence of a reducing atmosphere is theoretical and does not rely on physical evidence. To the contrary, there are geological evidences for the existence of an oxidizing atmosphere as far back as can be determined. Among these are: the precipitation of limestone (calcium carbonate) in great quantities, the oxidation of ferrous iron in early rocks (Gish 1972, 8) and the distribution of minerals in early sedimentary rocks (Gish 1984T).


Constructing the Building Blocks


Before you can assemble the large macro-molecules necessary for life you must have a ready supply of basic organic molecules. Imagine a primitive ocean. You need tons of sugars, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, etc. There are a number of severe obstacles that must be overcome in getting a suitable ocean:
  • Quantities - The first problem is overcoming the diluting effect of a vast primordial ocean. For example, a study which assumed use of the entire atmospheric supply of nitrogen for molecular formation indicates insufficient concentrations would result (Gish 1972, 10-11).
  • Synthesis vs destruction - For chemical bonds to form there needs to be an external source of energy. Unfortunately, the same energy that creates the bonds is much more likely to destroy them. In the famous Miller experiment (1953) that synthesized amino acids, a cold trap is used to selectively isolate the reaction products. Without this, the would be no products. This poses a challenge to simplistic early earth schemes where lightning simply strikes a primitive ocean. Where is the "trap" in such an ocean? Also, the creation of amino acids by a chemist in a laboratory is still much different from forming self-replicating life. This point has not escaped the attention of evolutionists. "The physical chemist, guided by the proved principles of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics, cannot offer any encouragement to the biochemist, who needs an ocean full of organic compounds to form even lifeless coacervates [blobs]" (D. E. Hull, Nature, 186, 693 1960)(Gish 1972, 13)
  • Incompatibility - Another problem is that different molecules will react with one another. For example, amino acids and sugars combine and destroy each other. In lab experiments the component chemicals are neatly separated from one another. How is this possible in a primitive ocean?
__________________
Cereți și vi se va da; căutați și veți afla; bateți și vi se va deschide.
Că oricine cere ia, cel care caută află, și celui ce bate i se va deschide
Reply With Quote