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

[SpidermanTuba]

when god created the earth on god's 6th infinitly long day there was now an earth and thus a day as you know it.....you didn't do well in logic or philosphy classes did you......

so you tell me mr almost have a degree and already know it all how long were days before the big bang?

There were no days before the big bang, nor was there any such thing as a day by our definition of what a day is until the Earth was formed. You can't have days without the Earth. In fact, the days were SHORTER when Earth was first formed.

That's a silly question. Its like asking "if there was in integer between 28 and 29, would it be prime?"

If a day is infinitely long, it never ends. You can' thave 6 infinitely long days because the first infinitely long day would never end. You don't know what infinity means, do you?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I'm lazy; I don't want to read back through the 10 pages of posts. But it seems necessary to establish a working definition of the word "science." The debate seems to hinge on whether or not ID can be considered "science." So what is our definition of "science"?

A body of explanations for things, called "theories", whose usability - their ability to predict past, present, and future observation - can be tested and potentially falsified.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

all the dead scientists know.....it is clear now...you are jelous.....yet another insult when i peg your hypocrisy.....i think i have a hat trick now

Are you a nutter? How do you know what the dead scientists know? Are you able to communicate with them?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Who put us here?
Who put the Big Bang there?

The boundary conditions for the big bang are a hot topic and on the cutting edge of cosmology. The problem is the bounday condition may be a barrier through which no information can flow, we may end up showing that we can never know what happened on the other side of that boundary. Though its possible we could rule out some things.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Isn't that interesting. He was here at the beginning of our last series of responses but now has mysteriously disappeared.

Wow. What a revelation. I have things to do other than sit around and answer everyone's questions all day long.

 

[deaddude]

There are over 2000 kinds of amino acids - only 20 are used in life. The atoms that make up each amino acid are assembled in two basic shapes - left handed and right handed.

If you compare them to the human hands - each are identical to each other but different at the same time - comparing to a human hand, each has four fingers, but the thumb of the right hand is on the right and the thumb of the left hand is on the left - they're mirrors of each other.

Objects that have handedness are said to be chiral - the greek word for hand.

Handedness is an important concept as all amino acids that make up proteins in living things are all 100% left-handed - right hand amino acids are never found in proteins. If you had a protein with even one right-handed amino acid, the entire function of the protien would be lost.

This iis an issue many scientists admit they don't know - for sure - could've happened:

<blockquote><i>Many of life's chemicals come in two forms, "Left-handed" and "right-handed". Life requires polymers with all the building blocks having the same "handedness" (homochirality)--proteins have only "left-handed" amino acids..... But ordinary undirected chemistry, as is the hypothetical primordial soup, would product equal mixtures of left- and right-handed molecules, called racemates.</i>
-Sarfati, J. In Six Days, p.82

<i>This is a very puzzling fact .... All the proteins that have been investigated, obtained from animals and plants from higher organisms and from very simple organisms--bacteria, molds, even viruses--are found to have been made of L-amino [Left-handed] acids"</i>
-Pauling, L., General Chemistry Textbook, Third Edition,. p. 774</blockquote>

The Miller experiment, which I assume you've been alluding to -where Muller-Urey, in the early 1950's, created amino acids in a controlled - oxygen free - environment. What textbooks fail to mention is how that experiment would've created both right and left-handed amino acids which would be detrimental to life as the natural tendacy is for both left- and right-handed amino acids to bond together. Scientists still do now know why biological proteins use only left-handed amino acids.

<blockquote><i>The reason for this choice [only left-handed amino acids] is again a mystery, and a subject of continuous debate.</i>
-Shapiro, R., Origins of Life p. 86

<i>So we remain profoundly ignorant of how life originated. Yet the Millery-Urey experiment continues to be used as an icon of evolution, because nothing better has turned up. Instead of being told the truth, we are given the misleading impression that scientists have empirically demonstrated the first step in the origin of life.</i>
-Wells, J., Icons of Evolution p. 24</blockquote>

It's unfortunate that textbooks claim the Miller experiment as "proof" as it did NOT succeed in creating the building blocks of life (only left-handed amino acids). Here's an example from a biology textbook which dupes students into thinking that Miller succeeded:

<blockquote><i>By recreating the early atmosphere (ammonia, water, hydrogen and methane) and passing an electric spark (lightning) through the mixture, Miller and Urey proved that organic matter such as amino acids could have formed spontaneously.</I>
-Miller, K., and Levine, J., Biology, 2000</blockquote>

Notice they use the word "proved"? The only thing they proved is that life could not have begun in such conditions. Additionally, the textbook completely ignores other evidence that shows the atmosphere has always contained oxygen. Moreover, it ignores that Miller-Urey got it wrong anyways as what they produced was a mixture of left and right-handedd amino acids.

All experiements since then have failed to product even a single biological protein by purely natural processes.

Look back on my posts, all that I was ever arguing is that it is a possibility. That water could protect developing organics from both gaseous oxygen and UV rays. That lipids could protect other organic materials from the water. I have adimitted the possiblity of a genesis style creation. And note that while Primordial Soup theory is Sciences best guesse that those are scientists picking it apart, looking for and finding weaknesses in the theory? Why are they doing that? It is because they are scientists, they do not want the theory that they like the best, they want the theory that best stands up to testing, which holds with previous observeavtions of natural world, and which can still explain an observeable phenomenon. That is what seperates science and religion, that science does not make currently held beliefs sacred, nor do scientists say that they are divinely inspired or infalible, any theory can be challenged or debunked by a new discovery, or new evidence.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I'm asking for you. What is your opinion.

You do have one don't you?

I already told it to you. Here it is again:



Science is concerned with whether or not a theory is useful. A theory is useful if it predicts past, present, and future observation.

And to further elaborate on this point: Science is not concerned with the obvious. This is why we have common sense. Science is concerned with explanations that are not obvious. We don't need science to tell us the sky is blue, but we do need it to tell us how the sky is blue. We don't need science to tell us that things fall, but we do need science to tell us how they fall.


To further answer your question, nothing can be 100% proven.For a legal definition, ask a lawyer.

As far as science is concerned, the only "fact" is a direct observation. For a legal definition, ask a lawyer.

I don't really see this purpose of this inquiry.

 

[GotZoom]

I already told it to you. Here it is again:



Science is concerned with whether or not a theory is useful. A theory is useful if it predicts past, present, and future observation.

To refresh your memory, I wasn't asking what the definitions of science and theory are. I was asking this:

------

So, in your assuring, intellectual wisdom spidey, answer this question for me.

What must happen for X to be 100% proven? Must you see it? Touch it? Feel it?

What are the requirements for something to be factual?

--------

 

[manu1959]

The scientists that you refer to have examined the evidence, and beleive that it does not add up. Conflicting theorys are pretty common, usually one ends up having more evidence to support it than the other, however when dealing with things as universal and ancient as the creation of the universe, find evidence can be somwhat difficult.

They proved that more complex organic compounds could form from simpler organic compounds under conditions similar to what could theoreticly be found on primordial earth.

so in short they are guessing....got it

 

[deaddude]

educated guessing, made with observations of existing phenomnon. But at least they are willing to admit that the are guessing.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

so in short they are guessing....got it

A guess is not based on anything, it is random. Hypothesis are based on what is already known, and theories are based on tested hypotheses.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

To refresh your memory, I wasn't asking what the definitions of science and theory are. I was asking this:

------

So, in your assuring, intellectual wisdom spidey, answer this question for me.

What must happen for X to be 100% proven? Must you see it? Touch it? Feel it?

What are the requirements for something to be factual?

--------

See my edited reply.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

educated guessing, made with observations of existing phenomnon. But at least they are willing to admit that the are guessing.

The Big Bang theory is not a guess. And the term "educated guess" is an oxymoron.

The Big Bang theory is based on the observation that objects further away from us are moving faster away from us.

 

[Abbey Normal]

If you were truly interested, you might try doing your own Google Search.

"transitional forms" and hitting "I'm feeling lucky" would have done it.

But at any rate, I've done it for you.

Literally hundreds of transitional forms are listed here

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

along with references to peer reviewed scientific journals.

I only had time to skim right now, as I have to make dinner for my family, but I did see a lot of "we only have a single limb fragment; ideally we'd have more" type of statements. And lots of comments about "gaps", and " we haven't found this connection yet", etc. I will have to finish it later, but that doesn't seem even close to conclusive.

 

[manu1959]

There is a major distinction between theory and evidence. Carbon dating and fossils are examples of evidence. ID is a theory with very little if any evidence that supports it.

carbon dating and the WMD fossils that have been found are not evidence of .....

the creation of the universe, man the earth or any thing else for that matter....all they prove is that somethin once existed and about how old the carbon in it is nothing more.

link me up to the transitional wmd fossil the one that proves your therory is not based on faith

 

[dmp]

See my edited reply.

And you didn't answer. That's your right, I suppose.

 

[GotZoom]

See my edited reply.

You still didn't give me what YOU think.

And nothing can be 100% proven?

I think all the people on the board here would differ.

We can prove we are all alive..human..breathing.

Including you. You can prove you are alive.

 

[manu1959]

The Big Bang theory is not a guess. And the term "educated guess" is an oxymoron.

The Big Bang theory is based on the observation that objects further away from us are moving faster away from us.

what say ye of those that claim those objects are slowing down and the universe may in fact be colapsing.....is it possible that the universe expands and contracts like a human heart? and that it has always been and there was no bang? ... since matter can neither be created or destroyed .... prove my theory wrong.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I only had time to skim right now, as I have to make dinner for my family, but I did see a lot of "we only have a single limb fragment; ideally we'd have more" type of statements. And lots of comments about "gaps", and " we haven't found this connection yet", etc. I will have to finish it later, but that doesn't seem even close to conclusive.

There's always gaps. The fossil record is not a continuum. If you find fossil 1.0 and fossil 2.0 and think fossil 2.0 may have evolved from fossil 1.0, you may later find an intermediate form, fossil 1.6. But then you still don't have a 1.3 and a 1.8, and if you did, you would still need a 1.1 and a 1.9, and then a 1.05, 1.25, 1.65, and a 1.86, on towards infinity.

Further, complete fossils are a rare find.

The point is evolutionary theory predicts which transitional forms will be found, and which will not, and to date we have found only the forms which it predicts, and none of the ones which it predicts should not exist.

You asks for transitional forms. I've provided them. Not all of those listed are small fragments, nor are there huge gaps in all of them. For instance, numerous transitional forms of land mammal to whale have been found. If someone was just manufacturing all the species in a factory, these forms would not exist, unless their goal was to fool humans, and to suppose that they had that goal would be a baseless assumption.

 

[manu1959]

A guess is not based on anything, it is random. Hypothesis are based on what is already known, and theories are based on tested hypotheses.

guesses are not random...nothing is random....guesses are based on what is already known and experienced....

scientists have a fancy name for guess and another name for good guesses that they have not proven right or wrong yet because they are still doing research.