Z10 Posted November 5, 2018 Share Posted November 5, 2018 (edited) Bonjour, la réaction chimique à l'orgine de la vie peut continuer au-delà d'un espace d'une bactérie luca human ou des bactéries peuvent expliquer la diversité de la vie sur terre. It's stupid that nature chose the weakest solution to start. Edited November 5, 2018 by Z10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted November 5, 2018 Share Posted November 5, 2018 The LUCA is the genetic ancestor of all life, including archaea and bacteria. As such it is not a bacterium, but likely something structurally akin to one. Unless you propose that humans were around 4 billion years ago and then evolved into bacteria and archaea, the claim does not make a lot of sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Z10 Posted November 5, 2018 Author Share Posted November 5, 2018 (edited) I propose that the chemical reaction that created life directly engender the strongest element of nature a human with 100% celebral capacity. the passage from the unicellular to the multicellular as well as the extermination of mass will be well explained by a human luca very inteligent Edited November 5, 2018 by Z10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted November 5, 2018 Share Posted November 5, 2018 43 minutes ago, Z10 said: I propose that the chemical reaction that created life directly engender the strongest element of nature a human with 100% celebral capacity. How can a human spring from a chemical reaction? And why is there no evidence to support this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Z10 Posted November 5, 2018 Author Share Posted November 5, 2018 (edited) if the elements of this reaction are there, there is no reason why it stops at a simple unicellular. the knowledge of the ancients is not primitive it sometimes exceeds our current technology Edited November 5, 2018 by Z10 -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted November 5, 2018 Share Posted November 5, 2018 24 minutes ago, Z10 said: if the elements of this reaction are there, there is no reason why it stops at a simple unicellular. You need to provide some evidence that (a) this is possible and (b) that it happened. 24 minutes ago, Z10 said: the knowledge of the ancients is not primitive it sometimes exceeds our current technology What ancients? And how is this relevant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Z10 Posted November 5, 2018 Author Share Posted November 5, 2018 all the experience that has tried to create life from a small amount of amino acid they have failed. You have to test with large quantities to see if you can create a complete human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted November 5, 2018 Share Posted November 5, 2018 4 hours ago, Z10 said: It's stupid that nature chose the weakest solution to start. Nature never "chose" anything. 2 hours ago, Z10 said: all the experience that has tried to create life from a small amount of amino acid they have failed. I have never heard of any serious experiment which tried to create life. There have been many where people tried (and succeeded) to make molecules that might have formed early life. 2 hours ago, Z10 said: You have to test with large quantities to see if you can create a complete human. We have never even created a bacterium. Suggesting we could make a human (except by the traditional method: man + woman + 9 months ) is absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted November 5, 2018 Share Posted November 5, 2018 ! Moderator Note There is no science here. Please try harder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts