Кулиража:
Pa cim govoris o planskom nastanku zivota i svemira, pominjes Stvoritelja, govoris o religiji...jedino oni imaju takav stav u ono u sta nisu sigurni.
Po teoriji evolucije zivot na Zemlji i nije bas tako slucajno nastao.
Americaknci su radili neka istrazivanje gde su u laboratorijskim uslovima simulirali klimu na Zemlji u vreme nastanka prvih zivih oblika i uspeli su da dobiju belancevine....And the life has began..
Dalje, za evoluciju koliko je meni poznato jos nije nadjen tolio cvrst dokaz da moze da je obori (samo mi nemoj navoditi razmisljanje kreacionista).
Opet ponavljam: ono sto je moje misljenje nema nikakve veze sa religijom. To je samo protivteza evoluciji za koju ja mogu da kazem da je naucna fantastika, zar ne? To, opet ne znaci da ce se neko sloziti sa mnom. Ali to nije vazno.
Mozda ti nije poznato, ali pre oko 4-5 godina evolucija je izgubila u potpunosti na znacaju i sve vise se klima, kada je potpisana deklaracija u cijem potpisivanju je ucestvovalo oko 150 eminentnih naucnika iz svih grana nauke da jedino zivot moze da kreira zivot!
Sto se tice DNK i RNK dokazano je da su svi pokusaji da se stvori zivot ili pocetak zivota, bili potpuni fijasko! Evo ti i naucnih dokaza za to:
Genesis in the Laboratory?
In the early 1950’s, scientists set out to test Alexander Oparin’s theory. It was an established fact that life comes only from life, yet scientists theorized that if conditions differed in the past, life might have come slowly from nonlife. Could that be demonstrated? Scientist Stanley L. Miller, working in the laboratory of Harold Urey, took hydrogen, ammonia, methane, and water vapor (assuming that this had been the primitive atmosphere), sealed these in a flask with boiling water at the bottom (to represent an ocean), and zapped electric sparks (like lightning) through the vapors. Within a week, there were traces of reddish goo, which Miller analyzed and found to be rich in amino acids—the essence of proteins. You may well have heard of this experiment because for years it has been cited in science textbooks and school courses as if it explains how life on earth began. But does it?
Actually, the value of Miller’s experiment is seriously questioned today. (See “Classic but Questionable,” pages 36-7.) Nevertheless, its apparent success led to other tests that even produced components found in nucleic acids (DNA or RNA). Specialists in the field (sometimes called origin-of-life scientists) felt optimistic, for they had seemingly replicated the first act of the molecular drama. And it seemed as though laboratory versions of the remaining two acts would follow. One chemistry professor claimed: “The explanation of the origin of a primitive living system by evolutionary mechanisms is well within sight.” And a science writer observed: “Pundits speculated that scientists, like Mary Shelley’s Dr. Frankenstein, would shortly conjure up living organisms in their laboratories and thereby demonstrate in detail how genesis unfolded.” The mystery of the spontaneous origin of life, many thought, was solved.—See “Right Hand, Left Hand,” page 38.
Moods Change—Riddles Remain
In the years since, however, that optimism has evaporated. Decades have passed, and life’s secrets remain elusive. Some 40 years after his experiment, Professor Miller told Scientific American: “The problem of the origin of life has turned out to be much more difficult than I, and most other people, envisioned.” Other scientists share this change of mood. For example, back in 1969, Professor of Biology Dean H. Kenyon coauthored Biochemical Predestination. But more recently he concluded that it is “fundamentally implausible that unassisted matter and energy organized themselves into living systems.”
Indeed, laboratory work bears out Kenyon’s assessment that there is “a fundamental flaw in all current theories of the chemical origins of life.” After Miller and others had synthesized amino acids, scientists set out to make proteins and DNA, both of which are necessary for life on earth. After thousands of experiments with so-called prebiotic conditions, what was the outcome? The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories notes: “There is an impressive contrast between the considerable success in synthesizing amino acids and the consistent failure to synthesize protein and DNA.” The latter efforts are characterized by “uniform failure.”
Realistically, the mystery encompasses more than how the first protein and nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) molecules came into existence. It includes how they work together. “It is only the partnership of the two molecules that makes contemporary life on Earth possible,” says The New Encyclopædia Britannica. Yet the encyclopedia notes that how that partnership could come about remains “a critical and unsolved problem in the origin of life.” True, indeed.
Appendix A, “Teamwork for Life” (pages 45-7), reviews some basic details of the intriguing teamwork between protein and nucleic acids in our cells. Even such a glimpse into the realm of our body cells elicits admiration for the work of scientists in this field. They have shed light on extraordinarily complex processes that few of us even think about but that operate every moment of our lives. From another standpoint, however, the staggering complexity and precision required returns us to the question, How did all of this come about?
Ima ih mnogo vise, ali ne bih da davim. Mogu ti poslati mnoge dokaze na tvoj e-Mail ili putem poruka. Verujem da i ti sam znas i svestan si toga da je evolucija pluskvamperfekat, samo jedna epizoda ljudskog ponosnog uma, koja je odavno zavrsena. Pitanje je sta je prava istina i sta je svrha zivota? Pitanje je kakvu imas ti, licno, korist braneci (ne kazem dokazujuci) teoriju evolucije? Da li ti je, gledajuci na zivot kroz prizmu nedokazanih pretpostavki, svrha zivota jasnija, ili mozda si, verujuci u evoluciju, dosao do odgovora sta je svrha zivota?
Mene su ta pitanja duboko intrigirala i zbog toga nisam bio zadovoljan teorijom evolucije iako sam bio komunisticki djak.
)... Nisu morali samo po pamti da biraju predvodnika.
