|
[QUOTE=sortie;13264350]Get off the garden of eden thinking. There could have been millions of these genitic pools created at different times and I said the DNA was created.
The actual being may still have not developed because it needed a different enviorment or nutrient to exploit it's full growth triats.
So you think it's more plausible to have multiple primordial ooze/spontaneous life generations then just one which diverged and evolved over time? That's the most improbable theory of all. FYI scientists have been trying this primordial method of creating new life with basic life building blocks shocked with lightening/electricity over long periods of time (nothing yet). The fact is improbable enough that spontaneous generation of life is hard enough to create once, let alone multiple times. Why you reject small steps in terms of modifications of animals over time is why you need to read some books like "climbing mount improbable - richard dawkins" and "the blind watchmaker - also by dawkins" When you get through with those get back to me and we can discuss how it's more probable then multiple life generating from nothing, in multiple instances to form perfectly functioning animals all at one time. Odds are by your definition that something that generated life on the first try would be eaten by an animal that was already more established in it's environment and has some inherent traits suited to where it resides.
The chances that you have come up with a new theory is zero, when so many people have tried this theory over and over again and actually make their living from doing so. I don't really know why you bother, or are you warming up for your new paper on this new theory?
|