What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
134 Comments
- wonderchemist, on 11/10/2008, -5/+50The amount of scientific literacy in the title and summary is beyond belief.
1) Life has existed on earth for at least 3.6 billion years.
2) Amoeba like organisms and bacterium are alive. - inactive, on 11/09/2008, -13/+55Daily Mail...
- doiveo, on 11/10/2008, -1/+30This is about transformation...
"The bacterium could have been intended as prey, but instead became incorporated into its attacker's body, transforming it into the ancestor of every tree, flowering plant and seaweed on Earth today."
The title is misleading as the event was pivotal in creating the life we have today. Not life in general. - inactive, on 11/09/2008, -7/+35I thought Q and Captai Picard discovered it in the final episode of Star Trek TNG
- palehorse864, on 11/10/2008, -1/+20Sort of like Megaman? Beat it, get its power?
- Stroggoth, on 11/10/2008, -1/+20Actually, this is pretty brilliant stuff. What you meant to say was:
so... discovered simple, primitive monocellular life, which led to complex monocellular life, and possibly multicellular life. i think i need to read this.
Once you have photosynthesis in a cell, a replication of a life cell without complete separation would head toward plant life. Like I said, this is brilliant stuff. - doiveo, on 11/10/2008, -0/+15The title is poorly written but the article covers these.
- crazyhorse13, on 11/10/2008, -1/+16I never knew Kirby was that old...
- archer104, on 11/10/2008, -1/+15Oh you again...
You're not helping your cause you know. - whatignorance, on 11/10/2008, -2/+15This is what I don't understand about creationists. Clearly life has evolved from very simple single-cell forms over millions of years, to refute this is sheer ignorance. Why not instead focus on what created that first cell from which all life is evolved instead, or go even bigger and focus on what triggered the beginning of the universe. Instead of being stubborn and refusing to accept the evidence on hand, religion should address the unanswered questions rather than blindly forcing their outdated view that God created the world in six days. It is questionable whether we'll ever know what triggered that first spark of life.
- whoamarcos, on 11/10/2008, -1/+13the guy above you makes more sense
- nabenmargi, on 11/10/2008, -2/+12It's not necessarily true that we will never know. Many scientists speculate that all you would need to jump start the evolutionary process is a single self replicating particle to form through random collisions of elements. Miller and Urey proved long ago that complex organic particles like amino acids (one of the building blocks of life) can form from the basic raw elements that were present in early earth. All it took was some lightning to shake things up.
- Disgod, on 11/10/2008, -3/+13Yeah, not the point of the article, but thanks for playing. We have a nice door prize for you.
- Oronar, on 11/10/2008, -3/+13http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogensis
- hootie233, on 11/10/2008, -1/+10HAHA HAHAHA
- archer104, on 11/10/2008, -0/+9Catholics accept parts of evolution (not origin of life of course).
The Dalai Lama (Buddhism) said that they must alter their teachings if science proves something to be true. - dpogni, on 11/10/2008, -2/+11here come the bible freaks
- palehorse864, on 11/10/2008, -0/+8How did you get back on the set? I thought we fired you. Stop being sarcastic to the contestants!
- CrazyChair, on 11/10/2008, -2/+10Flying Spaghetti Monster.
- omnithought, on 11/10/2008, -0/+7Just to nip certain possible threads in the bud:
The article discusses how life erupted, meaning, how it went from one tiny bit of life to an explosion of life all over.
It does not discuss how life itself began, as no one yet knows.
Just so we're all on the same page here. - Disgod, on 11/10/2008, -0/+7So do you actually retype this every time you post or do you have your computer set to have this as your permanent paste option?
- Steezus, on 11/10/2008, -0/+7God is a theory that has yet to make it out of the hypothesis stage. Science is not a religion, it is just a logical system developed to form and test theories to arrive at a conclusion. I love to fly on airplanes across the world, watch astronauts blast into space, and I think it is neat we can grow human body parts on the backs of other species. However, religion has not been able to provide me with anything that any human cannot provide themselves.
- Dustmuffins, on 11/10/2008, -0/+7That's not a question.
- TxRevolutionary, on 11/10/2008, -0/+7Saying everything was "just right" is like saying "that pothole is a perfect fit for the puddle inside". Conditions did have to be just right for life to start, but after that life adapted for whatever environment it found itself in.
- Azerael, on 11/10/2008, -1/+8And I know Jesus is the Lord, because God said so. And I know God is real, because Jesus is the Lord. And I know Jesus is the Lord, because God said so. And I know God is real, because Jesus is the Lord...
Ad infinitum. - Azerael, on 11/10/2008, -1/+8Except one is based on delusional gibberish, and the other is based on peer reviewed observation and testing.
- Disgod, on 11/10/2008, -0/+6While I'm pretty sure you're agreeing with science I've got to correct you on one point.
Everything didn't have to be "JUST RIGHT". There is no such thing as "just right" for life or anything else.
Life can exist in water hundreds of degrees above boiling, and can survive temperatures near absolute zero (Amazingly one organism can survive both those extremes. Look up the water bear). Life exists in every niche available to them, even in places which seemingly deny belief, like inside the reactor at Chernobyl.
Science (well biology) isn't saying everything had to be "just right". In fact that's kinda the antithesis of most science. Life evolves because the environments are never just right, and will always change. - BlackCow, on 11/10/2008, -1/+7I have one problem with that bogels, what created the creator?
- inactive, on 11/10/2008, -0/+6Yes, metaphorically, many religions have -some- parts sort of right. However, there are just so many religions, it's like throwing a whole load of theories to a wall and seeing which one sticks.
- afrocarter, on 11/10/2008, -0/+6I remember learning about this in first year biology over 5 years ago. Not quite sure why it took so long to write an article about it...
- Disgod, on 11/10/2008, -0/+6@palehorse864
Don't forget to spay and neuter your pets!! - LukeBeaumont, on 11/10/2008, -2/+7I'd like to see you find a fossil of a prokaryote from 1.9bn years ago...
- bjornski, on 11/10/2008, -0/+5@archer104
Because you haven't send him $50,000 to get to OT IV yet. - jhoogy, on 11/10/2008, -1/+6Yes because both are 'created' by humans.
- inactive, on 11/10/2008, -3/+8Life was created by Zorbloks and Zindoffs. Make no mistake they were a peaceful race until the mighty donut deakles took it over..
- cawpin, on 11/10/2008, -1/+5They say life was made......by two organisms meeting. Um, guys, organisms are alive.
- TheotherotherMe, on 11/10/2008, -0/+4Almost stopped at 'evolutionist', but finished reading anyway and have to wander what Atheism and agnosticism have to do with evolution? Or do only Atheist (which are pretty much the same as agnostics) believe in evolution?
- pastathellama, on 11/10/2008, -4/+8we've come a long way...
That's what she said. - jguy584, on 11/10/2008, -13/+17So life came from life?
Buried as lame... - tama00, on 11/10/2008, -0/+4heres a good question, define life.
- inactive, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3Because, with most kinds of structures, the more complex they are, the more fragile they are. More stuff to go wrong. This applies to aircraft, computers, and biology, and so on.
- cobainirvana, on 11/10/2008, -4/+7This is interesting.....on one hand, religion simply sums up our existence on earth as 'created' from the ground. On the other hand, science is telling us that many many things had to happen JUST RIGHT for us to be here on earth. Which is the more exciting possibility? Do odds have to be taken into account? This article is very interesting.
- binaryalchemist, on 11/10/2008, -2/+5Photoshopped. It's obvious. Look at the light reflections.
- Angostura, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3Yes, well I remember first being excited by this theory when I was about 15. That would have been in 1979.
- oenoneablaze, on 11/10/2008, -1/+4no, religion should stick to the spiritual and not bother trying to explain the unknown, since using a sentient being to explain away the as-of-yet unexplained bits of the universe is called giving up on science. Rather than make claims about the unknown and get pushed back every few decades by the advancement of science, religion, if it must exist, should stick to the _unknowable_.
- monistat7, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3@BlueCadenza
You seem to be confusing evolution with abiogenesis. It looks like you don't even know what science and religion are either. - plingboot, on 11/10/2008, -2/+5most reasonable christians (including the pope, archbishop of canterbury etc.) believe exactly what you're saying.
It's only really idiotic/stubborn people that think their current massively retranslated bible is exactly what happened. Its impossible to argue with these idiots. - cslewisster, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3Damn that fish looks happy.
- psolms, on 11/10/2008, -1/+3not "one accident"... several thousand random events.
- BlueCadenza, on 11/10/2008, -1/+3The Bible doesn't say that at all.
Where is your Amoeba-like organism now?! -
Show 51 - 100 of 141 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is