Any Evolution-believing Person care to Explain Origin of Life?

[Hobbit]

Funny how you resort to "I'm not telling" when it involves you trying to prove something.

It's his failsafe algorithm.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Funny how you resort to "I'm not telling" when it involves you trying to prove something.

I'm not trying to prove anything. You are trying to prove that I am alive, remember? And you have yet to do it.

 

[Mariner]

1. The Anthropic Fallacy. There's a repeated assertion here that if it is very unlikely that life could arise, the fact that we are here to notice that life arose means we must have been created by God. What you're missing if you make that argument is that no matter how unlikely the rise of intelligent life, that life itself exists--and therefore is there to notice its own existence. So, don't fall into the fallacy.

2. "Microevolution" and "macroevolution" are I.D. ideas. This is because even the two main scientists who make up the I.D. movement each acknowledge some part of evolution (they can't agree on which parts). The evidence for evolution is simply too overwhelming for them to write it off completely. Take a little microevolution, add some, and add some more. Over a couple of thousand generations, you have macroevolution. There is no logical difference between them except the degree of drift. Imagine a population separated from the mainland as sea levels rise. Once there has been enough genetic drift on each side of the divide, the two populations can no longer mate successfully. New species have arisen.

3. "Cross-species evolution." This does not exist. It is a fallacy of creationists to think that evolution proposes cross-species evolution. The accurate statement is that species come in family trees that branch over time. Some branches end (extinction). Others divide (speciation). Sometimes they subdivide, creating phyla, families, genera, and more species. Humans therefore didn't "come from apes." Current apes and humans instead had a common ancestor. Or if you would prefer, you could say that humans ARE apes. Look at our brains, skeletons, internal organs, muscles, DNA, cells, habits, expressions--in every way humans are apes--just smarter that the others.

4. The evidence for evolution is unbelievably massive and detailed. Read some scientific reports. You will see that biologists are busy arguing and working out the details of things like "did this species develop its limb buds 320 million years ago or 330?" There is an incredible, awe-inspiring tapestry of facts that hangs together to support evolutionary thinking. Scientists have worked out the ecosystems for different periods in evolutionary history in startling detail. The coalescence of data from different sources: bodily structure, the geology of the way fossils are found in layers, the timing introduced by known geological events, radiocarbon dating, the movement of the continents over time (e.g. the separation of Australia and consequent development of unique creatures there), and most recently DNA and mitochondrial DNA studies--it's all simply overwhelming, and it all tells the same story. Life evolved from single cells--and is still evolving.

Since single cells don't leave fossils, evolutionary theory does not have an answer to the question that started this thread--how the first cell arose. But here are some things to think about:

1. Amino acids form naturally. They have been found on comets. Current theory is that most of the water in our world arrived via the ice of comets. Many amino acids, and perhaps even more complex structures, may have arrived the same way.

2. Oils naturally form skins and bubbles. That's all a cell is--a bubble of oil.

3. There was a VAST amount of time for the chemical brew of the early earth to fizzle and link up and move around. It's certainly plausible to me that a soup of organic molecules could develop the primitive ability to replicate itself. DNA is just a double strand. Separate the strands in the presence of the right pieces, and you instantly have two new strands. It happens every time our cells divide. Sure, it's awe-inspiring to think about, but it's not implausible.

Mostly, I think ID and creationist types here have to ask themselves why they so easily accept the fruits of science, while rejecting one of its grandest and most successful theories, the basis for all modern biology and medicine, an idea that is 150 years old, and yet still inspires arguments. As I've written here before, I think the real reason is that Christian ethics depends on the idea that man was created in the image of God (perhaps it was really the other way around?) Threatening this origin, no matter how much evidence is brought to bear, seems to threaten some Christians terribly. Hindus and Buddhists have no problem with evolution because it doesn't threaten the moral value of their teachings.

Mariner.

 

[Mariner]

Here are a couple of good websites summarizing current scientific thinking on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

http://tidepool.st.usm.edu/crswr/111originoflife.html

Mariner.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

z

1. The Anthropic Fallacy. There's a repeated assertion here that if it is very unlikely that life could arise, the fact that we are here to notice that life arose means we must have been created by God. What you're missing if you make that argument is that no matter how unlikely the rise of intelligent life, that life itself exists--and therefore is there to notice its own existence. So, don't fall into the fallacy.

2. "Microevolution" and "macroevolution" are I.D. ideas. This is because even the two main scientists who make up the I.D. movement each acknowledge some part of evolution (they can't agree on which parts). The evidence for evolution is simply too overwhelming for them to write it off completely. Take a little microevolution, add some, and add some more. Over a couple of thousand generations, you have macroevolution. There is no logical difference between them except the degree of drift. Imagine a population separated from the mainland as sea levels rise. Once there has been enough genetic drift on each side of the divide, the two populations can no longer mate successfully. New species have arisen.

3. "Cross-species evolution." This does not exist. It is a fallacy of creationists to think that evolution proposes cross-species evolution. The accurate statement is that species come in family trees that branch over time. Some branches end (extinction). Others divide (speciation). Sometimes they subdivide, creating phyla, families, genera, and more species. Humans therefore didn't "come from apes." Current apes and humans instead had a common ancestor. Or if you would prefer, you could say that humans ARE apes. Look at our brains, skeletons, internal organs, muscles, DNA, cells, habits, expressions--in every way humans are apes--just smarter that the others.

4. The evidence for evolution is unbelievably massive and detailed. Read some scientific reports. You will see that biologists are busy arguing and working out the details of things like "did this species develop its limb buds 320 million years ago or 330?" There is an incredible, awe-inspiring tapestry of facts that hangs together to support evolutionary thinking. Scientists have worked out the ecosystems for different periods in evolutionary history in startling detail. The coalescence of data from different sources: bodily structure, the geology of the way fossils are found in layers, the timing introduced by known geological events, radiocarbon dating, the movement of the continents over time (e.g. the separation of Australia and consequent development of unique creatures there), and most recently DNA and mitochondrial DNA studies--it's all simply overwhelming, and it all tells the same story. Life evolved from single cells--and is still evolving.

Since single cells don't leave fossils, evolutionary theory does not have an answer to the question that started this thread--how the first cell arose. But here are some things to think about:

1. Amino acids form naturally. They have been found on comets. Current theory is that most of the water in our world arrived via the ice of comets. Many amino acids, and perhaps even more complex structures, may have arrived the same way.

2. Oils naturally form skins and bubbles. That's all a cell is--a bubble of oil.

3. There was a VAST amount of time for the chemical brew of the early earth to fizzle and link up and move around. It's certainly plausible to me that a soup of organic molecules could develop the primitive ability to replicate itself. DNA is just a double strand. Separate the strands in the presence of the right pieces, and you instantly have two new strands. It happens every time our cells divide. Sure, it's awe-inspiring to think about, but it's not implausible.

Mostly, I think ID and creationist types here have to ask themselves why they so easily accept the fruits of science, while rejecting one of its grandest and most successful theories, the basis for all modern biology and medicine, an idea that is 150 years old, and yet still inspires arguments. As I've written here before, I think the real reason is that Christian ethics depends on the idea that man was created in the image of God (perhaps it was really the other way around?) Threatening this origin, no matter how much evidence is brought to bear, seems to threaten some Christians terribly. Hindus and Buddhists have no problem with evolution because it doesn't threaten the moral value of their teachings.

Mariner.

A couple of corrections-

single cell fossil do exist.

And radiocarbon dating is only good to about 50000 years due to its relatively short (on a geologic time scale) half-life.

Other isotopes are used for longer dates.

And to anticipate the inevitable question of "How do you know the decay rate of isotopes was the same millions of years ago" - we know this from Supernovae observations. Observing a supernovae is essentially looking back in time, since the light takes so long to get to Earth. When a star explodes, the nuclei of many atoms are pelted with free neutrons, fusing together to form heavy elements. So these elements are "new" - and we can determine their half life by taking a spectrograph of the supernovae over time. And in every case, the half lives of any given isotope is always the same.

 

[manu1959]

z
A couple of corrections-
single cell fossil do exist.
And radiocarbon dating is only good to about 50000 years due to its relatively short (on a geologic time scale) half-life.
Other isotopes are used for longer dates.
And to anticipate the inevitable question of "How do you know the decay rate of isotopes was the same millions of years ago" - we know this from Supernovae observations. Observing a supernovae is essentially looking back in time, since the light takes so long to get to Earth. When a star explodes, the nuclei of many atoms are pelted with free neutrons, fusing together to form heavy elements. So these elements are "new" - and we can determine their half life by taking a spectrograph of the supernovae over time. And in every case, the half lives of any given isotope is always the same.

got a link to a single cell fossil?

is the speed of light constant in space?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

got a link to a single cell fossil?

Have you ever heard of a search engine?

is the speed of light constant in space?

In a vacuum, yes (in fact its constant regarless of the speed of the observer). And interstellar space is very nearly a vaccum.

 

[manu1959]

Have you ever heard of a search engine?

In a vacuum, yes (in fact its constant regarless of the speed of the observer). And interstellar space is very nearly a vaccum.

you are the one making claims.....i call bullshit you can't back up your claim.

as you well know light is affected by gravity so it is quite plausible that the speed of light is not constant and thus your supernova calcs are less than acurate....

 

[SpidermanTuba]

you are the one making claims.....i call bullshit you can't back up your claim.

as you well know light is affected by gravity so it is quite plausible that the speed of light is not constant and thus your supernova calcs are less than acurate....

The speed of light definitely can't go any faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. (It's group velocity can exceed the speed of light, but the velocity with which the energy itself propagates cannot)

Thus if anything, its going SLOWER than it is in a vacuum which means if anything we are looking FURTHER back in time than we thought we were which means if anything that we are certain to a point even FURTHER back in time that the half lives of the isotopes are constant.

So you're right, its possible our calcutions are off and in fact we know that the half lives of the isotopes are constant even further back in time than we thought we did.

You're not helping yourself here.

 

[manu1959]

The speed of light definitely can't go any faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. (It's group velocity can exceed the speed of light, but the velocity with which the energy itself propagates cannot)

Thus if anything, its going SLOWER than it is in a vacuum which means if anything we are looking FURTHER back in time than we thought we were which means if anything that we are certain to a point even FURTHER back in time that the half lives of the isotopes are constant.

You're not helping yourself here.

wasn't trying to help myself...so the speed of light is affected .... so if you don't know the speed how can you acurate date events......can light be eaten by black holes and worm holes? oh and are you this big a prick in real life?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

wasn't trying to help myself...so the speed of light is affected .... so if you don't know the speed how can you acurate date events......can light be eaten by black holes and worm holes? oh and are you this big a prick in real life?

Like I said, we know its maximum speed. Therefore we know that the light from something, say, 1 billion light years away, took AT LEAST 1 billion years to get here.



Black holes can eat light. But black holes are very small its highly unlikely that like from any given star has passed close to one.


Gravitational lensing is an extremely small effect and does not do much to interfere with light over a billions light years of travel distance.

 

[Mariner]

Thank you for the correction, re: radiocarbon dating.

When I wrote "single cell fossil" what I meant was that we can't see individual cells from the period before multicellular organisms evolved. I have seen wonderful pictures of early multicellular creatures with only a few dozen cells, including a ground-breaking one that came out last year showing an ectoderm/mesoderm/endoderm, the same structure from which all current animals develop embryonically and evolved from: phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny.

The earliest fossils, which, as this website points out, are the only fossils we have from the first 7/8 of the time life has been on earth, were the stromatolites, mats of cells:

http://www.fossilmall.com/Science/About_Stromatolite.htm

Here's a nice website about the origins of cellular life.

http://www.colossal-fossil-site.com/543-beginning/timeline4.htm

P.S., Manu, it's not Spidey's calculations--it's standard astrophysics. An extraordinary web of information from disparate sciences, from geology to molecular biology to taxonomy to astrophysics, hangs together amazingly to support evolutionary theory. A competing theory would have to explain millions of facts from several disciplines. I.D. simply tries to sweep all this under the rug, because evolution "feels" wrong. That's not science, that's emotional reasoning. The better approach for people critical of evolutionary theory might be to actually study it and try to understand it. Over time, you might find yourself being awed by the beauty of it.

Your name, Manu, sounds Indian... ? Hindus had a better intuition than those who wrote the Christian Bible, guessing correctly that the universe was on the order of billions of years old, rather than a few thousand, and that there were trillions of other worlds.

Mariner.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Manu clearly isn't that critical of a thinker, or else he would have posted the obvious question "How do you know how far away a supernova is" ?

 

[deaddude]

Spidey, let dead threads stay dead man, and if you are going to revive a thread try not to sound like a dick while you are doing it.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Manu clearly isn't that critical of a thinker, or else he would have posted the obvious question "How do you know how far away a supernova is" ?

What are you studying in college?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Spidey, let dead threads stay dead man, and if you are going to revive a thread try not to sound like a dick while you are doing it.

I take great pride in my negative reputation, and wouldn't want to do anything to jeopardize it.

And I would love for Manu to ask that, as it stimulates critical thought in my own head. I often find that so much time is spent trying to prove the complex stuff, and the simple things end up being taken for granted.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

What are you studying in college?

Physics.

 

[manu1959]

Manu clearly isn't that critical of a thinker, or else he would have posted the obvious question "How do you know how far away a supernova is" ?

it makes no difference as you are unsure if the speed of light is constant and you are unsure if it is substantilly affected by gravity, black holes and worm holes so you have discounted all effects.....so you take the light you see apply the assumed speed of light to it and say that is when the super nova occured and where it was......what is the difference between a duck?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

it makes no difference as you are unsure if the speed of light is constant and you are unsure if it is substantilly affected by gravity, black holes and worm holes so you have discounted all effects.....so you take the light you see apply the assumed speed of light to it and say that is when the super nova occured and where it was......what is the difference between a duck?

LIke I said before, Manu (and you apparently failed to comprehend) we know that the speed of light in a vacuum is the fastest light can travel, thus, if anything, these supernovae are occuring even farther back in time than we think they are, and thus confirming that the decay rate of isotopes has been the same even further back than we thought we had them confirmed to. Can you understand simple math?

Suppose we had a supernova 1,000,000,000 light years away. We assume the light from it to be traveling near the speed of light in a vacuum. Thus we are looking back 1,000,000,000 years ago.

Now suppose we were wrong and the light was really travelling at half the speed of light in a vacuum. Highly unlikely, but lets suppose it was. The light would then take 2,000,000,000 years to get to us, thus we are looking 2,000,000,000 years into the past. 2 billion is longer than 1 billion.

Get it?

 

[manu1959]

LIke I said before, Manu (and you apparently failed to comprehend) we know that the speed of light in a vacuum is the fastest light can travel, thus, if anything, these supernovae are occuring even farther back in time than we think they are, and thus confirming that the decay rate of isotopes has been the same even further back than we thought we had them confirmed to. Can you understand simple math?

Suppose we had a supernova 1,000,000,000 light years away. We assume the light from it to be traveling near the speed of light in a vacuum. Thus we are looking back 1,000,000,000 years ago.

Now suppose we were wrong and the light was really travelling at half the speed of light in a vacuum. Highly unlikely, but lets suppose it was. The light would then take 2,000,000,000 years to get to us, thus we are looking 2,000,000,000 years into the past. 2 billion is longer than 1 billion.

Get it?

like i said space is not a perfect vacuum, are you incapable of being condecending prick? one other question, when have i said i do not belive what you are saying?