יIt is true that the last great bombardment, 3.9 billion years ago, did not destroy the bacteria that dominated the earth at that time
Impacts by objects from space may bring life as well as extinguish it, says a researcher at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
The explanation in short: the bombardment of Earth about 4 billion years ago by asteroids as large as Kansas may not have had the power necessary to extinguish potential life on the planet, and may have even promoted it.
In a new study published in the journal Nature, Oleg Abramov and Stefan Moishitz write that in the study they investigated evidence of an asteroid impact on the surface of the Moon as found in soil samples from the Moon, as well as from meteorites and photographs of the scarred surface of the inner planets. The evidence paints a picture of a violent environment in the solar system during the Hadean era from 4.5 to 3.8 million years ago, especially during the cataclysmic event known as the Late Heavy Bombardment, about 3.9 billion years ago.
Although many believe that the bombardment could have sterilized the Earth, the new study concludes that it melted only a tiny part of the Earth's crust, and that the bacteria that then inhabited the Earth could survive in underground habitats, which were isolated from the destruction.
These new results push back the beginning of life on Earth long before the last big bombardment, i.e. more than 3.9 billion years ago," said Abramov. "The new research opens up the possibility that life began more than 4.4 billion years ago, around the time when the first oceans are thought to have formed.
Due to the fact that the physical evidence of the initial bombardments had been erased by weather changes and plate oscillations over the ages, the researchers used data from lunar rocks collected by the Apollo astronauts. as well as from the impact data on the moon, Mars and Mercury, as well as from previous theoretical studies to build three-dimensional computer models that reproduce the bombardment. Abramov and Mušić entered models of asteroid sizes, estimated frequencies and distributions to estimate the damage done to Earth during the last great bombardment, which is believed to have lasted between 20 and 200 million years.
The three-dimensional models allowed Abramov and Moishitz to monitor the temperatures beneath each crater to assess the heating and cooling of the crust after large eruptions in order to assess the ability to sustain life. The study indicated that less than 25% of the Earth's crust would have melted during such a bombardment.
In the simulation, the researchers even doubled the power of the asteroid impact by 10 times - an event that could have engulfed all the oceans on Earth. "Even under the most extreme conditions we set, the Earth was not completely sterilized by the bombardment." Avmov said.
Instead, hydrothermal fountains might have provided a refuge for heat-loving bacteria, which still live today in such extreme places - hyperthermophilic bacteria following the bombardment, says Moishich. Even if life had not yet appeared 3.9 billion years ago, underground gardens of paradise could have provided what was needed for the origin of life on Earth, says Moisic.
Geological evidence suggests that life was already present on Earth at least 3.85 billion years ago, Moisic says. It is not unreasonable to suggest that there was already life on Earth 3.9 billion years ago and more." "We know from the geochemical evidence that Earth was definitely habitable at the time, and this new study solves a major problem in origin of life research by removing the need for multiple sources of life on Earth.
The research results also support the potential for bacterial life on other planets such as Mars and perhaps even on rocky planets in other solar systems that have also been reshaped by space bombardment. says Abramov.
69 תגובות
Isaac,
Thanks.
My comments are mainly intended for people 'from the side'. The classic debaters with me - anyway, don't bother to deal with the arguments I put forward, and often (too often) I am convinced that they have a reading comprehension problem, or they are so trapped in their dogmatics, that they are unable to get out of their own box and understand that there are ideas outside their narrow world as well .
The more intelligent prefer to misinterpret me or 'move the subject', and for them it is enough that they label me as a 'believer' in order to avoid a real and poignant discussion, when they equip themselves in the moment with the license to continue claiming that their beliefs - and only their beliefs - are 'science' or beliefs rationality. In this situation, everyone repeats all kinds of slogans like Buddhist mantras, and calls it by bombastic names like 'logic', 'science', etc. There are some - a kind of Bolsheviks of Aalek 'Science' - that I am too heavy on, so they advise me to move to another site, because one must not disturb the rest of the neighbors from the ideological gulag with abnormal opinions. Alternatively, there will always be someone who will advise his friends in the ideological collective farm to 'not relate' to the words, because the things have already been said sometime and somehow, and the statute of limitations probably applies to them. Only his own words deserve to be chewed over and over like catechistic sayings, as if they were 'eternal' truths. This is how you maintain the 'purity of the camp'... and come to Zion a redeemer.
light:
I already answered your last comment before you responded to it.
"If any organism chooses a mate with the goal that this will affect its offspring - for example, a doe chooses a strong stag so that her offspring will be strong - then she is consciously planning the next generation of organisms."
Very true - that is - if any organism did this, it would be due to intelligent planning, but no organism except man does this.
I have already mentioned the fact that the animals have no idea about the fact that sexual contact produces offspring and they certainly have no idea that mating with someone with beneficial qualities will result in beneficial offspring.
The choice of animal partners is not based on any set of considerations - it's all a matter of impulses. It is clear beyond any doubt that there is no planning.
The last commenter is me.
Michael,
If any organism chooses a partner with the goal that this will affect its offspring - for example, a doe chooses a strong stag so that her offspring will be strong - then she consciously plans the next generation of organisms. The question is whether it will be possible to prove that indeed the doe chooses a partner with the goal that her offspring will inherit his traits.
Of course, this is indeed the case during artificial hybridization. I don't think the question is closed in relation to other cases - positively or negatively. What is certain is that without intelligence there is no intelligent planning.
Isaac:
Your response seems to have been cut off in the middle.
Instead of "thank you" it should probably have been written "thank you, you were wrong"
light:
It is clear to me that the whole discussion between us is above the heads of the creationists.
I just wanted to make it clear to you that what you described is also not intelligent planning and I explained why.
Not everything that involves intelligence is intelligent planning.
Michael,
If you claim that some organism has intelligence, and there is reason to believe that it uses it to select a reproductive partner, you introduce an element of intelligence into evolution. For example, if the ancestors of tigers and lions chose partners similar to them for reproduction in a deliberate and intelligent way, for example by avoiding reproduction with weak males, they directed evolution in an intelligent way. his offspring, and he chooses a mate accordingly, he influences evolution intelligently.
Of course, the last assumption is not self-evident, but I accept it without proof regarding humans (at least regarding geneticists).
In addition, rest assured that this was not the kind of intelligent design the creationists were aiming for. I want to see if any of them will have enough integrity to accept my arguments without ignoring them. Whoever claims that there was intelligent planning, needs to show that there was intelligence. Since today there is intelligence, today there is intelligent planning of life forms.
Eddie
I just wanted to say -
Thanks.
light:
The planning was not yet rational even long after the formation of rationality and mate choice.
"Planning" is a conscious process in which a being performs an action in order to achieve a result it consciously desires.
The different preferences in mate choice or in all animal actions are the result of evolution and not the result of planning. A pig tends to mate with sows - not to create piglets but because he is attracted to them.
You can start talking about "planning" only from the moment when humans started to breed and domesticate animals.
Regarding intelligent planning - it came into the picture only when reason entered reason. Evolution was predicated by intelligent design to some extent, starting from the moment organisms used intelligence to select mates for satiation.
It is known that non-random reproduction is a mechanism of speciation (ie - the splitting of one species into two or more). Since humans (and other organisms) use reason to choose mates, then reason affects evolution. Artificial selection is a prime example of intelligent evolutionary design.
Anyone who wants to claim that intelligence influenced evolution before that, needs to establish the claim that intelligence existed before that. Whoever believes - is welcome to prove.
Avi Blizovsky and Rami Yoshobiev
Why do you have the same picture?
Avi Blizovsky
You can check if there were supposed to be comets instead of asteroids.
I know that at the beginning of the solar system there was much more matter in interplanetary space, and that is why they were
Two large shells.
One from which there is most of the water and all kinds of organic compounds and maybe even life.
And a second that happened later and it was smaller.
Both were hits by comets - not asteroids (maybe also asteroids but a minority)
As an observer from the side in a completely neutral way:) You can go to Yehuda Sabdarmish's 'Science and Nature' blog and philosophize with him to your heart's content there, in matters of rational science or irrational logic and whatever comes to your mind/spirit.
Do not see this as a personal insult, on the contrary: for your benefit and for the benefit of everyone in general.
Noam and Eddie:
I assume you are both aware that we have already been in this movie.
Eddie:
You have expressed your opinion more than once.
Repeating it does not justify it better than before - it only makes you a troll.
I don't think that's the image you're looking for, so I suggest you stop.
Eddie,
All the verbal fluff is unnecessary. Intelligent planning is a disguised name for belief in the Creator of the world. As such, it does not have a "truth" value and it does not have a "false" value, a belief and nothing more, that does not need proof. Intelligent design can explain anything, and therefore nothing.
You are wrong and misleading when you equate scientific hypotheses with faith. Scientific hypotheses are not faith at all, they need objective proof, and their validation does not depend on the scientist's faith.
The fact that both have not yet been proven does not make them equal in any way.
Eddie, I don't argue with beliefs, but your attempt to give belief the flavor of rationality and truth values, and thus place it next to science, is quite ridiculous.
Eddie:
Certainly I have motives but there is a limit to their ability to motivate me.
This is because I have not given up my motivation to stick to logic at all costs.
What I'm saying is that you don't put such a caveat on yourself.
Tell me which of "someone's" claims you adopt. Why do you call his words "important work"?
pleasantness:
I distinguish between a scientific theory and a non-scientific perception, just as one must distinguish between scientific truth and an intellectual perception that is attributed some kind of truth value. - Moral truth, for example - is not a scientific truth, but each of us (I hope, and in fact quite sure of it) advocates a moral value(s) that have some truth value, from his point of view and his perception. A mathematical truth is a mathematical truth detached from the question of whether it can be attributed a scientific value, if at all it has a scientific truth value. And so on.
The theory of intelligent design is not science. I did not claim that it is science, nor is it supposed to function as science, and for example to 'predict' certain phenomena based on experiment or observation. is a conceptual concept. It is a type of belief, more or less rational, that is allowed to be championed as long as it is rationally possible, since it has truth value by virtue of being rationally possible. In my opinion - in the current state of knowledge, this is a rationally possible concept, and therefore it is a rational concept, a belief that can be attributed a truth value, that can be championed, even if it does not have the value of scientific truth. What cannot be done is to attribute to it the value of a 'scientific' truth.
At the same time - in my opinion, in principle certain theories, which are usually called 'science', are beliefs - more rational or less rational, but 'beliefs' - and not scientific truths. For example, in the issue of the formation of life there are currently no scientific theories, therefore it is a matter of beliefs. I have already expressed my opinion on the extent of their irrationality, but I am able to accept as a fact that there are those who would like to attribute rationality to them, and the will of a person - his honor. What I can't accept is the scientific excuse that they try to wrap such beliefs in, or parts of them, or certain interpretations of them. Here we are dealing with a gross lie, forgery, charlatanism - in the worst case, or just naivety and a lack of criticism, in the best case.
As for Popper - well, we disagree with each other. I expressed my opinion on this matter in response 32 to an article published in Hidan under the title 'Impressions from an exhibition of paintings by artists who were influenced by Darwin's ideas in Frankfurt'. Since I'm against raising the bar, I won't repeat it again.
Michael,
It's a shame that you go into references to someone's body instead of focusing on claims to the body of an issue, even when you don't intend to make a serious issue out of it. Allow me to assume that some of your factual claims are 'worth' even without such extraneous ones.
As a matter of fact, read my proposal not to establish a line of argument 'related' to Popper - and 'accurate' in language. From the precision you must understand my opinion regarding the question of what Popper is saying. What I mainly wanted to say is that, in fact, the whole Popfer thing is unnecessary in the first place, because I think Popfer is wrong. So we've both already discussed this, and we disagree on the subject - another subject we disagree on.
As for 'logic' - my argument here is the same - but in the opposite direction.
By the way, do you believe in angels? - I do not! But from your words, I might start to believe in angels, because if you have no 'motives' - you must be an 'angel'... and note that the letters 'Machal' are 'angel' letters... (take it as a joke, please).
Eddie:
Tell me who your friends are and I'll tell you who you are.
All the words of "someone" are based on a popper and not just any popper but a self-made popper - one that does not exist in reality.
You dismiss (in my opinion unfairly) Popper and thereby dismiss all of someone's reasoning but you still attribute important work to him.
As I said before. What is here is not a matter of logic but of motives.
And an important side note:
Popper is not outdated, not far-fetched and definitely relevant.
Especially important and relevant is his assertion that a theory can be considered scientific ** only if there is a way to refute it **.
Theories that there is no way to disprove are not scientific theories.
Do you think that intelligent design can be tested and disproved?
Eddie,
Could you explain how the theory of intelligent design fits the criteria you set for a scientific theory:
"Its logical consistency, its logical-probabilistic plausibility and its factual adequacy"?
someone:
I read the comments quickly, and I want to relate to your words:
1. It's a shame to base your line on Popper. Popper is an old-fashioned thing - and absurd, and it is not relevant. It is popular and fashionable, because it gives scientists (as well as all kinds of uncritical fans), even when they develop very speculative theories, sometimes on the border of charlatanism - a feeling that they are terribly rational, and not, let's say, act based on mere intuition/guessing/ideological tendency, etc. And in the best case - for common sense of one kind or another.
You can find the claims against Popper mainly in response 32 to an article published in Hidan under the title 'Impressions from an exhibition of paintings by artists who were influenced by Darwin's ideas in Frankfurt'.
2. Therefore, the scale for evaluating a scientific theory is its logical consistency, its logical-probabilistic plausibility and its factual adequacy.
In my opinion, in the matter of evolution and the question of the origin of life and its origin - the debate revolves around the question of whether the claimants of theories have only 'facts' or 'beliefs', whether there is probabilistic logical plausibility for factual claims or interpretive assumptions, and the interpretation of the facts.
As for the issue of evolution - in my opinion, in light of all the accumulated findings, the very claim of the existence of an evolutionary process at certain standards, within certain ranges cannot be doubted. The question is only what are those standards or ranges, and how and whether it is even possible to explain transition from species to species in complex animals and evolutionary 'jumps' according to an acceptable algorithm; And including what principles are reasonable from a probabilistic logical point of view and appropriate to the facts - really guide the evolutionary process, and perhaps we have interpretive principles. According to the state of existing knowledge, these questions are open for discussion today, and therefore the evolutionary theories are not perfect.
3. Therefore, there is also room for the concept of intelligent planning, in my opinion. This is provided, of course, that the feasibility of a concept that is not 'purely materialistic' can be pointed out. Personally, I believe that this is possible, and a lot of words were spilled about it in my debate with Michael regarding the article published in Hidan under the title 'Within ten years...'. In the comments surrounding the aforementioned article, I expressed and reasoned my opinion as to why the beginning of life cannot be purely chemophysically spontaneous, mainly because there is no practical probability for this, and there is not even any reliable possibility to indicate a practically probable process for this - according to the state of existing knowledge. I have no doubt that theories that talk about random 'spontaneous creation' are at best 'beliefs' and at worst - charlatanism in pseudo-scientific guise, coming to serve interests and ideologies foreign to science. The article around which the discussion is now taking place belongs to this category.
4. I was happy to see that there is also a 'different opinion' in the discussion. Do not be afraid of condemnations and even blasphemies from all kinds of good souls. These are usually really good people, even when they sometimes express themselves as fanatics, and even when they try to tilt the discussion in purely spiteful directions. Cling to your truth fearlessly, and try to back it up. You are doing important work. And let's do the opponent a favor for challenging and bringing about a more thorough clarification of the truth.
Someone is right. To be honest, someone is a reformist - why does he only oppose the limited theory of evolution, but accepts the stupid theory of Copernicus the infidel, according to which the Earth is not at the center of the universe? How dare he give up on all the "scientists" who dare to contradict the words of our sages according to which the wolf is poisonous? Shame And shame on those "scientists"!
[This response was sarcastic].
someone:
I don't know why you express yourself on a site that deals with science and not nonsense, but just for entertainment, tell me: can you disprove the claim that the entire world was created exactly a second ago when all the memories of all humans describe matching fibrics about history and all reality looks as if this history actually happened?
Even such a crazy script (which, by the way, is the script of the Torah, only postponed by six thousand years) cannot be refuted.
Yotam-
"I don't want to dig around the world. I ask to dig, to check. If the theory of evolution is not true, it is only a matter of time." - So you simply ask me to dig for hundreds of years, and maybe in a hundred years we will find such a fossil. Where is the budget for this? This is how science works?
"Where does your statement come from that it is not possible for eyes to be formed 40 times separately? You just stated it, just like that. (on the basis that it is a complex organ?). There is nothing in this argument." - Light receptors are a very complex thing with a stereochemical structure built from hundreds of nucleotides. And how do you think that a parallel evolution of rabbits is not possible? There is nothing in this argument.
In planning theory there is no refuting scenario. The scenario you proposed is not disprovable. How do I know there is no planning involved? It can be said that planning is certainly involved although it works gradually while creating a 'slight trend'.
It is impossible to rule out the involvement of planning in any experiment." - If a complex system is created all at once, this will be evidence of planning because it is hopeless. If a complex system is created gradually, this will be evidence of evolution and you can refute the designer's argument.
Yotam,
When you go to light a fire on the gas stove, you turn the faucet, rub a match or turn on a lighter and that's it, the fire is lit. There is no need to spray perfume (you can, but you don't need to), nor is it necessary to go out dancing, sing songs or pray - all of these are not useful for lighting a high fire. The same is the case with the development of life on Earth: there is no need for additions beyond the process of evolution - the intelligent planner weighs against the unnecessary additions. I know that this is not proof of the existence of evolution, but there is some contradiction to intelligent design. (By the way, the principle on which this response is based is called "Occam's Razor")
someone;
I'm not asking to dig around the world. I ask to dig, to check. If the theory of evolution is wrong, it is only a matter of time.
Where does your statement come from that it is not possible for eyes to be formed 40 times separately? You just stated it, just like that. (on the basis that it is a complex organ?). There is nothing in this argument.
In planning theory there is no refuting scenario. The scenario you proposed is not disprovable. How do I know there is no planning involved? It can be said that planning is certainly involved although it works gradually while creating a 'slight trend'.
Design involvement cannot be ruled out in any experiment.
A brief summary of my father's request from you is "act like Michael". I think this is good advice.
Yotam, you're asking to dig all over the world, it's simply impossible. Even if we dug and dug and didn't find it, it's still possible that a process like that destroyed the fossils or that we simply didn't search enough. And you didn't address the fact that there could be a parallel evolution from another cell. Eyes are a very complex organ and therefore not There may be a situation where they will be created 40 times separately. If we compare it to the design theory, then it can be argued that if someone sees a natural process that creates a living cell, this will be a refutation of the design theory, how will you solve this? In my opinion, both theories are scientific, or both are not. There is probably no middle ground.
.YES SIR
See, please if you like the site help maintain it. I try to lower the intensity of arguments because I think it's more fun to enjoy the articles and not start a fight. And you chose to fight with Michael?
Try to calm down and respond to the substance of the matter and not to the person's body. That's why I set up the site - to promote knowledge, not the ego and not to argue about who has a bigger ego.
I would be happy if you would stop the debates about ego right now, and help promote science. Even for me, instead of monitoring the responses I can find time to translate another news item or interview someone for an original news item.
Thanks Avi Blizovsky
For all those who have doubts about the origin of life - I recommend studying a degree in biology. Look for the track that suits you in the various higher education institutions. This is definitely a challenging and interesting degree. You will not get full answers within the science site, but only tastes.
You can also subscribe to various scientific journals (for a fee) - I will not publish names here. These are newspapers in which the articles published in them undergo peer review (that is, a scientist who wants to publish an article/research must receive confirmation of the scientific validity of his work by other scientists in the same field) anonymously. Do not expect to find unanimity on every issue, but be sure that precisely regarding The theory of evolution (the force of gravity is also just a theory, but I don't see you jumping off the roof), rest assured that it is indisputable.
See, with your permission: "delayed" (delayed) (and not "followed up").
Shabbat Shalom.
Dear father, Happy holiday to you.
I already wrote you before that I love you.
Well, for me it is an indisputable fact.
Ego, is the biggest human barrier to development, in understanding, in science, in relationships, in reference, in attribution.
He sickens the mind, blinds the mind, deafens the ears, falsifies himself, and presents himself in a false light as well.
Corrupts the present, destroys the future, and falsifies the past.
Due to the amount of forgery, it is impossible to know what is true and what is important.
From a careful point of view of history, I would like to report that the Jewish people are seriously ill with this disease and in Israel we are nothing but our own kibbutz.
It's a shame that ego seeps into places like science and medicine, it is: tracking, discrediting, spoiling, and delaying the understanding of science for everyone.
Science is enjoyment, pleasure, viewing, excitement.
Why is it similar?
The carriage is harnessed to 6 fast, healthy horses, who move restlessly in their place and just yearn for the call to go, but the departure is followed because the harness is not placed nicely on the neck of one of the horses to someone's liking, and until the dopey is fixed, you must not go out.
Until the end, the horses will not set off.
And they will all experience depression.
See, what happened that you also started fighting with Michael?
Views:
As I said - I choose what I will refer to.
In general - you can only succeed in what you try and I don't intend to try not to answer you.
On the contrary - it is you who is trying to avoid criticism and you are not successful.
Mutations are random and that is the magic of creation.
There is only beauty and wonder in it, the elements of reason.
The one in whom understanding arises cannot be diverted or dislodged from his place, sitting there is stable.
There are people for whom the word mutation is scary, their ego is shocked.
Ego is a powerful source of power.
The truth is that if you connect wires to the egoist you can actually get energy, but I don't know where to connect the + and the -.
Maybe someone knows?
Views
Michael - Please do not refer to what I write, not in the past, not in the present, not in the future.
Who knows, maybe you will succeed.
Thanks.
Johnny:
I guess you didn't mean to claim that every theory is a scientific theory but that's what you got. This is of course not true.
Besides, it is not known at all that mutations are not purely random. On the contrary: despite all attempts to find a case of non-random mutations, such a mutation has never been found.
I assume that you are basing yourself on the book "Evolution in four dimensions" by Chava Jablonka and Marion Lamb, but those who delve into their words see that they also do not believe in the existence of non-random mutations.
True - they use this phrase, but they only do it to show that they are different from others. In the end - when you delve into their words, you see that they are also talking about the same mutations that everyone always talked about.
By the way: When you say "random" mutation, you obviously mean "unintended" mutation and not "uncaused" mutation.
All mutations - even those we call random - are caused in one way or another.
The theory of evolution is a scientific theory like any theory and being such it is open to changes and updates that do happen. Today it is already known that mutations are not purely random, contrary to popular opinion, the process of creating species is complex and contains many more parts.
There is evidence of building blocks of DNA and proteins in the interstellar matter from here on out...billions of years of possibilities..
someone;
A. There is no requirement for a controlled laboratory experiment. Noam is right.
B. It is true that we know several pathways for the formation of eyes. However, eyes are a very useful organ and it is not difficult to understand how the development of this organ could be repeated. (What's more, in any case the eye itself is different in one way or another).
The case of the rabbit is different, and there is no reason to think that a rabbit will develop at the same time (after all, such a specific pathway is needed, to distinguish precisely from the eyes on which it can act as positive selection in such a large number of systems) and separately.
third. It's not just about a rabbit fossil, of course. The finding of any complex creature known to us in a geological layer that does not correspond with the period of its existence according to evolution, is the same as the case of the rabbit.
True, the probability is still not huge. But this is a case that is definitely possible.
Michael: nice, 'silence in English translates to silence in Hebrew': I liked it..:)
Hugin:
Now it's simple!
You saw that he deleted all the messages and silence in English translates to silence in Hebrew.
....if you mean dubbing or subtitles in Hebrew - I don't have it (and I also don't have the strength to write a translation here).
M..m..to response 25: Is it possible to receive from 'God's answering machine' synchronization to the 'Hebrew' of Naomi for today:)? Ruth' for...
To someone
According to your responses, you are a smart, educated and curious person
It seems that for some reason (education, repentance, search for meaning...)
You have trouble coming to terms with the randomness of the universe and life
and tries to cling to all kinds of comforting theories that give life a sublime meaning
From the side it looks like you are living in a huge conflict and fighting with your own intellect
When you enter the "Hidan" website and try to convince people who want science and knowledge
You are actually trying to convince yourself
It is difficult for me to see which of the website's readers enters an ultra-Orthodox website and refutes creationism
It's just not interesting when you live in peace with your opinions
I don't judge you and hope you find the balance between emotion and reason
And what to do Curiosity sometimes has a price....
Michael, where do you get the energy and strength to answer again and again all the nonsense that those humanoid pests write and ask you over and over again. God bless me.
God's answering machine
Views:
I'm not asking you what to refer to.
If you don't want me to comment on something, it's best not to write it.
The truth is that this time - apart from your demand that I referred to, you only wrote nonsense that does not warrant reference.
Noam:
She classifies it as my reading comprehension problem.
Gillian
How do you classify the stories of aliens and international conspiracies to hide them?
A solid scientific theory?
Pure speculation?
Grandma's stories?
Gillian:
Confirmed research result - there is no God.
Pure speculation - there is a God.
And the reality is?
Allow me to quote from the pale tracker -
"You see, you maniac, if everyone says it, it means it's true."
Many maniacs say, is it binding?
And my personal opinion is:
Life came here from outer space.
It is not known when.
It is not known how.
Views
Michael - Please do not refer to what I write, not in the past, not in the present, not in the future.
Who knows, maybe you will succeed.
Thanks.
Pure speculation, as valid as any other speculative theory. I don't see how any research can confirm such a theory, although it certainly makes sense. Still, being logical does not make it a reality.
someone,
Just a quick note:
You keep repeating the subject of a controlled experiment in a laboratory.
You are completely wrong - there is no such requirement!
The requirement of a scientific theory is that it can be disproved (even in principle!) by a finding or an experiment - not necessarily in a laboratory!
This is where science differs from all the other pseudo-sciences and the various religions
Leotham-fossil rabbit in Precambrian cannot disprove the claim of common origin because of several reasons-
a) This is not a controlled experiment in a laboratory
b) Even if one finds one, it can be argued that this is evolution that occurred from the origin of another common cell. For example, some scientists have recently been looking for evidence that the process of abiogenesis occurred more than once. Therefore, a rabbit or anything else cannot disprove a parallel evolution from another cell. (Remind you The eyes were also created about 40 times separately according to evolution)
c) This is a proposal that will not give many technical reasons - the chances of finding such a fossil, if it exists, are slim, since it is necessary to dig all over the earth and a lot until it is not possible to do it technically or economically. Even so, most of the fossils have not been found and probably will not be found. Fossils are hard to find and we haven't seen any evidence.
Interesting article... thank you!
Hanan Sabat
http://WWW.EURA.ORG.IL
Someone, indeed Popper in his writings brings evolution as an example of a disprovable theory. He himself mentions that finding a rabbit fossil in the 'wrong' geological layer is enough to knock it down.
So what nonsense are you talking?
Yigal C:
It is futile.
There is someone here who is just something!
No evidence will convince him and he will try to forget any fact that contradicts his words even if it has been presented to him many times.
http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/faq-speciation.pdf
He heard something about Popper and he twists it to his needs by watching everyone believe.
As if some kind of experiment - in astronomy, for example - was done in a laboratory!
It's a shame to spend the time trying to convince him.
All that needs to be done is to publicly expose his lies and stupidity.
Eden
The speed of light is the speed limit of matter/energy.
When we look at stars we see the past because light takes time to reach us.
The earth has to move faster than the speed of light for us to see it - and that is impossible.
Legal - This is not a controlled experiment in a laboratory, nor is it related to common ancestry. How will you disprove the fact that we evolved from a single cell? It is simply not possible. By the way, I heard that this is a point mutation on a control gene of part of the intestines that caused activation, meaning that these structures already existed before Therefore. And if not, this is a very fast evolution, contrary to what most researchers claim. So how can we know if the mutations are not intentional, for example?
To someone,
An experiment can be an observation of natural phenomena and there are many such with conclusive proofs of evolution and mechanism. Search this site in the evolution section.
for example
https://www.hayadan.org.il/lizard-fast-evolution-230408/
To someone,
An experiment does not have to be in a laboratory, but also in an observation of nature, and from observations in nature there is a lot of evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt the correctness of the principles of evolution. Like for example here
https://www.hayadan.org.il/lizard-fast-evolution-230408/
And here
https://www.hayadan.org.il/key-insights-into-how-new-species-emerge-0702093/
And here https://www.hayadan.org.il/reverse-evolution-in-the-threespine-stickleback-fish-3105085/
And here
https://www.hayadan.org.il/men-speed-evolution20202083/
more and more..
https://www.hayadan.org.il/bt-resistant-bollworms-in-mississippi-and-arkansas-1002081/
Please do not be dragged into the jaws of the religious "debate".
I have a question if the universe accelerated in the big bang and passed the speed of light... then it doesn't make sense for them to think that 6 billion years have passed and only 6000 have passed for example?
In any case, I support the theory that you can see the past, but not access it... for now!
I see the past of other stars we look at so why can't we look at where the earth was in orbit and get better pictures?
The response is intended for #5
According to Karl Popper, evolution cannot be disproved, for example, because there is no controlled experiment in a laboratory to disprove the idea of common descent. That is why there are opponents of the theory. Creationism also cannot be theoretically disproved. Regarding the article - does anyone even know how the first replicator was created? What is the point of conceiving theories when even you They didn't manage to figure out the beginning? Recently they discovered the replicator itself, but it was too long and hopeless even in the opinion of the researchers.
my father
Can you check if there shouldn't be comets instead of asteroids?
I agree XNUMX% with you Shahar by chance I am doing a course in philosophy according to Karl Popper the difference between science and religion is that science can be disproved the meaning of science you can say true or false because it exists and can be tested - there is a question we answer on the other hand religion is formless and answers Any question and if it is not answered, it can be changed in any way, the main thing is that you will answer the question
Dadosh,
If there is a creator of the world, then what does he care if I pick my nose on Shabbat
Or eat a hamburger with cheese? Doesn't he have more important things to do?
And if there is a creator of the world, why isn't there a customer relations department?
I just don't understand how simple things are like
What do babies who die in the crib do?
What exactly are we with Virtue with all the greed and bribery in the leadership
And lest you say that these are destroyed seculars, then how do you explain the
The ultra-orthodox drug dealers? the violence against women and children (what do you call the mother of the Taliban...),
And why Dadosh, please explain to me what the Halacha says
If a religious person meets a gentile boy in the forest on Shabbat with an electric crane next to him
If he desecrates Shabbat, he will save the gentile child. And don't ask me that someone will see him.
Dadosh, faith is faith. No matter what they tell you, you won't get anything else.
There is a lot of compassion and humanity in Judaism and there is also the opposite, isn't your creator also a god of war?
True, we are Jews and that is what has kept our tribe united against a lot of hatred
from those of other faiths. But why do you and your ilk try to confuse faith with science.
Science is skepticism, ideas and their examination in a form and manner that can constantly be proven or disproved experimentally.
So if you want to attack scientific ideas, fine, but what you believe or don't believe doesn't matter
Nothing. If you have a counter-argument or you found an internal contradiction, go for it.
Everything else, my friend, is thousands of years old dogs barking while the convoy is flying fast
and approaching the speed of light. You are welcome to get excited with us about the discoveries and the development of the mind
Or keep barking in the corner.
Have a happy Matan Torah holiday
and time to think.
Dawn
The article describes underground "shelters" where bacterial life was preserved. This description does not rule out the possibility of the existence of more developed life on the surface. These, yes, perished in the "big bombardment" because they were not protected. Therefore, the existence of life cannot be ruled out, even in periods earlier than the dates indicated in the article, starting from when they began to hope for water.
The site is called Yedan from the root Yeda.
Science is the main field of activity in which the human race explores the north of the universe and its way of working, in the sense of increasing knowledge. Learning in the field of science is called research.
The goal of scientific research can be the identification of natural laws (a comprehensive explanation for a variety of events and will even allow, in some cases, the prediction of future behaviors), scientific explanations for limited matters and the development of tools to optimize scientific research.
I personally don't think it's nonsense - because it develops thinking and develops humanity.
This does not rule out the existence of a Creator (until proven otherwise).
Nonsense,,,,what is this nonsense
And what does it help if it was 80 billion years ago that the main thing is that there is a Creator