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

[MtnBiker]

We are to believe that all life came from a primordial soup of molecules and has evolved over the course of time. So that from that soup came not only humans but lizards and elephants and bats etc. Evolution in life must have mutated succesfully thousands of times. This does not mean a just slight mutations but would also include very significant mutations. How many species of life are there or where there on the planet? With evolution the idea of cross species mutation would need to be plausable. Is there evidence of this? Could it be replicated in a labratory environment? Certianly species do adapt to their environment. There are many unanswered questions to explain the origins of life.

 

[Hobbit]

We are to believe that all life came from a primordial soup of molecules and has evolved over the course of time. So that from that soup came not only humans but lizards and elephants and bats etc. Evolution in life must have mutated succesfully thousands of times. This does not mean a just slight mutations but would also include very significant mutations. How many species of life are there or where there on the planet? With evolution the idea of cross species mutation would need to be plausable. Is there evidence of this? Could it be replicated in a labratory environment? Certianly species do adapt to their environment. There are many unanswered questions to explain the origins of life.

Given the complexity of even the minimal amount of DNA to be considered life and what is chemically required for it to be made from its base components, the odds that it could be created randomly are astronomical.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

There's NO fossil record which proves Evolution. We have 'extinct' animals. That's about it.

I never said anything was "proven" There is no "proven" science. It is all theory.

I said it was backed by an abundant amount of evidence, which it is. For instance, we have found many of the transitional forms which it predicts should exist, and none of the ones which it predicts should not exist.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Translation:

By Accident.

Ilya Prigogine, chemist-physicist, recipient of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry, wrote: "The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero."(1) That's right - zero!

You fool. The quoted paper says that thermodynamics is a contributing factor to the spontaneous formation of complex structures in the formation of the first life forms.

In fact he won is Nobel Prize for showing that dissipative STRUCTURES can form in systems far from equilibrium, LIKE THE EARTH.

The above quote, taken WAY out of context, is referring to systems which are in equilibrium. THE EARTH IS NOT. Due to the massive amount of radiation falling on it from the Sun, the Earth is FAR from equilibrium.

Further proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Especially when you take ONE sentence out of a scientific article which you have not the knowledge to fully understand.

Its amazing how the anti-evolutionists so often accuse science believers of "believing everything they are told", when its the anti-evolutionists who will suck down single sentence quotes from papers taken way out of context and not even bother to read any of the rest of the paper at all or to even find out what the damn paper is about!

 

[SpidermanTuba]

which medicine do i take to make me taller....

height is genetic ya moron

Any medicine that will make you better when you are a sick child.

The lower rate of malnutrition is also a big contributing factor.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

where did the complex organic molecules come form?

how does anyone know this?

They were formed from less complex molecules. These less complex molecules were formed from elements which were formed in supernovae.

We know that complex molecules can form spontaneously because we have witness the spontaneous formation of amino acids in the lab as well as found them in meteorites.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

You didn't know? It just "happened." :happy2:

Yeah, like the Sun coming up every day, it "just happenes" - doesn't require an Intelligent Being to push it around. Just like the formation of crystals, it "just happens" - if that's the level of understanding you are comfortable with, sure, fine.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I have no problem with creationism defying the laws of science. I DO take issue with science defying its own laws to push a theory that is "creationism" by any other name.

Like what? What laws of science does science defy? Is it a law of science that science, in its present form, must explain everything, or else none of it is usable?

I have no problem with science explaining what it is supposed to. I DO have a problem with the intellectually-elite, "pseudo-scientists" attempting to explain with science what it cannot, and/or attempt to use it to refute creationism.

Creationism is easy to refute. It claimst the Earth was created in 6 days.

The Earth was not created in 6 days.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

at one point there was nothing .... the next moment there was life

Its doubtful there was a clearly defined moment. It depends on the definition of what is "alive"

For instance, are viruses alive? One could argue either way. The transition from non-life to life was likely a similar sort of thing, some object which one could argue either way as being alive or not, depending on the specifics of the definition in use.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

We are to believe that all life came from a primordial soup of molecules and has evolved over the course of time. So that from that soup came not only humans but lizards and elephants and bats etc. Evolution in life must have mutated succesfully thousands of times. This does not mean a just slight mutations but would also include very significant mutations. How many species of life are there or where there on the planet? With evolution the idea of cross species mutation would need to be plausable. Is there evidence of this? Could it be replicated in a labratory environment? Certianly species do adapt to their environment. There are many unanswered questions to explain the origins of life.

In fact the evolution from one species to another has already been observed in nature. Numerous times.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Given the complexity of even the minimal amount of DNA to be considered life and what is chemically required for it to be made from its base components, the odds that it could be created randomly are astronomical.

And the number of chances it has to be created, given the size of the Universe, and the number of stars and planets in it, is astronomical.

 

[-Cp]

They were formed from less complex molecules. These less complex molecules were formed from elements which were formed in supernovae.

We know that complex molecules can form spontaneously because we have witness the spontaneous formation of amino acids in the lab as well as found them in meteorites.

The only way Amino Acids can be "spontaneously created" in a lab is in a condition in which no oxygen is present as oxygen will kill them before they'd be able to form.

Oxygen is a poisonous gas which oxidizes organic and inorganic materials which have no protection against it.

Sorry, that can't happen on a planet that has oxygen in its atmosphere...

 

[dmp]

You fool. The quoted paper says that thermodynamics is a contributing factor to the spontaneous formation of complex structures in the formation of the first life forms.

In fact he won is Nobel Prize for showing that dissipative STRUCTURES can form in systems far from equilibrium, LIKE THE EARTH.

The above quote, taken WAY out of context, is referring to systems which are in equilibrium. THE EARTH IS NOT. Due to the massive amount of radiation falling on it from the Sun, the Earth is FAR from equilibrium.

Further proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Especially when you take ONE sentence out of a scientific article which you have not the knowledge to fully understand.

Its amazing how the anti-evolutionists so often accuse science believers of "believing everything they are told", when its the anti-evolutionists who will suck down single sentence quotes from papers taken way out of context and not even bother to read any of the rest of the paper at all or to even find out what the damn paper is about!

www.hop.com

re-read the link I posted. Read it aloud if you need help. Maybe I can find a 6th grade tutor for you.

 

[MtnBiker]

In fact the evolution from one species to another has already been observed in nature. Numerous times.

Really

 

[deaddude]

I am an evolutionist.

Evolution never, ever tried to explain the origin of life. Evolution explained how one form of life could, given time turn into another.

What Spidermantuba has been talking about is the Primordial Soup theory of the origin of life. How likely is it? No idea. Is it possible given what we know about primordial earth? Yes, its possibility has been demonstrated in numerous tests and experiments. Is it what happened? Not a clue. Primordial Soup theory is sciences current best guess. The great thing about science is its ability to admit when it has been wrong.

Ether theory was once the accepted theory on how light passed through the vacume of space. In a scientific experiment designed to detect and quantify the Ether, a group of scientists accidentally disproved the Ether theory and came up with the constant velocity of light. Developing from this discovery you have Einstein and his theory of relativity, which scientist are currently attemting to Prove/Disprove.

Contrast that with Religion, which put Galileo under house arrest for the remainder of his life for saying that the Earth orbited around the Sun.

In short both primordial soup theory, and genesis are possiblities. One is scientific and the other is religious, if you wish to ascribe to one, that is fine. Don't bash the other.

 

[-Cp]

I am an evolutionist.

Evolution never, ever tried to explain the origin of life. Evolution explained how one form of life could, given time turn into another.

What Spidermantuba has been talking about is the Primordial Soup theory of the origin of life. How likely is it? No idea. Is it possible given what we know about primordial earth? Yes, its possibility has been demonstrated in numerous tests and experiments. Is it what happened? Not a clue. Primordial Soup theory is sciences current best guess. The great thing about science is its ability to admit when it has been wrong.

Ether theory was once the accepted theory on how light passed through the vacume of space. In a scientific experiment designed to detect and quantify the Ether, a group of scientists accidentally disproved the Ether theory and came up with the constant velocity of light. Developing from this discovery you have Einstein and his theory of relativity, which scientist are currently attemting to Prove/Disprove.

Contrast that with Religion, which put Galileo under house arrest for the remainder of his life for saying that the Earth orbited around the Sun.

In short both primordial soup theory, and genesis are possiblities. One is scientific and the other is religious, if you wish to ascribe to one, that is fine. Don't bash the other.

Actually, the Soup theory is not one that's possible..

 

[deaddude]

Ok prove that it is impossible.

 

[-Cp]

Ok prove that it is impossible.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, the development of Amino Acids (the basic building blocks of life) cannot happen in an environment that has oxygen.

Now you might say "Well the early Earth Atmostphere had no oxygen" - if that were true, there'd be no Ozone layer in which the Ultraviolet rays from the Sun would surely destroy any cells trying to develop.

Either way, it's a no-win situation for those who don't believe in Intelligent Design..

 

[manu1959]

Any medicine that will make you better when you are a sick child.

The lower rate of malnutrition is also a big contributing factor.

i am 6-2 raised in poverty by a single mom....never got sick so no medice....didn't eat much as we were po.....mom was 5-10 dad 6-2

oh yea my younger brother...6-4

next theory please

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The only way Amino Acids can be "spontaneously created" in a lab is in a condition in which no oxygen is present as oxygen will kill them before they'd be able to form.

Oxygen is a poisonous gas which oxidizes organic and inorganic materials which have no protection against it.

Sorry, that can't happen on a planet that has oxygen in its atmosphere...

The atmosphere we have now is very different from the one we had billions of years ago.

No need to apologize.