Comments on: New Theories on the Origin of Life

By: Tony

Tony — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:42:41 +0000

Flying Spaghetti Monster, anyone?

Please studying biology for 4 years before you claim that evolution doesn’t make sense.

Stating intelligent design is in-valid doesn’t make you intolerant, Charles. And most scientists DON’T have an agenda. Most are discovering new things at their own curiosity. The uninformed ramblings of people that don’t know what they’re talking about are the ones with an agenda. Scientific claims go through peer-review…by other brilliant men and women.

Science allows our understanding of the physical world to grow. Every time there is new evidence, somebody is there to throw stones just because they don’t like the evidence. There is NO evidence that will let these yahoos understand evolution because they simply don’t want it to be true

By: alvino

alvino — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:23:48 +0000

Sometimes — WHY – is a Stupid question.

By: Charles

Charles — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:09:00 +0000

And It is the ramblings of Mike Iwu that make me face palm.

By: Mike Iwu

Mike Iwu — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:05:00 +0000

the true origin of life can not be ascertained by scientific experiment!. the true origin in my own perspective is from the word of God. it was actually created from spoken words, just like saying let there be light and there was light

By: Charles

Charles — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 06:31:00 +0000

link in my name is one of the websites i just decided
‘
a quick quote for those not wishing to go down all the rabbit holes
Emory University assistant professor Carlos S. Moreno
Moreno said Tuesday that placing the sticker in the biology textbooks was like “putting a sticker about gravity on a physics book.”

By: Schoolio

Schoolio — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:13:00 +0000

Charles, when you say ‘theory’, do you even know what you are talking about? Are you aware of the huge amounts of supporting data and observations that go into a scientific theory?

Also, Charles, it’s pointless to say evolution isn’t a law. Laws are universal and must be true everywhere, so there can be no “law of evolution” because who knows what life is like on other planets (if there is life out there)? I don’t even know where you get your sources when you say “scientists who say evolution is a law”

By: Charles

Charles — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:58:00 +0000

Evolution, is a two form science, there is macro (the origin of life and where we came from) and micro (also known as adaptation)

I like the naiveté of supposed scientists who say evolution is a law. No it is still a theory unless science choses to belittle its own standards.

The only reason to call it a Law is to debunked any creationalism/ID advocates, but in pure scientific terms evolution (macro) is still a theory. I should of clarified myself for those easily confused, when i say evolution in this sense i’m talking about MACRO evolution not MICRO evolution.

Regardless of my own personal or intellectual beliefs, i freely accept i may be wrong, but don’t start labeling theories as laws when they have not be proven a law yet.

By: anomdebus

anomdebus — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:22:00 +0000

I don’t see much point in this exercise.
Maybe it could be useful if it was provable that there is only one possible way (unlikely), otherwise it is still an open question.

By: Zach

Zach — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:50:00 +0000

Wow… for an intelligent publication like mental_floss a lot of anti-evolution sentiment.

Evolution has nothing to do with how life was started, you dolts. It ha to do with the modification of organisms over time.

By: Kari

Kari — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:35:00 +0000

I think everything on earth was just chance at the right moment and at the right time life began.