Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9029 total)
73 online now:
PaulK, Percy (Admin), Pollux, Tangle, vimesey, WookieeB (6 members, 67 visitors)
Newest Member: Michael MD
Post Volume: Total: 884,331 Year: 1,977/14,102 Month: 345/624 Week: 66/163 Day: 26/26 Hour: 3/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   THEORY OF LIFE
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 53 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 13 of 28 (706383)
09-10-2013 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by minaras
09-10-2013 2:20 PM


But this hardly means anything. "Some sticky reactions would lead to adhesion of molecules that would attract others as well, converting the procedure from diffuse to multifocal". That's not chemistry, that's not science. That's just words.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by minaras, posted 09-10-2013 2:20 PM minaras has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by minaras, posted 09-11-2013 3:24 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 53 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 22 of 28 (708202)
10-06-2013 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by minaras
10-06-2013 5:54 AM


There are ups and downs. For instance, the Cambrian explosion of biodiversity can be explained because the conditions were friendly with a dramatic boost in life evolution and diversity. Reactions flourish and everything speeds up. On the contrary, the classic evolution theory cannot explain this fast leap because evolution is supposed to be a slow procedure and not condition dependent regarding its pace.

No.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by minaras, posted 10-06-2013 5:54 AM minaras has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021