And the biggest evolution buster ISSSSSSSSSS.
LOL , that with our billions and billions of years in the evolutionary chain , and all of your advanced science , and understanding of physics and electricity and temperatures and the universe and acoding to scientists knowing how the universe created itself , with all this knowledge , scientists cannot creat A SINGLE living cell from scratch. NOT ONE. How could this possibly be , please explain fastlane , how , if living cells formed from atoms that binded themselves together millions of years ago , why cant we create living cells ? Why cant we replicate this , they say it tooks millions of years because of the odds of certain atoms binding with the appropriate ones , but we now know the composition of the cells , so we can easily put the required "materials" together in a lab , and can even control heat , and have electricity , to recreate conditions they believe migh have caused life to spawn. Yet , it cannot be done , scientists have not been able to do it , even with our own source code discovered (dna) , scientists cannot do it , if we who have intelligence cant do it , can you imagine it happening by itself ?

Here's another problem with evolution , if in millions of years a cell was somehow created , how in the world would it already have a reproducing system ? A cell would be able to just spontanously reproduce as well after being spontanously created ? And if a cell wouldnt reproduce , wouldnt it just die away ? What massive coincidences had there to have been for a cell to #1 survive , and #2 learn to replicated itself.

The holes in the evolution theory are just about the size of the black hole in the center of our galaxy.

Because I have a disease: it's called "trying to stay on topic". As this thread is about the LHC and Physics, you are correct (for once) that I have not discussed Evolution and Biology.



I did. Then I went to the moon and found that to be false. Now I don't. That is science.



I dare say the psychological term for this is "transference", for this applies more to you than me. Or in terms you propose, more people would vote on this to be your attitude and not mine. Thus even by your reasoning it is you who are blind.



That is correct. "Life" is an ambiguous term that has no bearing in science. Evolution (and Science in general) does not make exclusive claims on what is "life" and what is "not"; it merely makes a claim to state how organisms tend to strive to be one step above the cold laws of physics.

The definition of "Life" is not important; whether something is alive, or not, or dead, is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. All that matters is our relationship, how one object relates to another, how I relate to you, how an electron relates to a photon... regardless of the "living" status we ascribe to these concepts.

Sure we can't do it? Not that it doesn't matter. By the time scientists figure out how to create life in a lab, you will simply argue it's even more evidence for your creation theory or that it's not necessarily is the exact same way life was created. You'll never be satisfied with the answers or solutions science provides.



Apparently our scientific knowledge is still too limited and / or technology isn't quite up to the task yet. It doesn't mean we never will be able to recreate life as it once started.



Death is a result of a mutation as well. The first few kinds of cells didn't die off. They mutated or were destroyed perhaps, but they didn't die of 'old age'. That's a fact. Also, the whole reproduction at first didn't exist. It's also the result of mutations. In fact, it's probably the most important mutation the precursor to the first real cell had to go through to make life as we know it possible.

AFAIK, Virus' and bacteria are considered replicators and not alive. This means that to Science, these are molecular combinations whose chemical energy potential leads them to make copies of themselves but don't quite make the cut-off for true life (since they require a ridiculously specific set of conditions to survive and replicate... way beyond what a normal symbiotic relationship would need). Hence, they are clear cut examples of how non-replicating objects can cooperate, coalesce, or otherwise conspire to reproduce their effective energy-conserving strategy.

In other words, at some point the interplay between energy and matter was such that it set up a self-replicating, self-sustaining system without an iota of intelligence or individuality. This is no great mystery BTW... just look at Cellular Automata and "Life"!



Simple: we are not victims of presumption. We don't presume to know everything, we don't presume to have all the answers, and we certainly don't presume to be able to replicate the wonderful, mysterious, complicated artifact that is (by anyone’s definitions) "Life" in the mere 300 some odd year that science has been around! I mean organized religion has been around for about 3000 years... why not give Science the same time-span to make IT'S case?

So of course we can't make life!!!!!!! As I've stated, Life is undefined and thus a horrible candidate for science. Once we get a better grasp on what it means to be alive, then, and only the, will science try to crack that nut. But even then, science is prepared for disappointment. Science doesn't mind. Science is patient and open minded. And if Life truly requires a non-scientific (ie: spiritual) component, I guaran-f'n-tee you that Science will be the first to acknowledge it and bring it into its fold! That's just how we scientists roll!

"Apparently our scientific knowledge is still too limited and / or technology isn't quite up to the task yet. "

But you are saying THIS HAPPENED ALL BY ITSELF. Why would we need super advanced technology to create cell that suppossedly binded by itself with the help of nothing and no one ? If that was the case reproducing this effect with our current technology should be cake , however , it isn't, in fact , to this day it's not even possible. Think about what your saying.

I've thought about what I've said a lot. You seem to be stuck on your absolutistic beliefs on how every word scientists say represent some kind of unquestionable truth when it comes to these theories. You don't bother to even accept that we currently do not actually know how life came into existence. Whether with the help of your God or not, there has been a chemical process for sure. There are theories about the conditions under which this is most likely to have happened, but there's not much solid evidence yet to support those theories completely. And obviously, regardless of the definition of 'life' problem as Fastlane more or less mentioned, they haven't succeeded in creating 'life' in a lab yet. Does this mean they won't ever be able to? Hell no. Also, I doubt you would agree that scientists would have created life as it happened back then anyways, as there's always the easy 'rebuttal' of 'that's how man made it, not how it came into existence "aux naturale"'

Lets say you are building a remote controlled aircraft and you've figured out what is required to make it fly (i.e. wings, propeller, engine, light material etc.) , but you can't figure out how to mold a propeller that will actually make it fly... creating life is sort of like that. We know a lot, we just don't know enough.

Also and this may surprise you, life's coming into existence is often looked upon as something that happened because the conditions were right, not as something that happened accidentally and spontaneously without an event of some kind that 'caused' it. If by 'happened all by itself' you mean, the conditions were right for life to come into existence, then yes that's exactly right.

There's no way of knowing (at least at the moment) if those conditions were set by God or by chance (which might have been a lot more inevitable than the word 'chance' suggests). I don't believe there exists anything like God, so it's an easy pick for me.

It happened by itself over 1,000,000's of years. How do you propose to recreate that in 300?

Is anyone else noticing that Why_do is using the same (few) arguments again and again, without any support, backup or proof?

Its like:

Argument 1 - Counter Proof of agument 1 - argument 2 - counter proof of argument 2 - writing "LOL" and randomly saying sensless things - off topic posts about evolution and god - Argument 3 - counter proof of argument 3 - Argument 1...

a lot Time+Low Power=Seconds+a lot Power

This is mainly because it's facts, theories, educated opinions and so on versus opinions based on fear, feelings, emotions and intangible things like 'God' being responsible for things happening around us.

( I'm obviously talking science vs. religion here, so don't get me wrong, I don't pretend to know everything or pretend to be 100% correctly informed on all the various subjects.)

I don't think these kind of discussions really ever end with satisfaction because we are talking way past eachother. We (as in the scientists or people that place science above 'God') do not accept God as a possible theory (or at least this is what religious people tend to think) and they (religious people) think of everything that has but even a little thing to do with science as evil, not trustworthy, incorrect by definition and so on.