Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (152223)	12/21/2005 7:06:09 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793963

That transition can't be explained by evolution. It CAN be explained by ID. You're right. So what? ID still isn't science. It isn't the job of science class to explain how the first life forms came into existence unless it knows, which it doesn't, or any other scientifically unanswered questions. Same goes for your other points. ID may not be the answer to that issue, but then again, it may. Sure it may. Again, so what? If it ain't science, it doesn't belong in science class. Teach it someplace else. I don't see any new tacks in your post.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (152223)	12/22/2005 12:38:11 AM
From: didjuneau	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793963

I recently saw the ID movie on television explaining the bacterial flagellum "motor" design. It was very intriguing, and I was disappointed that I had never learned about this theory or the problems with evolution at the bacterial and pre-bacterial (pre-DNA) level. I wanted to see if there were any known holes in the ID hypothesis, and found information that RNA could have reproduced itself before DNA came into existence. RNA is comprised of proteins, which are comprised of amino acids, and amino acids have been created in the laboratory out of a mix of elements under the right conditions. So hypothetically, it is all possible under evolution, given enough time and just the right conditions. The problem comes when you add up all the probabilities for these things occurring in the time period that science has established for it all to have had to happen here on this planet. So a third theory has emerged that so far isn't getting a lot of mention. It's called "Panspermia". I think it probably would get more attention if a better name for it could be found. Anyway, it proposes that bacterial cells, complete with DNA, came to Earth from space. Evidence of bacteria in non-terrestrial rock has already been found. It solves the problem of lack of time to evolve from mineral to living cell here on Earth, but it passes the buck on where it all started. I think, ultimately, science can't really answer this question, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try. IMO, preventing theories from being discussed in school is not helpful in encouraging further efforts from all sides of the equation.