Quote:
Quote:
grokit said:
What makes you think that humans are from this planet in the first place? I've read that there has been evidence found in the furthest reaches of space of the building blocks of human existence, such as carbon, silicon, sodium, etc. (so it must be true).
How can you logically deduce that because there are natural elements which are on earth happen to be elsewhere also? Bear also in mind that human genome is of the same elements as every other genome. Even amoebae genome uses the very same elements, so it's not exactly sensible to assume that humans must be special and come directly from space unlike every other member of the
terrestrial animal kingdom.
If these elements are there it only means that there are or were the same building materials and conditions that led to the development of these materials as elsewhere, it doesn't mean that they were used for the same construction, and it sure as hell doesn't mean at all we came from there. It just means that earth isn't the only place where elements, that at some point got formed in a sun, do arrive.
Elements as building blocks is a far different thing to a structure.
All the pieces that constitute a house being placed on a vacant lot will never turn into a house using natural processes.
Intelligence (and I use the term loosely here) in the form of tradespeople using plans cut and shape the components and then assemble them to make a house.
The DNA is afar more complex system than it's constituent chemicals or compounds.
The problem is that a single cell, to come into existence as a viable machine without external intelligence being applied would not evolve in complexity.
The application of all the different influences that degrade the existence of the proto-cell are far greater than the serendipitous occurences that would cause the proto-cell to increase in complexity and remain functional.
If it did happen once, the second law of thermodynamics would work to reduce it to it's component atoms/elements/chemical compounds.
Some would argue that the second law of thermodynamics only works in a closed system, and the earth is an open system.
The trouble here is that Isaac Newton discovered the second law operating on the earth and it has not been refuted.
It has been calculated (giving extremely generous concessions such as there being as many enzymes as atoms in the universe, and all the enzymes being available exactly when needed) with no detrimental processes (2nd law) present to hinder the process, that for a living 1 celled lifeform to evolve to a 2 celled lifeform was in the order of 2.35 times 10 to the 417th power.
In other words, it ain't gonna happen.
This is assuming the existence of the cell in the first place.
The probability of inanimate life developing into animate life is horrendously greater.
This begs the question: Why try to develop new life from scratch?
THe better way would be to get something that has just died and re-animate it. And yet this still can't be done.
Panspermia doesn't work as the object/spore needs to develop first against horrendous odds, stay inert in a tremendously harsh environment for exceedingly long ages, and re-animate when a more benign environment is encountered.
It takes thousands to billions of years for light to travel over cosmic distances, The speed of comets/ meteors is far slower. And then the probability of landing on a habitable planet is insanely unlikely.
DNA, even in a cryogenic state will only last for a few thousand years before it degrades into unviability.
There are reports of dinosaur dna and marrow being found from fossils that are over 60 million years old.
Carbon dating only works to about half a million years as after that there is not enough C14 left to detect.
The ratio of C12 to C14 is about 2 billion to 1, and each 5.6 thousand years the ratio doubles unless the sample is contaminated by it's environment, which makes the dating invalid.