what is inorganic evolution? who made this theory?
99308
• According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals combined and came to life.\n\n• However, scientists don't really know how life came to be. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, says that the origin of life is still unknown. The idea that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.\n\n• The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that, according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities for a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model on a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of such a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute\n\n• Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."\n\n• Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. It is established scientific fact that like begets like. On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Although a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are beneficial, most mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.\n\n• Darwinists claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations must have happened: \n• Scales had to have mutated into hair. \n• Breasts had to have evolved from nothing. \n• Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb. \n\n• It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures. \n\n• Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.\n\n• Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml\n\n* Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example:\n\n* The Fossil Record (Updated 3 July, 2005)\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/fossil.htm\n\n* Living "Fossils"\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/living.htm\n\n* The Cambrian Explosion\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/explosion.htm\n\n• New T.Rex Discoveries (Updated 10 June, 2005)\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/t-rex.htm\n\n* "Missing Links"\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/misslinks.htm \n\n* The Big Bang\n http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/bigbang.htm\n\n* Anthropic Principle\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/anthropic.htm\n\n*Irreducible complexity\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/irreducible.htm\n\n* Biological Evidence\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/biology.htm\n\n* The Moon\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/moon.htm\n\n*Earth's Fight Against Solar Attacks \nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/earthfight.htm
131055
I'd like to think that you're asking this question with an earnest wish to get good informative answers. If that is the case, I invite you to see the link that Kurdiatcha left, or to do a web search for the term, or else, to read some good Evolution textbooks such as Ridley's "Evolution" or Freeman & Herron's "Evolutionary analysis", or Futuyma, or Stephen Jay Gould if you want something more entertaining.\nIf that is not the case, I'm not bothering anymore *sigh*
192516
In ancient Greece, Democritus espoused the theory that all matter is made up of tiny, indivisible particles called atoms.  This was in contrast to Aristotle's theory of the four elements: earth, air, fire, and water, which was the dominant theory for many centuries.\n\nDalton was the first to formulate a universal atomic theory of chemistry, which revived the old atomic theory of Democritus but also greatly expanded on the concept.  Dalton introduced the idea that atoms of different types have different weights. He also introduced the law of multiple proportions, which states that elements combine in specific proporions to create compounds, but not in-between proportions. Dalton said that atoms of different weights combined in specific ratios produce specific chemical compounds. In summary, the five main points of Dalton's atomic theory are:\n1. Elements are made of tiny particles called atoms. \n2. All atoms of a given element are identical.\n3. The atoms of a given element are different than those of any other element.\n4. Atoms of one element can combine with atoms of other elements to form compounds. A given compound always has the same relative numbers of types of atoms. \n5. Atoms cannot be created, divided into smaller particles, or destroyed in the chemical process. A chemical reaction simply changes the way atoms are grouped together.
595965
Lamarckism is a term used for Lamarckian evolution, a theory put forward by the French biologist Jean-Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, Chevalier de Lamarck, based on heritability of acquired characteristics, the once widely accepted idea that an organism can acquire characteristics during its lifetime and pass them on to its offspring, in contrast to the now commonly accepted Darwinian theory of Natural selection; the idea that individual organisms which possess genetic variations giving them advantageous heritable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce and, in doing so, to increase the frequency of such traits in subsequent generations.
589476
The theories could very well be true, unless proven otherwise. If you are looking at it from the theological point of view, then consider this:\n\nThe original ingredients for the single cellular organism from which all life on earth originated must have been placed there by some greater power. Maybe from time to time that power guided evolution to humanity, and maybe later that power will guide evolution to some beings better than us?
773338
Post Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution.\n\nDarwin's theory of evolution was a landmark in science, and hence is used as a time-line in referring to advances in similar areas.\n\nAs a similar reference for comparison\n\n"The computer is the greatest labour saving device in the post industrial era"\n\nThe industrial era is when labour saving machines began to proliferate - steam driven engines powering weaving machines etc.\n\nThe statement is saying since we have had labour saving devices the computer has saved more labour than any other machine.\n\nThe finding of the "missing link" would be the greatest discovery in the post Darwinian era.\n\nMeans:\n\nThe finding of the missing link would be the greatest boon to evolutionary science since Darwins theory of evolution.
832973
Hi:\n\nMiller's experiment did just that... produced organic matter from inorganic matter, simulating the primitive conditions. What is believed to have happened after that is difficult to simulate as it was a random process of associations of the various organic compounds to form primitive complex structures, like say even catalytic RNA. This would have taken millions of years in itself and is difficult to reproduce in vitro.\n\nIf it is of some consolation to you, scientists have created a virus from scratch, about a year ago and the results were published in Nature.\n\nCheers!!
376973
Evolution is correct, although some find it emotionally unsatisfying.  However, if we go further back, we can think about the amino acids that all living organisms are made from.\nWhen the earth was much younger, carbon and many other elements and compounds were dissolved in the sea.  Over time, lightning strikes and other forces caused these chemicals to bind into amino acids.  Amino acids, although not alive, of course, are the basic building blocks of all life. If you think about evolution including this period of amino acid evolution, you may be more satisfied with your understanding of evolution.\nNow, if you're looking for a "why" we happen to be, I'd say there is no why.  We exist simply because of a series of chemical accidents.  \nYes, we're a small world in a huge cosmos.  Some argue that we must not be random because the chance of our world existing is so tiny.  I say that given the size of the universe, randomness certainly explains life on Earth.  As an analogy, flipping heads 100 times in a row is very unlikely, but if you flip the coin 100 trillion times, well, your odds are pretty good.  \nLastly, we exist, and therefore are able to argue about how we come to exist.  We have to accept that this unlikely series of events did happen because here we all are.  Inert minerals on planet YR-74298 are not sentient, and therefore don't have the luxury of arguing such things. (smile)\nOh, btw, IQ 147.  Was that what you wanted?
1104172
You don't understand the definition of a theory and a fact do you? I presume, judging from your words, you believe that a theory is essentially a conjecture, a guess, that sort of thing? Well, you thought wrong.\n\nScientific definitions and mathematical definitions are far different and more precise than everyday language. For us, a salt is that white stuff that preserves foods and gives the food, obviously enough, that "salty" taste. In chemistry, a salt is any ionic compound formed by anions and cations so that the net charge of the compound is neutral. \n\nIn that same manner, a theory is not just a "guess." Theories and facts are not rungs on a ladder of credibility - they complement each other. Theories are really models for explaining a series of natural phenomena, backed by strong evidence. Theories explain facts. Again, they are not "guesses."\n\nAnd, in that manner, evolution is both a theory AND a fact. There is the theory of evolution, which explains it, and there is the fact of evolution. This is similar to the theory of gravity; how the theory explains the fact that gravity exist, and the reason why apples fall down and hit us on the head. \n\nThere is plenty of evidence to support evolution and it is a strongly-backed theory. Also, all theories are incomplete and subject to revision. That applies to all theories - not just evolution. The atomic theory expanded over the last century as the Bohr model evolved into the current electron-cloud model. \n\nAlso, another misconception to clear up - there is nothing proven in science; there is just evidence to support it.\n\nAlso, people who criticize evolution often forget that it doesn't deal with the origin of life, it is NOT random, that the concept of uniformitarianism in science make evolution valid, etc.\n\nI suggest you read a little.
179646
not sure how in depth you want, but here's what I found:\n\nhttp://dir.yahoo.com/Science/Chemistry/ (I couldn't find a link to inorganic chem ... so you try!)\n\nhttp://www.newi.ac.uk/buckleyc/atomic.htm\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inorganic_chemistry\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Inorganic_chemistry\n\nhttp://chemistry.about.com/od/inorganic/\n\nhttp://chemistry.boisestate.edu/rbanks/inorganic/introchem.html\n\nhttp://pages.pomona.edu/~wes04747/InorChem.htm\n\nhttp://www.chemguide.co.uk/inorgmenu.html\n\nhttp://bcs.whfreeman.com/rayner3e/default.asp?s=&n=&i=&v=&o=&ns=0&uid=0&rau=0 (acrobat reader required)\n\nMost of these sites have links... \n\nHope this helps!! \n\nGood luck!!
130164
A wacko theory of Fred Hoyles.\n\nHoyle, who is currently dead, was a very good astrophysics guy. He did a lot of work on stellar structure. He also had a theory about the origin of the universe called the Steady State theory which was a scientific rival of the Big Bang. Eventually a lot of evidence came in supporting the Big Bang, but Hoyle could never shake his belief in Steady State.\n\nThe same thing happened with evolution. He didn't think it was true - not for religious reasons - but he simply didn't believe the evidence. Towards the end of his life he was really losing it, and was very much along on science issues. He even thought the Archaeopteryx\n(http://images.google.com/images?q=archaeopteryx&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=ii&oi=imagest)\nwas a fraud, based on absolutely no real evidence.\n\nHe thought that life originated in space, and that complex compounds in space would rain down on planets and seed them with life. There is a serious discussion as to whether or not that helped or caused the origin of life on Earth. Right now that is a minority opinion (I don't agree with it), but not a wacky one.\n\nHoyle though went further. He thought that the fossil record, which to others shows clear and solid evidence of evolution, really recorded changes that occured after "space storms" that lead to massive amounts of space chemicals falling down and mutating existing animals. He even though that human noses point down because that way we are less likely to inhale space born chemicals!\n\nHe got attention for this idea, which is nuts and based on a complete lack of understanding of genetics, among many other things, because of his excellent scientific work earlier in his career.\n\nHe was a nut, but in more ways it was sort of a tragic case. Parallelling Einstein in some respects (Einstein didn't have such wacked out ideas) but both were stuck at dead ends at the end of scientific careers that started out very well.\n\n\nOh, in terms of looking on the internet you need to be careful. Panspermia is one of those ideas which is very popular with scientific cranks. So make sure you have a real science source before taking it seriously.
550126
according to scientists that preach the THEORY of evolution. we evolved from other animals that evolved from single celled organisms that evolved from a puddle of goo that contained the building blocks of life. problem is that the puddle of goo either came from dissolving rocks or a form of acid rain caused by the volcanoes of the time period.\nso basically scientists believe we evolved from rocks or magma.\n\ni think the idea That we were Created by God much more logical. considering the order thoughout the universe.
584737
If you do your research you will see that the concept of time in mens eyes compared to Gods eyes are probably two very different things!\nwe are told to go to the fossil record for final, conclusive proof that evolution really did take place. You might imagine we would find a succession of fossils, for example, starting with shellfish, in which the hard shell gradually turns into a covering of scales, while part of it turns inside and grows into a backbone. At the same time, successive fossils would be developing a pair of eyes and a pair of gills at one end and a finny tail at the other. Finally, lo and behold, we would have a fish!\n\nBut a fish would not stay a fish. Coming on up in the geologic column of sediments, we would expect to find fish changing their fins into legs, with feet and toes growing out of them, and their gills into lungs. Higher up, we would no longer find their fossilized remains in old seabeds but buried in dry land deposits. And in other fish, their forefins would be changing into wings and their back ones into legs with claws. Their scales would change to feathers and they would grow a horny beak around their mouth. And, presto! the magic of evolution would have given us reptiles and birds. So we could line up intermediate forms exhibiting transitional features between every ancestral species and each type of their progeny.\n\nIs that what we really find? Of course not! That would be an evolutionist’s dream. Darwin himself was the first to bemoan the extreme imperfection of the fossil record. But he was hopeful that time would supply the transitional forms between species—missing links, they came to be called. These would vindicate his faith in the process of evolution by natural selection.\n\nBut these hopes have not been realized. What does the record actually show? Each new kind of plant or animal—fern, shrub, tree, fish, reptile, insect, bird, or mammal—appears suddenly in the geologic column. Beginning immediately above the lifeless sediments of the Azoic era, the Cambrian layer carries an abundance of fossil crustaceans and shellfish, in great variety, already fully developed. Plants with woody stems appear suddenly in the mid-Paleozoic. Fossil wood has not been found in lower strata but is abundant in all later ages. Large collections of insect fossils have been found in upper Paleozoic rocks, fully developed and in great diversity, but none have been found in earlier strata. Early in the Cenozoic era, modern types of mammals make a sudden appearance; there is no record of their evolution from earlier types.\n\nThis is the repeated testimony of the fossil record: Sudden appearance of new kinds of plants and animals—no precursors. Does this not suggest, to the unprejudiced observer, the creation of these new kinds in successive ages, rather than continuous evolution?\n\nPermanence of Species\n\nBiologists have devised an elaborate system for classifying different species. Naturalists continue to find species that are different from those already classified, and those are fitted in between the others. Extinct species, represented by fossils, also have been assigned places in the classification. Different fossils continue to turn up that have to be put between others in the system. The evolutionists call these transitional species, a word that implies a temporary existence, during which it falls between an older species and a new one that is to appear. Even calling them transitional reveals a bias in logic. A neutral expression would be “intermediate” forms.\n\nMuch emphasis is put on the search for these “transitional” forms. As an example they point to the lungfish, which has gills for taking in oxygen when in water and also a bladder that serves as a lung for breathing when out of water. This is supposed to have marked a stage in evolution between fish and reptile. But there is a snag in the logic. The lungfish did not change into a reptile. It is still living today, the same
276119
I believe it was the comedian, George Carlin who asked that question first.  His theory is that plastic was the one thing the Earth couldn't make so it evolved man to make plastic.  He went on to theorize that man is a parasite to the Earth and eventually "it will shake us off like fleas on a dog"
1164312
Yet another interesting question, man_id.\n\nAll a theory of abiogenesis can do is give an answer for how life-from-non-life is *possible*.  ... I.e. what ingredients and conditions might result in a replication system that is sufficient for natural selection to take over?  And which ones *may* have been present in the early days of the earth (knowing what we do know about those days)?  There may, in fact, be multiple answers ... many different recipes, all equally possible.  If so, then we may never know which one actually occurred on our planet.\n\nBut it is also possible that we may never find a recipe that works that we know might have been available in the earth's infancy.  We've only started looking.
535491
The atomic theory, which holds that matter is composed of tiny, indivisible particles in constant motion, was proposed in the 5th cent. B.C. by the Greek philosophers Leucippus and Democritus and was adopted by the Roman Lucretius.
50959
Democritus and Leucippus, Greek philosophers in the 5th century BC, presented the first theory of atoms (see article atomism for more details). The Greeks believed that atoms were all made of the same material but had different shapes and sizes, which determined the physical properties of the material. For instance, the atoms of a liquid were thought to be smooth, allowing them to slide over each other. This theory was not founded on experimental evidence.\n\nIn 1808, John Dalton proposed that an element is composed of a single, unique type of atoms, and that whilst their shape or structure was immutable, atoms of different elements could combine to form more complex structures (compounds). Through his experiments, Dalton discovered the law of multiple proportions - that is, if two elements form more than one compound between them, then the ratios of the masses of the second element which combine with a fixed mass of the first element will be ratios of small whole numbers.