The first thing I notice. You linked to wikipedia.
Great site, I use it all the time. But how many times have you heard, You must be extremely carefull about placeing too much faith in anything you read there.

Anyway
First few lines I see are full of "likelies" and "suspecteds" and "highly controversials".
I see lots of hand drawings of various animals.
I see illustrations of backfeet becomming smaller and smaller.
I see nothing more than I have seen a thousand times before.
Come to think of it, judging by all the previously visited links I see, I HAVE seen it a thousand times before.

Were is the "real evidence" this is nothing more than people presenting their imaginative naration and artistic skill.
There might be something in some of it but how can you tell what is real and what is not? How is this observable evidence? How is this digging into solid reliable facts?

Come on now, we are in a game engine forum. We do that sort of thing to our models all the time.

1) Hmm, Miller tried to reproduce one specific scenario that not longer exists on earth. In weeks or months, without knowing what exactly it was. Earth had millions and millions of years and lots of locations for that same scenario

2) A snapshot if this specific step, to produce more complex molecules, is possible. And it was.

3) Life forms produces lots of stuff. Some produces methane, yes. Have lost the track though for what this is interesting, sorry

Hmm, methane hydrate is in the discussion to have caused one of the mass dyings in the past. Is that what you mean?

There are and were millions and millions of species. So what's so dramatic when we haven't found all pieces yet? It's more a wonder that we found so much fossils until now. We don't really search for a long time.

For the mule example, i wish we could live a bit longer. There will come the time when a donkey and a horse isn't longer able to have childs, i am sure. Mmh, how do you explain that they can even have childs when there are just completely separated species? That should be impossible then.

In the end, i see that we will not find a consent here. We both interprete the facts in totally different ways. Nevertheless interesting discussion

Sorry, I probably wasn't clear enough with the Methane. My point is this.
If Methane comes, only from living oganisms, then Millers experiment requires the pre-existence of life in order for the experiment to work in the first place.

That is, if I am correct that living organisms are the only source of methane.
I am not at all sure that I am correct here.


But now we have left the realm of real and observable evidence and entered the realm of human imagination.
Dosn't necessarily meant that what you are saying is wrong, but it is not based on real observable evidence.
My saying that amino acids and proteins cannot exist outside of the cell is based on real observable evidence
Dosn't necessarily mean it is right but if I am to rely solely on real and observable evidence and ignore fairytales
then which is more likely to be fairytale.

You cannot. You don't really exist. You are just my imagination

Just kidding ^^

Shall we really start at that point? What exists and what not?

Why do you trust myths that are written in an old book that was written by some religious fanatics? But not a stone that you can hold in your hand, something where you can make your own picture?

I linked to Wikipedia because i cannot link to articles of Encyclopedia Britannica. Nor can i send you the real fossils personally. Sorry that the Wiki just provides hand drawn pictures. You can google for every single mentioned species though to find the real fossils. Then make your own picture

But you will not. You still have your fixed picture. And that's okay. As told, we will never have a consensus here

I agree that we will not reach consensus here. It is not possible because there is no conclusive evidence either way ... yet.
Which has been my main point all the way.
We choose what we want to believe, on both sides.

And there we go with the bible again. I have given lots of reasons why I choose to believe what I believe.
And all of those reasons come from observable science, not the bible.

Methane is a really simple chemical molecule made of carbon and hydrogen. Ch4. Where there is carbon and hydrogen there is also methane around. As a proof that it doesn't just need life to produce methane, methane can be found in our solar system. At the Saturn moon Titan for example. And this moon surely doesn't have life. Much too cold. But okay, maybe this moon also doesn't exist. Or the measurement was wrong. Or i just tell you a fairytale here. Nothing's for sure

Yes you are correct Methane is found on titan.
I did say I was't sure if that was correct.

I stand corrected

and you are taking my statements out of context.
I did not say that nothing is for sure.
I said how can you tell what is real and what is not on the site that is known as wikipeadia
Big difference

Hmm, we should stop with cross posting ^^



Yes and no. A fossil is something you can take into your hand. This is nothing to believe. It is there. Trouble starts with the interpretation of this fact then.

We both just knows a very small piece of what a scientist knows. He has spent years of just learning facts. Point still is, when you think you are able to disproof the evolution theory, why don't you do it then? A scientic theory is open to everybody, it's no dogma. Tell the scientists your facts, convince them

EDIT: sorry when i have put your statement out of context. MY point is that then there is nothing sure

Wikipedia is really a special case. It sometimes contains wrong things. That`s true. So you really have to be careful with it sometimes. My fault when you don't accept my links then. But as told, you can google for further informations outside of Wiki. And it is at least to 95% correct

I think we finally found something upon which we can reach a consensus.



I don't need to, there are enough scientists already doing it. I would rather try and make games
and I don't think anyone can disproove evolution.
I just know you cant prove it either

O wait, these scientists don't believe in evolution. They mustn't be real scientists

and now we go round in circles. It was certainly interresting and fun

Yup, consensus here



Don't worry, when they are real scientists then they can proof their theory with facts

And yes, still is fun