I am with PDM in the place where we can all probably agree - life IS here on Earth. That's really all we 'know'. Although some people might not even be convinced of that.

PDM, #421049 - 12/27/11, Quoting Giornale: ....”Creationists are often heard to counter that such "descriptions" of how life came to be are why they are preceded with the word "theory".... [quote=PDM commenting] “'Scientific theory' is more 'factual' than most 'facts'[/quote] How sure are you about that? I counted dozens and dozens of differing “theories” or permutation of one or more of those “theories”...all differing with each other as to the origin-source of life on Earth. Which one is “factual” versus “theory”? They all have their scientific advocates presenting their theory and accompanying illustrations, etc., so which should I choose to believe? I mean no sarcasm with that comment, only to illustrate that the scientific community is all-over-the-cosmos in trying to explain how life came to be on Planet Earth...thus...the word “theory”, not “fact”, best suits what they promote...a theory. Most often "theory" or "theoretical" are terms used by the scientific community in describing the work of its members. They should know. Even when based upon a set of observable results in a lab, words like “may”, “at some point”, “possible”, “somewhere”, permeate their writings...all indicative that whatever the lab-basis for their “theory” is, the actual results do [u]not[/u] support the theoretical quantum leaps taken regarding assumed but not observed “next steps” in an evolutionary process. Wording occupies an important place in “theories” presented as “facts”. Take for example the description of Amino Acids as the “building blocks of life” as if they are themselves “alive”...which they are not. Amino Acids are “the building blocks of proteins” but not “alive”...so to describe them as “the building blocks of [u]life[/u]” instead of simply “the building blocks of [u]proteins[/u]”...implies about them when created in a lab or on the surface of a meteorite, etc., that something “alive” has been created or found alive...which is not true. So PDM...are scientific “theories” more “factual than facts”? Arguably, "No", with all due respect, for the reasons just presented. Next post...about the slide show you recommended as the “answer” to my question in the founding post of this thread (as will be re-quoted at the beginning of the next entry). Respectfully submitted, Giornale

Responding to PDM’s post #421047 - 12/27/11 addressing: [quote=Giornale, #421041 - 12/27/11] [color:#3333FF] “What is the "probability" that life on Earth is explained simply as a product of evolution, or by meteors bombarding Earth's early surface and depositing life-building chemicals or simple organisms from which more complex forms began to develop?”[/color] [/quote] [quote=PDM, #421047 - 12/27/11] “I think that this presentation gives a perfectly acceptable and logical explanation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg [/quote] But first... [quote=Not A Quote - A Challenge] [i] Before engaging in what are sure to be endless arguments about how life [u]began[/u]...”cut-to-the-chase” and answer the simple question of “why does it [u]end[/u]? [color:#FF0000][u]If[/u][/color]...as evolutionists and others (such as many contributing herein) contend...that “life” developed from random inorganic materials found on Earth coming together, or even from Panspermia as some believe, (or any other "theory")...[u]AT WHAT POINT[/u] in its upward struggle over millions of years...ever striving, ever incorporating, ever discarding, ever modifying itself to advance in complexity and sophistication...[u]WHEN[/u] did the first organism decide incorporating its own [color:#FF0000]suicide[/color] into its replication coding was what it wanted to do? [/i] [/quote] Taking nothing away from Jack W. Szostak, a man with great achievements deserving of the many recognition awards and accolades he has and continues to receive, there is never-the-less reason enough not to presume “fact” from his “hypothesis” of how life began on Earth notwithstanding his accomplishments elsewhere. The slide show recommended by PDM (as noted above) entitled [i]“The Origin of Life – Abiogenesis”[/i] (as in A.bio[logical].genesis) represents the position of Jack W. Szostak, Ph.D., and Nobel Prize winner. It would be the natural reaction for most people looking at Mr. Szostak’s education and accomplishments to accept his presentation of how life began on Earth in this slideshow or other media promoting his views as “fact” or “factual”. In this slideshow, the viewer is further prompted to accept and believe that everything he or she is about to view is “fact” because it is laboratory-based, “CONFIRMED”, as it is stated. There is the matter, however, that [u]first[/u]....the claim does not specify exactly [u]what[/u] was confirmed in Szostak’s lab and [u]secondly[/u] whether or not what [u]was[/u] “confirmed” justifies the soaring projections of how life “must” have come to be based upon what was “confirmed” in the lab. Since we have seen no headlines announcing that Dr. Jack W. Szostak, Ph.D, and Nobel Prize Winner has produced “life” in laboratory experiments...it will have to be said at the outset that the claims made in the slideshow in relation to what happened [u]after[/u] the lab in projecting the “hypothesis” of what happened on the pre-biotic Earth is just that, “hypothesis”, another “theory”. At the end of the slideshow...the concluding comment is made: [quote=“The Origin of Life – Abiogenesis”] [i]“No ridiculous improbability – no supernatural forces – no lightening striking a mud puddle – just [u]chemistry[/u]” [/i] [/quote] Well...it’s important to note don’t you think in view of the quoted statement above (and given that such emphasis is placed on “chemistry” as being the developer of life on Earth)...that Dr. Jack Szostak...[i][u]is not educated nor is his background in synthetic chemistry[/i][/u]...it’s in yeast genetics! It’s also interesting to note, given the “weight” listing both his Ph.D. and Nobel Prize gives to the slideshow and other such efforts, that Dr. Szostak’s Nobel Prize [u]is not in synthetic chemistry[/u]...it’s again associated with the field of yeast genetics. So the claim at the end of the slide show that there is nothing miraculous about the beginning of life because after all it’s “...just chemistry”...an absolute statement about the role of chemistry in life’s beginning is being made by a non-chemistry Ph.D. Add to all the above what is said about “how” Szostak’s lab went about creating and producing their “CONFIRMED” results the slideshow is claimed to depict: [quote= HHMI Howard Hughes Medical Institute, January 16, 2012] [i]“Szostak developed a technique called [u]in vitro[/u] selection to study the evolution of biological molecules. "This method [u]screens vast numbers of molecules[/u] for a [u]predetermined function[/u], such as the ability to catalyze a specific chemical reaction or bind a target molecule. "Those that don't fit the desired profile are filtered out and the process is repeated over and over again [u]until researchers find the molecule that does a particular job[/u]”[/i]. ((Underline, Italics and separation into paragraphs added for emphasis)) [/quote] “[u]In vitro[/u]” in the context of the above quotation relates to experimental biology wherein [u]components[/u] of an organism have been removed and isolated from their usual biological environment in an effort to produce experimental results not possible to observe otherwise. [i]In other words, Szostak’s “CONFIRMED” in his “LAB” statement that accompanies his slideshow really isn’t producing evolutionary results that could or may have happened (from the evolutionist’s perspective), the results are driven along a pre-designed course of development to produce a pre-designed result![/i] So [u]all the above[/u] taken collectively...Szostak’s non-chemistry background...the “in vitro” process of going through “vast numbers of molecules” [u]to find just the right one[/u] that will give the pre-conceived “outcome” they want in the lab...all accompanied with the drumbeat of how “scientific” and how “factual” everything that is presented in the slideshow is as life’s beginning was “just chemistry”...given all of that PDM...with all due respect it doesn’t accomplish answering the question I asked in the founding post and quoted at the start of this response. What does Dr. Jack Szostak have to say? [quote=Dr. Jack Szostak, July 22, 2010, MIT News] [i]“I don’t think we can ever be sure of exactly how life got started on our planet”[/i] [/quote] Perhaps this is why his slideshow reminded me of: [quote=Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz][i] ”The art of discovering the causes of phenomena...is like the art of deciphering in which an [u]ingenious conjecture[/u] greatly shortens the road.”[/i] [/quote] Respectfully submitted, Giornale

[quote=jinimal] “gionarle, i am confused about some of what you say about the chemistry of the young earth” [/quote] In the first instance, I’m not at all surprised you are “confused”. So is the “scientific community” regarding the composition of pre-biotic Earth. In the second instance, could it be that you are “confused” because you perhaps didn’t read what I wrote very carefully as illustrated in the following quote and your response? But before beginning... [quote=Not A Quote - A Challenge] [i] Before engaging in what are sure to be endless arguments about how life [u]began[/u]...”cut-to-the-chase” and answer the simple question of “why does it [u]end[/u]? [color:#FF0000][u]If[/u][/color]...as evolutionists and others (such as many contributing herein) contend...that “life” developed from random inorganic materials found on Earth coming together, or even from Panspermia as some believe, (or any other "theory")...[u]AT WHAT POINT[/u] in its upward struggle over millions of years...ever striving, ever incorporating, ever discarding, ever modifying itself to advance in complexity and sophistication...[u]WHEN[/u] did the first organism decide incorporating its own [color:#FF0000]suicide[/color] into its replication coding was what it wanted to do? [/i] [/quote] To proceed then and take a look at just a few of your comments and criticisms (sorry, don’t have time available due to heavy traveling to address each and every one individually): [quote=jinimal] [i]“you need to do a lot more reading and gain some understanding of the science you quote - you only seem to half grasp the underlying principles and jump to all the same conclusions the rest of the uninformed masses jump to”[/i] [/quote]. Let’s see which of us needs to “do a lot more reading and gain some understanding of the science” (being quoted) shall we? [quote=jinimal] [i]“...you state that the atmosphere was saturated with oxidants such as no2, n2 and co2...later you describe this atmosphere as oxidised. which is it, because the two are opposites. and both of your statements are incorrect”[/i] [/quote] With all due respect, you are mistaken. [u]Neither[/u] of my statements are “incorrect...and here is why: You seem to have overlooked that a “reducing atmosphere” will have “oxidants” (the NO2, N2, CO2) present whereas an [i]“oxidizing”[/i] atmosphere will have molecular oxygen present. The primary one is therefore “Reducing”, the secondary one is “oxidizing”...so I didn’t “mix-up” the two as you seemed to conclude. To validate what I said about an “oxidizing” atmosphere: [quote=Evolution News & Views][i]“If the atmosphere has oxygen (or other oxidants) in it, then it is an oxidizing atmosphere”[/i] [/quote] That is what I said...and in the context of distinguishing between a “reducing” and “oxidizing” atmosphere (which again I’m not sure you were clear on regarding what I said so you might want to re-read)...either one ( “reducing” or “oxidizing”) atmosphere is a problem to evolutionists for differing reasons [u]regardless[/u] of which one it was that characterized pre-biotic Earth’s atmosphere. [quote=Giornale] [i]“...oxygen present/oxygen not present presents a problem to Evolutionists. An oxidizing atmosphere is essentially "neutral" but is [u]VERY[/u] hostile to simple organisms...”[/i] [/quote] The latter part of the “oxidizing atmosphere” statement is what you apparently failed to either recognize or give its proper due in terms of context...because...as I said...even though it may be “neutral”, in an “oxidizing atmosphere” the presence of [i][u]molecular[/i][/u] oxygen would [u]oxidize[/u] the reduced organic compounds used by and making up life...[u]and thus be “fatal” to the formation of life[/u] because in that environment organic chemistry cannot occur!” Again...don’t take my word for it: [quote=Cambell & Reese, 2002, Biology 113, Ch 26, Ohio State University] (a) Thus, [u]only in an environment that lacks molecular oxygen could life have slowly evolved[/u] from reduced carbon-containing materials found more or less stably present in such an environment (b) Were oxygen present in large concentrations then [u]the instability of organic molecules in oxygen’s presence would have placed a too-stringent time limit on the simultaneous evolution of self-replication and resistance to oxygen[/u] ((underline added for emphasis)) [/quote] So in accordance with what I said...an atmosphere [u]without oxygen[/u] was absolutely essential to the earliest evolution of life...which is still the prevailing of the majority of scientists (but fading). Now, however, we come to a demonstration of why all such opinions are “theories”...because the following quotation comes not from just any scientific journal but from an evolution-friendly journal: [quote= Evolution News & Views] [i]“With organic reactions, such as the ones that produce amino acids, [u]it is very important that no oxygen be present[/u], or it will quench the reaction. “[u]Scientists, therefore, concluded that the early Earth must have been a reducing environment when life first formed[/u] (or the building blocks of life first formed) because that was the best environment for producing amino acids. The atmosphere eventually accumulated oxygen, [color:#3333FF]but life did not form in an oxidative environment[/color]. [color:#FF0000]“[u]The problem with this hypothesis[/color][/u] is that it is based on the [u]assumption[/u] that organic life must have formed from inorganic materials. That is why the early Earth must have been a reducing atmosphere. Research has been accumulating [u]for more than thirty years[/u], however, [color:#FF0000] suggesting that the early Earth likely did have oxygen present[/color].”[/i] ((Underline, italics, color and separated into paragraphs, added for emphasis)) [/quote] So according to [u]this[/u] Evolution-favorable site, oxygen [u]was[/u] present and has been known to be such for thirty years!! Seeing then the two opposing “camps” of “reducing” atmosphere versus “oxidizing” atmosphere which my comments were describing in the founding post, comments you labeled as “incorrect”...were not. Continued...

[quote=janimal] [i]“... you are quite wrong to say that early life would have been annihilated by cosmic radiation, as early life was in the oceans and therefore unaffected by the absence of a shielding ozone layer”[/i] [/quote] You are apparently unaware of several fundamental flaws in your rationale and arguments regarding the vulnerability to solar radiation of simple life forms (if they existed in the way claimed according to evolutionary models proposed by scientists). The genetic materials of cells is so easily damaged by ultraviolet light, wavelengths of only 0.25 µm [u]is fatal[/u]. Consider [color:#990000]Prokaryotes[/color] in the scenario you drew up that they would be protected by the seawater in which they lived. Unfortunately for your argumentation... seawater does a poor job of absorbing (dissipating) UV radiation. To perform their life giving conversion of sunlight, Prokaryotes would have had to be at the least near, if not literally “on”, the surface of the ocean. Fine and dandy...but... especially since solar UV-A has a greater penetration power in water than UV-B or visible light (Stewart and Hopfield 1965). At a depth of just 10 meters (32.8 feet)...although 80% of sunlight is absorbed by seawater, UV penetration continues in concentration lethal to early, fragile, photosynthetic life such as the early Prokaryotes. Solar UV-B intensity at the surface of clear seawater continues to penetrates to a depth of 15 m (Calkins 1974). That’s a little over 49 feet deep! So what happens at shallower levels you may ask? Well...while on its way to that almost 50 feet depth...UV-B [u]kills[/u] [i]”Escherichia coli”[/i] (Gameson and Saxon 1967) [u]at only 4 meters deep[/u] (a little over 13 feet). So just from those “facts” @jinimal it should be obvious to you why your argument that early life was protected from UV radiation by seawater...is wrong. Our little Prokaryote faces two problems...both of which are fatal...both of which do not lead to Prokaryotes evolving to more Prokaryotes. Prokaryotes aren’t going to be able to photosyntheticly get the nourishment it needs for survival from 80% dimmed sunlight at 10 meters deep...but since UN-B is lethal to it at only 4 meters,...it cannot rise closer to the surface than 14/15 feet otherwise it will be killed by the UV-B passing by...so what’s one of the earliest life forms to do? So again...if our little Prokaryote remains at a “safe” depth of 49 +/- feet where the UV-B has been fully diminished, it starves to death because by then the UV-A it needs for its photosynthesis has also long ago faded away to unusable levels. Sorry @jinimal...seawater does not protect your early life forms from solar radiation...just as I said...which you said was “wrong”. Next...you spoke of “volcanic vents” you as the source of life’s beginning, are you not aware that the average temperature of such vents is 400 degrees Celsius (752 degrees Fahrenheit)??!!?? That is hardly conducive to molecules and various materials swirling around in ocean currents to collect together to become life (and it’s not about life being able to exist in such extreme conditions in today’s seas...it’s about life being able to [u]begin[/u] there). Since obviously given your criticisms and “tone” (either or both apparently based on not reading what I said carefully enough or just flat out being wrong as in the case of the UV radiation penetration of seawater)...perhaps this will serve to validate what I have just said: [quote=Cruising Chemistry, Dr. Diane Szaflarski, Drs Robert and Melanie Dean, University of California] [i]“On the [u]molecular[/u] level, [color:#CC0000]the chances of life originating at deep sea thermal vents [u]is not likely[/color][/u]. “It is known that organic molecules are unstable at high temperatures, and are destroyed as quickly as they are produced. It has been estimated that [u]life could not have arisen in the ocean[/u] unless the temperature was less than 25oC, or 77oF.”[/i] ((Underline, italics, color and separating into paragraphs for emphasis)) [/quote] So unfortunately for you, another argumentation has failed...with all due respect. Finally...and all the time I have remaining to address again for a while: [quote=janimal] [i] “...your argument about probabilities is completely wrong and has been proven to be so many times”[/i] [/quote] Oh...if my modest illustration with the children’s building blocks to spell out “Theory of Evolution” needing to accomplish is too fanciful for you...perhaps you would care to argue with the following author and organization (it’s kind of a long one so please stick with it): [quote=Brig Klyce, panspermia.org ((and note all the assumptions and conditional words such as “if”, “conceivably”, “luck into”, etc.)) ] [i]“[color:#3333FF]If[/color] pre-cellular life [color:#3333FF]somehow[/color] got going, it could then [color:#3333FF]conceivably[/color] begin to crank out, [color:#3333FF]by some pre-cellular process[/color], random strings of nucleotides and amino acids, [color:#3333FF]trying to luck into [/color]a gene or a protein with advantages which would lead to bacterial life. “There is no evidence in life today of anything that produces huge quantities of new, random strings of nucleotides or amino acids, some of which are advantageous. “But [color:#3333FF]if[/color] pre-cellular life did that, it would need lots of time to create any useful genes or proteins. How long would it need? After making some helpful assumptions we can get the ratio of actual, useful proteins to all possible random proteins up to something like one in 10^500 (ten to the 500th power). “So it would take, barring incredible luck, something like 10^500 trials to [color:#3333FF]probably[/color] find [u]one[/u]. “Imagine that every cubic quarter-inch of ocean in the world contains ten billion pre-cellular ribosomes. “Imagine that each ribosome produces proteins at ten trials per minute (about the speed that a working ribosome in a bacterial cell manufactures proteins). “Even then, it would take about 10^450 years to probably make one useful protein. “But Earth was formed only about 4.6 x 10^9 years ago. “The amount of time available for this hypothetical protein creation process was maybe a few hundred million or ~10^8 years. “And now, to make a cell, we need not just one protein, but a minimum of several hundred. ((Underline, color, and separation into paragraphs for emphasis))[/i] [/quote] So let’s summarize @janimal since you were so strident in criticizing my probability model using the children’s building blocks in the founding post: It would take “10^450 years to probably make one useful protein” But the Earth is only 4.6 x 10^9 years old. In other words, [u]to produce a single protein would take over twice as long as the Earth is old[/u]! Now...in case it’s been a while since your last math class...(and just to put the “probability” of finding “one useful protein” into perspective) 10^500 trials to maybe find one useful protein (and if in deference to our host’s server space I show only 10^100) which equates to: [color:#CC0000]10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000[/color] I will leave to you to write out the number the number and accompanying zeros required to write out 10^500 since I only wrote out 10^100. [color:#3333FF][i]Tornado-In-A-Junkyard leaving behind a Boeing 747 anyone??[/i][/color] Respectfully submitted, Giornale

ok, one last blast. let me make a few things clear. i find you smug and arrogant, find your excessively long posts rude and tiresome and see no basis for your apparent confidence in your 'knowledge'. you strike me as being an armchair scientist, who scans a few paragraphs and then proclaims himself an expert in any given field. unfortunately in front of people who do know what they are talking about you are making yourself look ridiculous.

i worked for 15 years in process chemistry, in particular pharmacological and agrochemical research. i have a very solid working knowledge of chemistry and life sciences including metabolic pathways as a result of this, and unlike yourself can answer many of your points off the top of my head without the aid of google. what are your qualifications, other that knowing how to use the internet search engines?? none as far as i can see.

ok, lets dissect.

reduction is the opposite of oxidation. an oxidising atmosphere contains oxidants such as nitrous oxides and oxygen, whereas a reducing atmosphere contains reducing agents such as hydrogen and carbon monoxide. i don't know where you got your 'facts' about this from but they are plain wrong and betray a complete lack of understanding of fundamental chemistry.

the presence or absence of oxygen presents no problems as early life was anaerobic. oxygen was not around until plants started photosynthesysing. oxygen does not easily oxidize life molecules, as anyone with a bit of protein chemistry knowledge knows - if it did spontaneous combustion would be a very common phenomenon.

your quote relating to this expresses the view of two scientists. the wider scientific community disagrees. i cannot be bothered to explain why.

coming to cosmic radiation, or, in particular uv a and uv b - yep, sea water needs to be around 16 m deep to shield life forms from this (depending on salinity - early oceans may have been far more saline and therefore less penetrable). not a problem as proeukaryotic life forms are not photosynthetic. they are simple bacteria and viruses. alagae and plants phtosynthesis. they are not proeukaryotic, they are eukaryotic, meaning they have a cell nucleus and organelles, like the chloroplasts in which chlorophyll is contained. there is a theory about which states that these organelles may once have been separate organisms which became incorporated, and there are some photosynthetic prokaryotes, but there is no evidence that they were present on the young earth.

i presume you have some proof that life molecules cannot be assembled around volcanic vents - oh no, of course you don't. besides which your point was that life cannot exist without oxygen. volcanic vents clearly prove that it can.

the probability of forming proteins and the timescale involved - obviously a crock BECAUSE IT HAS HAPPENED!!!!

again you are quoting the opinion of one man without the benefit of any background knowledge of your own.

a word of advice - science is very very complex. one needs a lot of background knowledge to critique all the information out there, which is why there is a peer review process conduted at the upper levels of the establishment. leave it to them, they know what they are doing, where you do not. yes the process has problems but it is the best we have and it has given us space exploration, antibiotics and microprocessors. which give trolls like you the ability to randomly google quotations willy nilly and present them together in a body you like to call knowledge.

besides i am still not clear what exactly you are arguing - you seem to be saying that life cannot have formed by the means accepted by the scientific community at large. what alternative do you suggest? a bearded bloke saying 'make it so'? either way, you clearly do not have the scientific accumen to argue these points and you should know when you are out of your depth. and from where i am - there are so many levels at which you do not know what you are talking about.

[quote=ginimal][i] "you seem to be saying that life cannot have formed by the means accepted by the scientific community at large"[/i] [/quote] As was said previously, the scientific community "is all over the cosmos" proffering up this and that hypothesis of how life began. There [u]is no consensus[/u] "by the scientific community at large" agreeing on how life began as you keep incorrectly insisting...therefore the number of evolutionist-theories alone clearly demonstrates your argumentations are based on "shifting sands". [quote=jinimal][i]"i find you smug and arrogant"[/i] [/quote] Obviously you would...seeing that you cannot bully me into submission with your insults and diatribes. [quote=jinimal][i]"(I)...find your excessively long posts rude and tiresome"[/i] [/quote] Length was the result of fully addressing the many flaws in your statements and arguments instead of posting "knee-jerk" reactions such as you incorrectly mentioned previously. [quote=janimal] [i]"you strike me as being an armchair scientist, who scans a few paragraphs and then proclaims himself an expert in any given field. unfortunately in front of people who do know what they are talking about you are making yourself look ridiculous."[/I] [/quote] Too funny...since everything that was said was backed up by reference and quotation from scientists to whom I thought [u]at the very least[/u] you would ascribe credibility. Obviously I was wrong seeing that only your own expansive chemical knowledge seemingly related to bovine chemistry has any standing. [quote=janimal][i] "reduction is the opposite of oxidation. an oxidising atmosphere contains oxidants such as nitrous oxides and oxygen, whereas a reducing atmosphere contains reducing agents such as hydrogen and carbon monoxide. i don't know where you got your 'facts' about this from but they are plain wrong and betray a complete lack of understanding of fundamental chemistry.[/i] [/quote] Oh paleese...if you are going to keep coming up with all this inaccurate contrarian stuff at least have the courtesy to read accurately what I said to begin with...which clearly [u]and accurately[/u] discussed the differences between Reducing and Oxidizing atmospheres and the negative effect upon the formation of life each of the opposing theories as presented by their respective supporters has on the probability of life beginning in either environment. [i][b][color:#3333FF][u]Remember[/u] [u]this[/u] as you skimmed-read along?[/color][/b][/i] [quote=Giornale (referencing "Cambell & Reese, 2002, Biology 113, Ch 26, Ohio State University)] (a) Thus, [u]only in an environment that lacks molecular oxygen[/u] could life have slowly evolved from reduced carbon-containing materials found more or less stably present in such an environment... [/quote] Versus the opposing view from an evolutionist-friendly site: [quote=Giornale referencing Evolution News & Views re-quoted only in part] [i]“Research has been accumulating for [color:#3366FF]more than thirty years[/color], however, [color:#3366FF]suggesting that the early Earth likely did have oxygen present.”[/color][/i] [/quote] Can't have it both ways @janimal so your comment [i]"oxygen was not around until plants started photosynthesysing"[/i] is now opposed by many in the scientific community as being incorrect (notably based in part upon current assessments of the evidence of oxygen-related oxidation evidenced in the very oldest strata) so again your argruments and criticisms do not represent the "bedrock" of current thinking. [quote=janimal] [i]"your quote relating to this expresses the view of two scientists. the wider scientific community disagrees"[/i] [/quote] First you criticize the length of my entries...now you criticize that only two scientists were quoted instead of the [u]numerous[/u] I could have presented. Again, can't have it both ways @jinimal. As when taking a legal document prepared by your attorney to someone with a different attorney, the second attorney will always find something to disagree with about what the first attorney said. So it is with quote-mining opposing scientific opinions to present in counter and counter-countering argumentations which are sure to always follow any such exchanges as these. [quote=jimimal][i]"i presume you have some proof that life molecules cannot be assembled around volcanic vents - oh no, of course you don't. besides which your point was that life cannot exist without oxygen. volcanic vents clearly prove that it can."[/i] [/quote] And once again you are in such a rush to dash off criticisms and insults you have failed to work through the two separate issues to which you refer - namely that involving the "theory" of the very earliest organisms forming in 700 degree seawater and the other related to the absence of oxygen (which there has never been much of at the bottom of the ocean @jinimal). Two separate things @jinimal. Is there life around volcanic vents to be found today? Of course...but that doesn't mean they [i]originated[/i] there as documented from those whom you disparage in favor of your own opinions. [quote=jinimal] [i]"...trolls like you the ability to randomly google quotations willy nilly and present them together in a body you like to call knowledge."[/i] [/quote] Going back to your beginning comments about "rude" and "tiresome"...looked at your own comments lately? Everything I have written has been backed up with documentation from legitimate sources, scientific and otherwise...whereas from you... [quote=jinimal] [i]"i cannot be bothered to explain why."[/i] [/quote] With that self-revealing insight into your personality, I leave it to other readers to decide which presentation(s) at least has the merit of providing external opinions from which to read and consider for themselves whether they ultimately agree with them or not. Respectfully submitted (still)...and again will be away for a while (Planes, Trains & Automobiles await). Giornale

[quote=PDM commenting]'Scientific theory' is more 'factual' than most 'facts'[/quote] [quote=Giornale]How sure are you about that? I counted dozens and dozens of differing “theories” or permutation of one or more of those “theories”...all differing with each other as to the origin-source of life on Earth.[/quote] Quite certain. There are 'theories' ~ as in suggestions, hypotheses, ideas, etc ~ and then there is 'scientific theory', which, to all intents and purposes, can be considered truth Scientific theory, by definition, has to be more likely to be true than most 'fact'. According to my reading, this is simply a truism.

Are you asking why we die?

I imagine that the answer is the same as to why we develop from an embryo to a child to an adult.

Our cells are being replaced all of the time and, with age, or illness, or poor diet, etc, etc, and each replication is going to be less 'perfect' than the last. That's the nature of things.

If every living organism lived forever, the Earth would be in a sorry state.

I am not a scientist, though, so I can only give my thoughts. There are bound to be published works on the subject by people, who are more learned.