Sorcerer

Yes, you got it the first time.... so forget about the other part of your post

You'd need something bigger than god to fill in those gaps.... By the way prove is spelt with one O

Me

Thats only if we see the future, not the past. We can look into the past and travel into the future, but we cannot see into the future and travel into the past.

The problem is that the early earth was a far more chaotic environment than just water and sand, huge tectonic forces were creating massive clouds of dust and gas in the atmosphere sheilding out the sun, there were very fractured plates and a large ammount of subduction and conversion zones, we were being bombarded almost constantly by meteors and comets.... some think that these actually seeded the earth with some of the chemicals needed for life, some actually think they couldve brought life here already formed. As far as hypotheses about the chemical origin of life go, I prefer mixed ones, in some places amino acids were made, in others lipid membranes, I think proteins wouldve been the starting blocks, prion-like they would conserve their shape and influence the shape of others, if they gained the ability to catalyse the sythesis of RNA nucleotides and their polymerisation into chains, it would only be a matter of time b4 the right combination was hit on which produced the protein that did this itself, and also RNA codes which Ribosome like proteins, thus enhancing the rate of the cycle and allowing even more variation to occur while conserving the already successful Ribosomal protein and nucleotide sythesis codes... once these ribosomes were assimilated into a lipid membrane, this formed protobionts, basically all is needed from here to life is ion channels and DNA.... DNA didnt have to come untill much later when UV levels became intolerable as the atmostphere cleared, this is because DNA is more stable than RNA.... at this point DNA would contain double strandedness and hence copy proteciton.

I think its actually a misnoma calling the appendix "vestigal" because it still plays a role today, it supplies an area for symbiotic bacteria to live in our guts, just beacuse it is smaller doesn't actually mean it has no function.... it just means that its function need not be as large as other animals where cellulose is a large part of the diet...... to answer I would say yes it was in "vestigal" form when our ancestors split in lingeage from the lineage of the genus pan, however as I just said vestigal is really a misnoma as cellulose will always be part of an omnivorous diet.

Yeah, his experiment assumes that the earth's atmosphere was reducing, not a bad assumption, considering we can attribute almost all the oxygen in the atmosphere to photosynthesis, which came much later. There are other theories for chemical evolution, a couple I like are: Intersellar seeding; this doesn't necessarily mean fully developed life arrived here, but just means organic molecules needed for building life were synthesised in space and brought here after the earth formed by comets/asteroids/space dust. The main problem with this is that UV light in space would break apart complex molecules, which is why they would need to be sheltered within a body, eg large comet/asteroid/cloud of dust. Incidentally the same thing applies here on earth, and Miller's experiment doesn't add UV light, but CH4 and NH3 are good at absorbing UV wavelengths, possibly providing some protection. Deep-sea vents have always seemed to me to be a better candidate than atmospheric chemical evolution, as if removes the UV problem, theres a great source of energy and alot of different chemicals in water. Also some archeobacter species live around these vents today, they metabolise sulphur and as such would be a good candidate for something like the first life-forms because photosynthesis came later, and there wasn't any other life to prey on. By the way it shouldn't be overlooked that theres a huge leap from amino acids to proteins not to mention how it got to RNA then to DNA. Supposedly amino acid containing solution washed up onto hot clay can polymerise them and form proteins. Its speculated that proteins which acted like prions and catalysed the formation of RNA bases were what kick started life.

So on the quantum level can things happen then "un-happen" without any net increase of entropy? Is there no arrow of time at this level, if so how can no time at a quantum level turn into time at a macroscopic level if the former produces the latter.

So the thermodynamic arrow with respect to the relatavistic arrow requires one more variable? Hang on, don't you need a 3rd party observer to tell wether 2 objects are moving, or 1 stationary 1 moving. Theres a similarity there..... that sort of answers #3, wanna attempt my other questions?

When I read your post I "heard" the voice of someone else because someone else wrote it..... When I read fiction, I give the characters different "voices" But theres really no voice at all, actually now when I think about it its completely atonal and any "sound" is just from the emotional effect conveyed in the words. LIKE IF I TYPE LIKE THIS DO YOU HEAR ME SHOUTING? Edit: no that didn't really work, I think I needed to use some swear words and violent remarks, perhaps some references to your mom aswell, then you'd "hear" me shouting.

I'm sure all of us have a pretty good idea of what time is, it seems so obvious, however whenever someone says "time" with relation to a question in this forum, what do they actually mean? As far as I can tell there are actually 2 forms of time: 1. space-time, which is symetrical, and its proceedings make sense equally well in forward and reverse. 2. the thermodynamic arrow of time, which relates to the overall trend for an increase of entropy and the expansion of the universe, this is asymetric. What theories are used to try and unite these 2 forms of time, are there any and how plausible are they? When space-time is influence by relativistic effects, for example when an object approaches a singularity, does the same apply to the thermodynamic arrow of time? Space-time is relative to the observer, is this also true for the thermodynamic arrow of time?

I'm just a layman, but...... time as I know it is the thermodynamic arrow of time, it is the increase of entropy, in order for there to be time for a photon it would need to be: 1: conscious 2: able to observe the effects of increasing entropy So even though this is nothing to do with space-"time" and relativity, it also shows that time doesn't exist for a photon. Edit: actually gives me a good idea for a thread.

lol...... harness the power of heat, well apart from camp fires and steam engines and etc etc I guess so...... anyway enough sarcasm, I actually do have a question. From the name "phonons" I am guessing they relate to sound, as does heat right?... it travels at the speed of sound in a material because it is vibrational energy. However heat travels across a vaccuum as photons right?..... (there is no speed of sound here), how are photons(heat radiation) absorbed by matter and turned into vibrational energy(heat as I know it). I know that electrons absorb photons and jump to higher energy levels, is this heat? Anyway I'm not a physicist, biologys my major, keep it simple plz .

They were omnivorous....... I stated this, opportunistic feeders, scavengers even. Sorry for misinterpreting. There is very little genetic/digestive physiology difference between us and the first homosapiens.

.

Hmmmm E=mc^2.......... rearrange gives m=E/c^2 not E/c......... whats the squared bit got to do with it?