What does this mean for me? You will always be able to play your favorite games on Kongregate. However, certain site features may suddenly stop working and leave you with a severely degraded experience.
What should I do? We strongly urge all our users to upgrade to modern browsers for a better experience and improved security.
We suggest you install the latest version of one of these browsers:
Kongregate is a community-driven browser games portal with an open platform for all web games.
Get your games in front of thousands of users while monetizing through ads and virtual goods.
Learn more »
I remember a post we had in here somewhere wherein someone posted links to various experiments regarding the formation of different parts of a primitive cell, like lipid bilayers, peptides, RNA and primitive replicators, a Basic Cell Assembly Kit so to speak, but I can’t find it. Does anybody else remember and can dig that up? I’d be ever so grateful.
> *Originally posted by **[TheBSG](/forums/9/topics/33205?page=29#posts-1020700):***
> The [Miller-Urey Experiment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment) showed that extreme conditions can create the necessary amino acids for life. The [Fox Experiments](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life) showed how those amino acids can form membranes and other precursors to life.
> You should probably read the entire Origin of Life wiki entry though. Criticisms of my using wiki are stupid: I’m just lazy. If you can’t do the research yourself, you’re just as lazy as I am.
> It’s stuff a lot of scientists would argue they figured out on their own. Dawkins specifically talks about how many people feel arrogant when admitting that they came up with such fundamental theories as abiogenesis and evolution in their early years, but it really is that obvious. It is not lacking modesty to say that abiogenesis and evolution are clear and obvious facts. The only questions are in the details. Our many models for abiogenesis are all possible, and I personally suspect that a combination of these possible models are most likely.> *Originally posted by **[SaintAjora](/forums/9/topics/33205?page=29#posts-1020806):***
> > By this, I simply met that nonliving things do not evolve.
> [Formation of amino acids](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/do53am.html)
> [tPNA formation](http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/06/tpna/)
> [Spontaneous formation of prebiotic RNA molecules](http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227084.200-molecule-of-life-emerges-from-laboratory-slime.html)
> …and so on.
> In other words, they can – or rather, specific reactions lead to systems that can evolve. All it involves is chemical reactions of increasing complexity that at one point become able to replicate themselves, and the rest is history.
> > I didn’t claim we’ve actually created living organisms, but that has never been the goal, nor is it really feasible.
Hahaha, I just found that [exact same post](http://www.kongregate.com/forums/9/topics/33205?page=29#posts-1020806). _I_ just got ninja’d, but of course it’d be by Ajora if anyone. Also, [this link](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html) compliments the above.
> *Originally posted by **[Phoenix00017](/forums/9/topics/33205?page=38#posts-2384963):***
> I was going to try a different segue, but I think norumaru’s was probably more direct and efficient. :)
> This is a topic that became very close to me recently with my game [CellCraft](http://www.kongregate.com/games/CellCraft/cellcraft) that got [falsely slammed](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/cellcraft_a_subversive_little.php) (warning, that page is an absolute train wreck…I really don’t recommend reading the comments) for being “Creationist Agenda” and having lots of “Intelligent Design Memes”. After hours of heated debates, name-calling, and ridiculous assumptions by some of the critics (who frankly were falling into traps they often criticize Creationists for using), well, we didn’t really get anywhere. But it was very eye-opening to me. While I’ve always been on the Evolution side I’ll admit up front that I’m by no means an expert on the subject and probably should do a little more research on my own.
> I’m not sure exactly where I’m going with this. The debate that we saw was one of “should I have included evolution in my game”? Among other reasons, one concern I had was whether or not this would limit my use in classrooms or cause Creationist parents to prevent their kids from playing the game. This isn’t exactly the debate here, but is at least closer.
> We’re 38 pages into this one, so where is the thread right now? Do we have certain claims on one side or the other that we’re working on? How are we defining “Creationism”? Is this “young earth” or just “God had a part of it, but it took millions of years anyway”?
> Also, what do we mean by “Evolution”? Are we discussion origin of life at all, or only origin of species?
I liked your game, but it clearly was a attack piece as well. You can deny it all you want, because that is what you have to do.
The game was cool, but you should have left out evolution and creation.