Evolution and the Origin of Life

[5stringJeff]

The evolution advocates on the board constantly harp on Intellegent Design, saying that it's not a scientific theory because it's not independently verifiable or repeatable. So I decided to apply that to evolutionary theory as it pertains to the origin of life. As you know, Darwinists claim that all beings have one common ancestor, which was a single celled organism. However, according to the Wikipedia article on the origin of life, "no one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which has the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach")." So, using the pro-evolutionist's logic, we can make the following argument:

1. Evolution claims that life began when basic organic components randomly combined to create a living being.
2. No one has been able to replicate basic organic components randomly combining to create a living being; this process is not independently verifiable or repeateable.
3. Therefore, evolution's claims about the origin of life are not good science.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

The evolution advocates on the board constantly harp on Intellegent Design, saying that it's not a scientific theory because it's not independently verifiable or repeatable. So I decided to apply that to evolutionary theory as it pertains to the origin of life. As you know, Darwinists claim that all beings have one common ancestor, which was a single celled organism. However, according to the Wikipedia article on the origin of life, "no one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which has the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach")." So, using the pro-evolutionist's logic, we can make the following argument:

1. Evolution claims that life began when basic organic components randomly combined to create a living being.
2. No one has been able to replicate basic organic components randomly combining to create a living being; this process is not independently verifiable or repeateable.
3. Therefore, evolution's claims about the origin of life are not good science.

Do you believe that God created the single cell organism from which all of life grew, or that God created birds and bears and bees and people and monkeys?

 

[dmp]

Do you believe that God created the single cell organism from which all of life grew, or that God created birds and bears and bees and people and monkeys?

A one-celled organism 'growing into' all forms of live doesn't make scentific sense...it's MORE likely God created everything individually.

 

[manu1959]

The evolution advocates on the board constantly harp on Intellegent Design, saying that it's not a scientific theory because it's not independently verifiable or repeatable. So I decided to apply that to evolutionary theory as it pertains to the origin of life. As you know, Darwinists claim that all beings have one common ancestor, which was a single celled organism. However, according to the Wikipedia article on the origin of life, "no one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which has the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach")." So, using the pro-evolutionist's logic, we can make the following argument:

1. Evolution claims that life began when basic organic components randomly combined to create a living being.
2. No one has been able to replicate basic organic components randomly combining to create a living being; this process is not independently verifiable or repeateable.
3. Therefore, evolution's claims about the origin of life are not good science.

not that i disagree with you....but at one point science could not prove the earth was round yet it turned out to be so

 

[The ClayTaurus]

A one-celled organism 'growing into' all forms of live doesn't make scentific sense...it's MORE likely God created everything individually.

To you it is...

 

[manu1959]

To you it is...

and to you it is not.....each is as likely as the other....both are taken on faith

 

[The ClayTaurus]

and to you it is not.....each is as likely as the other....both are taken on faith

exactly.

 

[manu1959]

exactly.

see clay, everyone should just listen to us.

bet you "scientists" here would never admit that the core starting point of their theory is a leap of faith same as creationism or id

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by gop_jeff:
So, using the pro-evolutionist's logic, we can make the following argument:

1. Evolution claims that life began when basic organic components randomly combined to create a living being.
2. No one has been able to replicate basic organic components randomly combining to create a living being; this process is not independently verifiable or repeateable.
3. Therefore, evolution's claims about the origin of life are not good science.

Actually, that is not entirely, but mostly correct.
Good science involves the creation, through observing and imagination, of a hypothesis to explain the observed.
hypothesis = a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"
Taken from google, define: hypothesis
Now, it is common practice to create two opposing hypothesy to describe the observed event, that contradict one another in absolute terms. Then, through experimentation, one would have to choose the better hypothesis and lift it to the status of a theory. That is, until an alternative hypothesis comes along.

For evolution in it's primal state, that would basically put the "hypothesis of evolution" versus the "hypothesis of creation".

But since this is such a controversial subject, that is rooted deep in humanity's history of mythology and religion that precedes science by thousands of years this has not been objectively stated.

To say that the religious explanation of the world around us is a mere "hypothesis" has resulted in the sacrifice of many a medieval scientist. It is just not accepted as such, since religion is rooted not only in the phylosophical, but also in the emotional aspect of humanity.

That is I think a major reason why there is so much controversy still.
Science has therefore, since an alternative was not to be debatable at all, let alone provable, chosen to lift the hypothesis of evolution to a theory.

And although you are correct in stating that there is no direct repeatable proof of the most critical steps involved, a lot of information has been gathered that does not disprove the hypothesis, and in fact seems to support it. As for the first living organism, that is yet to be experimentally verified.
As for "micro-evolution" as opponents call it, that is, speciation within a certain genus - all the different species of dogs created by man from the ancestral wolf for example - do fit into the hypothesis of evolution.

We're not there yet, and both hypothesis still hold to this day.
Keep an open mind, is my advice. And remember that even if evolution is to be proven in all its facets, that still does not exclude the existence of a creator.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

see clay, everyone should just listen to us.

bet you "scientists" here would never admit that the core starting point of their theory is a leap of faith same as creationism or id

I would rep you for this fantastic sentiment, but I need to spread it around a little more.

The only thing I would add is that most religous people think they have the question answered, and then move on with life saying "God did it."

The scientists want to eliminate the leap of faith, and work to do it.

 

[dmp]

I would rep you for this fantastic sentiment, but I need to spread it around a little more.

I took care of it for ya

 

[Hagbard Celine]

The evolution advocates on the board constantly harp on Intellegent Design, saying that it's not a scientific theory because it's not independently verifiable or repeatable. So I decided to apply that to evolutionary theory as it pertains to the origin of life. As you know, Darwinists claim that all beings have one common ancestor, which was a single celled organism. However, according to the Wikipedia article on the origin of life, "no one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which has the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach")." So, using the pro-evolutionist's logic, we can make the following argument:

1. Evolution claims that life began when basic organic components randomly combined to create a living being.
2. No one has been able to replicate basic organic components randomly combining to create a living being; this process is not independently verifiable or repeateable.
3. Therefore, evolution's claims about the origin of life are not good science.

Single-celled organisms aren't the simplest form of organic life. Single-celled organisms, despite their name, are actually very complex organisms when you take into account the genetic and atomic information that is strung together to produce them. The theory is that life started out as a structure similar to a virus or RNA/DNA type thingy. Science just hasn't figured it out yet, but 50 years ago, nobody knew what a microwave was either. Give it time and the human race's knowledge base will continue to grow. We'll eventually figure it out.

ID isn't science, it's philosophy. It doesn't seek to prove anything, rather it takes a defeatist approach to science, attributing complex systems to a magical creator, building upon an old philosophical argument based on the same thing--if you find a pocket watch in a field, you assume it has a creator, and apply the same analogy to the universe. That's not science! This is a good over view of ID:How Stuff Works - ID

 

[Hagbard Celine]

bet you "scientists" here would never admit that the core starting point of their theory is a leap of faith same as creationism or id

True, but it's more rational than a belief in a magical deity/creator because it puts faith into tried and true and physically observable institutions like biology, chemistry and physics. Ever heard of Ockham's Razor? All things being equal, the simplest answer is correct. What's more plausible, that a magical being that has never been physically witnessed to exist by anyone and of which no physical evidence exists created the universe? Or that the universe has been formed through physical processes, the evidence of which can be recorded and studied by scientists?

 

[dmp]

True, but it's more rational than a belief in a magical deity/creator because it puts faith into tried and true and physically observable institutions like biology, chemistry and physics. Ever heard of Ockham's Razor? All things being equal, the simplest answer is correct. What's more plausible, that a magical being that has never been physically witnessed to exist by anyone and of which no physical evidence exists created the universe? Or that the universe has been formed through physical processes, the evidence of which can be recorded and studied by scientists?

uh...but macro evolution cannot be observed....(shrug). Macro evolution seems to defy observable institutions like biology, chemistry and physics.

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by dmp:
uh...but macro evolution cannot be observed....(shrug). Macro evolution seems to defy observable institutions like biology, chemistry and physics.

The fact that it cannot be observed directly due to the enormous amount of time involved, does not automatically defy it's scientific validity.

Remember that most scientific theories were put out there without direct evidence and that only decades or centuries later the blanks were filled in.
And if that's not happening, the whole theory is eventually replaced.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

uh...but macro evolution cannot be observed....(shrug). Macro evolution seems to defy observable institutions like biology, chemistry and physics.

If the conditions that led to life could be re-created in a lab, they would be perfectly observable. As they would when and if someone comes across them in the field. But unless the trumpets sound and Jesus floats down from the heavens, it's impossible to prove the existence of God.

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted byManu1959:
bet you "scientists" here would never admit that the core starting point of their theory is a leap of faith same as creationism or id

I am a scientist and have just done that. Surprise!
From there on, I agree with:

The ClayTaurus:
...
The only thing I would add is that most religous people think they have the question answered, and then move on with life saying "God did it."

The scientists want to eliminate the leap of faith, and work to do it.

 

[dmp]

The fact that it cannot be observed directly due to the enormous amount of time involved, does not automatically defy it's scientific validity.

Remember that most scientific theories were put out there without direct evidence and that only decades or centuries later the blanks were filled in.
And if that's not happening, the whole theory is eventually replaced.

....but we cannot even find much in the way of EVIDENCE of the occurance...and it's pretty convieniant for those who can't explain why their theories have holes to say "it just takes too long!"

 

[dmp]

it's impossible to prove the existence of God.

...but it's NOT impossible to show evidence of device/intelligent design.

(shrug).

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by dmp:
....but we cannot even find EVIDENCE of the occurance...and it's pretty convieniant for those who can't explain why their theories have holes to say "it just takes too long!"

Direct evidence is I'm afraid nigh impossible, but indirect evidence for the occurence of evolution is numerous, if you are willing to make the leap of faith that is.
The ciclids of the Victoria Lake are one, Darwin's finches another, thought to speciate from a single ancestor, be it ciclid or finch, without competition and plenty of available "niches" = resource that is not yet taken by anything else or if taken, by an inferiour species, in other words: free for exploitation.

Islands in general give us a very intimite view of this speciation: a single species arrives, finds no or easy competition, and over time speciates/evolves into numerous subspecies that take advantage of all the available resources. Instead of an Island full of one particular species of finch, competing for the same resource, the mechanism of selection pressured them into finding alternatives rather than compete each other to the death.