Can Life come from non Life?

[standalone09]

Evolution directly contradicts Pasteur’s laws, that state life can only come from life, as well as the second law of thermodynamics. Why does evolution, a flawed theory with more holes in it than a sponge, still stand, when it contradicts proven science?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis

 

Keep Religion out of this Please!

Edited September 3, 2014 by standalone09

[Vagrant0]

Maybe because making life from base components while relying entirely on chemical reactions requires not only the right conditions, but also a very long time. Scientists have already successfully synthesized a number of biological compounds from their base components in a sterile lab environment, and have reached a better understanding as to how chemical compounds react in order to make a cell a cell, so it is theoretically possible to create life.

 

These are however technologically assisted experiments in a human created environment... So the naysayers will likely cling to whatever faults were created due to the fact that researchers aren't inclined to wait around for a millennia just to prove what they already know works.

[edgeburner]

It is like the "global warming" debate. People rush to judgement even though the' science' is far from settled....our knowledge - in both theories - is far from able to actually 'prove' an absolute, definitive result.

 

When science relies on proxy data, we are still learning about said theory.

Edited September 4, 2014 by edgeburner

[Vagrant0]

It is like the "global warming" debate. People rush to judgement even though the' science' is far from settled....our knowledge - in both theories - is far from able to actually 'prove' an absolute, definitive result.

 

When science relies on proxy data, we are still learning about said theory.

 

I believe you may be taking too much of your "science" information from television.

 

Global climate change IS a valid and proven thing. More over all evidence suggests that human activities over the last 50 years has had a profound change in speeding it up. The only real debate on the subject is if we have any way of slowing it back down, how severe the change will be, or if those in any power to do anything even cares enough to sacrifice their own profits. Meanwhile those same people spend effort trying to downplay the evidence so that they can win elections, keep doing business, and sleep at night.

 

This is entirely different from the situation with evolution. Whereby, evolution is currently the best and most likely theory we have regarding the presence of complex organisms and their ability to change to better suit their environment... Despite the fact that it may be missing a few key components. Meanwhile you have other groups waving around alternative theories which have nowhere near as much objective evidence, or which is lacking any evidence, but which fits better with their own theology.

 

Just as evolution has nothing to do with the question "Can life be created from just the chemical interactions of base components?"

 

Opinion does not make a thing so.

[standalone09]

So you are saying "one day we will know how to create life from non life" right?

[Thor.]

Can we say Synthetic life.

 

 

http://www.ted.com/talks/craig_venter_unveils_synthetic_life

 

2010 they made the first living cell, now its 2014.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Thor.