Scientists use Moores law in linear regression to show life older than Earth

Professor Baxter said:
Like what? Quit being overly vague or just keep your mouth shut, moron. This does not destroy anything I have stated.
Click to expand...

????....vague?......isn't it perfectly clear that you believe an original life crept out of the primordial slime and eventually became a human being through the process of evolution?...........shit just happens but it took too long to happen........
 
PostmodernProphet said:
????....vague?......isn't it perfectly clear that you believe an original life crept out of the primordial slime and eventually became a human being through the process of evolution?...........shit just happens but it took too long to happen........
Click to expand...

Yes, vague. You were merely alluding to a wide range of topics related to evolution and claiming that this paper disproves one of them.

This paper DOES NOT disprove or even challenge the idea that life evolved here on earth. In fact, it's dependent on the notion. It simply suggest that the process did not start on the earth.

It does not destroy anything I have stated about evolution. I have entertained ideas about panspermia. I don't yet see that there is sufficient proof for it and this paper does not provide it. The paper does suggest how we can test the idea.

Contamination with bacterial spores from space appears the most plausible hypothesis that explains the early appearance of life on Earth. Thus, despite the fact that we don’t have a final answer, it makes sense to explore the implications of a cosmic origin of life, before the Earth existed. First, we conclude that life took a long time, perhaps 5 billion years, to reach the complexity of bacteria. Thus, the possibility of repeated and independent origins of life of this complexity on other planets in our Solar System can be ruled out. Extrasolar life is likely to be present at least on some planets or satellites within our Solar System, because (1) all planets had comparable chances of being contaminated with microbial life, and (2) some planets and satellites (e.g., Mars, Europa, and Enceladus) provide niches where certain bacteria may survive and reproduce. If extraterrestrial life is present in the Solar System, it should have strong similarities to terrestrial microbes, which is a testable hypothesis. We expect that they have the same nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) and similar mechanisms of transcription and translation as in terrestrial bacteria. The ability to survive interstellar transfer was the major selection factor among prokaryotes on the cosmic scale. Thus, bacterial life forms were successful in colonizing the cosmos only if they were resilient to radiation, cold, drying, toxic substances, and highly adaptable to a broad range of planetary environments. In particular, photosynthesis or chemosynthesis is needed to be independent from organic resources. The similarity between terrestrial and extraterrestrial bacteria may appear sufficient to draw a unified evolutionary tree of life, though it may be complicated by later transfers between the planets, such as between Earth and Mars (Gordon and McNichol, 2012).


The paper actually causes more problems for your silly ideas of intelligent design.

Second, there was no intelligent life in our universe at the time of the origin of Earth, because the universe was 8 billion years old at that time, whereas the development of intelligent life requires ca. 10 billion years of evolution. Thus, the idea that life was transferred to Earth by intelligent beings (i.e., "directed panspermia") (Crick and Orgel, 1973) is incorrect.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
????....vague?......isn't it perfectly clear that you believe an original life crept out of the primordial slime and eventually became a human being through the process of evolution?...........shit just happens but it took too long to happen........
Click to expand...

the primordial slime was probably on a larger planet that collided or was destroyed. Life survived and found its way to earth. Sounds quite reasonable to me.

And your god could have directed it all.

everyone wins
 
we should attempt to use a model to try to trace the footsteps of the universe and see where the material that eventually bombarded the Earth came from.

We might find life in that region
 
tinfoil said:
the primordial slime was probably on a larger planet that collided or was destroyed. Life survived and found its way to earth. Sounds quite reasonable to me.

And your god could have directed it all.

everyone wins
Click to expand...

It does not work for him because he needs to salvage the bullshit in the bible about kinds, the flood and all the other nonsense.

I think it more plausible to think that a god set things in motion but then they operated on their own. Even that, is not supported by any proof and is not necessary for understanding the universe. It also, does not fit in with this paper.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
/grins......and you won't admit that your own bullshit has been put beyond salvage by science.....
Click to expand...

The only thing that we need to admit is that you are an ignorant boob not capable of discussing these topics maturely. There is no need to salvage anything due to this paper. You have not been able to identify anything that it "destroys" as you claimed.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I'm sure, if we give you enough.....time....you'll figure it out.....
Click to expand...

Whatever. Nothing in the paper suggests that life did not evolve here. You have not shown that there is anything I need to figure out.

Maybe now you are going to tell us that development from prokaryotes to human is not really evolution but just adaptation within a kind. lol

Hey, did you ever think maybe Noah was a bacterium and the Ark was a meteorite! lol... Come on... dance for us.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
it specifically states it....
Click to expand...

It does not specifically state it. Again, evolve and originate or began are not the same thing. Evolution means gradual change. The only scientific explanation for diversity of life that has developed from prokaryotes is STILL evolution. This paper, even if it is accurate, does not challenge the theory that that happened HERE and is in fact dependent on it.

Just like ditzy, you are in desperate need of continuing/remedial education. You have either regressed or never developed a sufficient understanding of language, math and science.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top