Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
A scientist raped a journalist. The abstract to the article clearly states “We find the last universal common ancestor of cellular life to have anticipated the end of late heavy bombardment (>3.9 billion years ago (Ga))”. In the Vesti article, ” The last common ancestor of all living organisms (LUCA) lived about 4.5 billion years ago.” After all, 600 million years, the ninth part of the entire existence of our planet – not the time intervals that can be ignored. The work rather refines pre-existing estimates in the range of 3.5-3.9 billion years, rather than producing any sensation. It is possible that these estimates will shift in some other direction over time.
This is what concerns the article, and now in general form. The question of the origin of life on Earth should be divided into two. The first part of the question is: if the living comes from the inanimate, then how? The dominant concept is the RNA world. The second part – if the living comes from the inanimate, then where? Possible answers – here on Earth, or somewhere in space, and then brought here by comets. Specifying the age of the ONION body can help you choose a more plausible answer to the second part of the question.
Indeed, if the BOW existed before the massive bombardment, then it probably originated here, rather than being brought here with it. But if it appears too early and it didn't have time to appear here, then it must have been brought here from somewhere outside. That is, we have something to argue about, but this is already largely speculation about how to interpret the result.
The first part of the question is not affected in any way. There are no more successful concepts of the emergence of life than the world of RNA, but if there are, there will be something to discuss.
We really don't have any really convincing theories about the origin of life. And in addition to the proximity of the age of life to the age of the Earth, there is a much more serious problem. Even if we ignore exactly how life came into being in the first place, there remains the more interesting question of how it came into being in two complementary ways at once.�
All living organisms are divided into two types: autotrophs and heterotrophs. The former consume inorganic matter and synthesize organic matter from it, thus building their bodies. The latter, on the contrary, consume the former and decompose their organic tissues, using only a part for their body, and returning the remainder back to the ecosystem. The two species could not have descended from each other. They are fundamentally different. At the very least, they couldn't happen from each other quickly. And the maximum possible time for the appearance of heterotrophs is extremely limited. According to calculations, it is about 75 thousand years (not millions, but thousands). It would take so long for autotrophs to multiply indefinitely, extract absolutely all the dissolved inorganic matter from the world's oceans, and then starve to death. By the standards of evolution, 75,000 years is a blink of an eye. No one knows how two such different life forms came to exist in such a short period of time. And so successfully that they formed a food ring.
Reports on drilling the Kola ultradeep well indicate the presence of microorganisms in the cores (unfortunately, I only read the summary of the report and it does not indicate the type of microorganisms). Microorganisms could not get into the bowels from the earth's surface, since the mountain pressure ALWAYS exceeds hydrostatic, therefore, microorganisms were laid down in the planet during its formation.
Another discovery of scholars, which we have long learned from the Holy Scriptures. . Further, science will only confirm the truth of the biblical story about the origin of life on Earth! Although it is disgusting and not unprofitable for her.
Yes, exactly what the Bible predicted 2,000 years ago has happened: