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 : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (50819)	3/26/2014 12:34:32 AM
From: TigerPaw	2 Recommendations Recommended By 2MAR$ average joe Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

Darwin didn't deal with the problem of the origin of life, Darwin's goal was to explain how one species could evolve into another. That particular problem does require starting with a species to explain how it changes. He never addressed origins as that wasn't the problem he was trying to solve. Never the less. Current biologist do include the beginnings of life in their studies. Life today is pretty complex. It used to be simpler. Earlier than that it was simpler still. When it was much simpler then it took longer for a beneficial change to be expressed. For the first 3 1/2 billion years life never evolved past a single cell stage. When you wind back to the absolute beginning then there is nothing to select, so there is no natural selection. The road to the 1st species would have been haphazard, but not completely random since the makeup of the earth is not uniform and random. Somewhere, perhaps near an undersea geothermal vent, there would have been energy and a chemical mix and some some chemicals would have come together to form a molecule that attracts the swirling chemicals to come together in the same pattern as the original molecule. Basically, life would begun with reproduction with selection happening much much slower for a long time.