Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jazzed, I think I see what you're getting at, but I'm not sure if I follow you entirely. I think you'll find that most evolutionary scientists will agree that the "first life" occurred probably in the warm waters of the oceans. Now, as far as what it was, I can see why that could be very speculative. I think you have to first determine what "life" is or isn't.
I had an extremely long post on here somewhere before about molecules forming to be DNA strands and, in return, the convergent DNA strands, formed cells and so on and so forth. The point is, when do you consider something living? I think that's what has a lot of people flustered. Really, like I have said before, we are all simply lifeless matter, it's our cells that act in ways that make us "alive". Our cells are merely a makeup of matter and so in that respect I think it's safe to say that the first life would be a single-celled organism. As far as how complicated or advanced it was, I think that's hard to determine because it's not like something of that size leaves very impressionable evidence of it's existence 5 days after it dies, much less 3.5 billion years after it dies.
Troop, this is just my point. We don't know. I'm amazed that some would say that it doesn't matter where first life came from AND that it could even be God but that is irrelevant! If God created first life He could create all life. I'm not an expert, but I think it's safe to say that even a single cell organism is pretty "complex" in it's workings. It needs to search for food and what not. In the end if you take this view it's non-living materials forming to make a living single cell! People want to say the religious have belief in their God and that is just make believe. But I think that saying non-living materials forming to make a living creature is make believe. I know nvx said that evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis so it seems there are two different views on this?
Troop, this is just my point. We don't know. I'm amazed that some would say that it doesn't matter where first life came from AND that it could even be God but that is irrelevant! If God created first life He could create all life. I'm not an expert, but I think it's safe to say that even a single cell organism is pretty "complex" in it's workings. It needs to search for food and what not. In the end if you take this view it's non-living materials forming to make a living single cell! People want to say the religious have belief in their God and that is just make believe. But I think that saying non-living materials forming to make a living creature is make believe. I know nvx said that evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis so it seems there are two different views on this?
But, if this is the case, than where do our superiorly complex God's originate from? Clearly, a being that is so powerful that he/she could create the entire universe, have his pinky finger on every molecule, and know each one of our thoughts, must be incredibly complex. If this is true, than how is it fair to say our theory is so "unbelievable" when a God theory is so complex in itself. Of course, isn't it so convenient to rely on the "Well he was always there" argument to justify a lack of explanation for that? And yet, the religious turn around and say that you cannot have something from nothing and that something cannot have always existed. Well, isn't that quite a bit contradictory??
I'd also like to point out that if a God did exist you would not see me hesitate for a second to say that he must have evolved from something as well.
Last edited by GCSTroop; 08-15-2007 at 04:20 PM..
Reason: Forgot to add something
But, if this is the case, than where do our superiorly complex God's originate from? Clearly, a being that is so powerful that he/she could create the entire universe, have his pinky finger on every molecule, and know each one of our thoughts, must be incredibly complex. If this is true, than how is it fair to say our theory is so "unbelievable" when a God theory is so complex in itself. Of course, isn't it so convenient to rely on the "Well he was always there" argument to justify a lack of explanation for that? And yet, the religious turn around and say that you cannot have something from nothing and that something cannot have always existed. Well, isn't that quite a bit contradictory??
I'd also like to point out that if a God did exist you would not see me hesitate for a second to say that he must have evolved from something as well.
I believe that God exists outside of time and space as we know it. But that is a whole different subject. I'm not saying there is proof for God.
I'm just saying that those who "believe" in evolution say it like they KNOW it's a fact when it's not. It seems from this thread that they believe and have faith in A) magical non living materials moving to create life or B)We have no idea where first life came from, it could even be God, but that is irrelevant to the FACT of evolution.
Personally, I don't know why the need to know the origin is important to you and me. For the sake of Science, sure, it's important but the knowledge isn't going to change who you are or how you live, is it?
For curiosity sake, there's some theories out there and some have even been tested to yield amino acids, the building blocks for life. This is a rather interesting read. Scroll down if you want to get to good summaries of the leading theories. I believe the primordial soup idea is becoming popular again I think because there's reason to believe there was more hydrogen in the air then first thought. I don't know, I'm not a scientist. One of the more famous experiments was the Miller-Urey experiment with some more background here and some video of Miller explaining it here.
The important thing is some big brains come up with some hypotheses and look for evidence to support them and when possible, conduct experiments to support them which elevates them to the level of theory. In sharp contrast to this is saying god did it. There's nothing you can test, no evidence to use for support and even if you can come up with some semi-clever logic to come up with a god answer you cannot simply define something into existence. You can't just say there's a magical entity and it's all powerful and therefore it exists. That is nonsense. To then leap from there to say it's infinite and always existed and always will to get around the "who made god" or "what was before god" challenges is just expanded nonsense. This is why atheists usually pull up the "flying spaghetti monster" because it's just as plausible when you pop it in place of god in god arguments. Hell, you could pop anything in there. I prefer leprechans myself.
This might also help you miss jazzed. To sum it up in a nutshell, most scientific theories are virtually impossible to prove as fact. In light of this, scientists work to disprove a theory. Until it's disproved, it's accepted.
This might also help you miss jazzed. To sum it up in a nutshell, most scientific theories are virtually impossible to prove as fact. In light of this, scientists work to disprove a theory. Until it's disproved, it's accepted.
I'm replying without having gone to the links yet...hubby is about to be home. You said "scientists work to disprove a theory and until it's disproved, it's accepted" but that isn't very scientific is it? Isn't it suppossed to be proven...to a large percentage...in order to be "fact" and if it can't be proven then it's disregarded? That was my thought anyway. I'm no expert. But, again my point is that evolution is a theory and not fact. I'm not trying to compare evolution with the creation viewpoint.
Also, if God did create first life, that most certainly would change how one lives his/her life! No doubt about that, well for most people anyway.
(this is relatively short, so I'll post the article in its entirety)
When we use the term "biological evolution" we have to have a consensus opinion on what this actually means. Is it some warm fuzzy notion about how change affects anything that has to do with life? If this is what we mean by biological evolution then it will probably include all of those changes that took place before free-living organisms arose. On the other hand, if we stick to a more scientific definition of evolution some biological changes won't be included. The question is whether the origin of life, or abiogenesis, is part of evolution or something separate.
I think there's a scientific definition of biological evolution that has proved to be very useful in biology. It requires (by definition) populations of living organisms. Anything that preceded the formation of such populations is obviously relevant but it ain't biological evolution. Now, we could change the definition of biological evolution to include the formation of the first molecules that gave rise to living things but this would create more problems that it solves. We would still need a term for the evolution of populations by changes in the frequencies of their alleles.
There's also a political consideration. Many people don't believe in biological evolution. I'd like to convince them that evolution, the process, is a fact. It's also a solid scientific fact that modern organisms evolved from a common ancestor that lived billions of years ago. These facts encompasses what I believe to be the core concepts of biological evolution. We have a chance to educate the public on this point. If people want to believe that the first living organism was created by God then I can live with that for the time being. First things first. Let's work on the evidence for biological evolution and not burden ourselves by linking it, incorrectly in my opinion, with the creation of life. That strategy is doomed from the beginning.
I would say there's a form of "evolution" called chemical evolution. This contributed to the formation of the first living cells. There might well have been a form of selection among replicating molecules and there might well have been chance events that led accidentally to the enrichment of some other molecules. These two processes resemble natural selection and drift in the same way that those processes are echoed in genetic algorithms. However, it is useful to have a better working definition of natural selection (and drift) that applies to modern species. This definition requires populations of living organisms in order to have any usefulness. It isn't helpful to extend the definition of "natural selection" to the level of replicating molecules. If we do that we'll need a new term to represent the kind of mechanism that explains the evolution of the peppered moth and Galapagos finches. That new term will exclude selection of replicating molecules. The real question is whether the selection of replicating molecules and biological natural selection are the same phenomena. I don't think they are - this doesn't deny that there are similarities ... of course there are similarities.
I would say that abiogenesis is not the same as biological evolution and it certainly isn't the same as "Darwinian evolution". I would argue that the origin of life was a spontaneous process that did not require anything out of the ordinary and certainly didn't require a supernatural being. However, I would also argue that biological evolution only began with the formation of the first population of living cells.
Some scientists have argued that it's silly to exclude the origin of life from our definition of evolution. One of them suggested an analogy between the study of geology and the origin of the Earth. He claimed that the origin of the Earth is part of what geologists study. Therefore, according to him it would be silly to separate out geology and the origin of the Earth. I agree.
The origin of life is part of biology. However, it isn't necessarily part of biological evolution. A better analogy might be plate tectonics and Earth's origin. Lots of geologists study plate tectonics. The movement of plates helps us understand much of Earth's history. It's obvious that the geological activity of our planet originated when it formed 4.5 billion years ago. However, the actual condensation of Earth from stellar gasses is not plate tectonics. The geological processes of rift formation, subduction, plate movement, hot spots, etc. didn't begin until the Earth had cooled sufficiently to present a solid surface. I see biological evolution as similar to plate tectonics in geology. There's a connection with origins but they aren't the same thing.
But, again my point is that evolution is a theory and not fact
In science, theories and facts are two different things. Evolution is a theory and a fact. Religious beliefs cause people to reject the fact of evolution. That's fine, but please don't conflate theory with fact as if they are somehow related or mutually exclusive.
I'm replying without having gone to the links yet.
Then I'll await you reading at least something from them and commenting on them. In fact, in light of your comment about theory and fact, I suggest you go way back to the link I gave you which used the example of cigarette smoking. Here I'll save you the trouble.
Please, if someone takes the time to post a link to explain something in better detail and/or with better clarity then follow the link and read what's there. As was pointed out earlier, you seem to keep repeating the same things despite numerous posts by different people which I think show the error in continuing to repeat them. At least this time you were honest about not reading anything but please, in the future take a few moments to read before posting.
This might also help you miss jazzed. To sum it up in a nutshell, most scientific theories are virtually impossible to prove as fact. In light of this, scientists work to disprove a theory. Until it's disproved, it's accepted.
PhillyChief - it may be accepted but is not a scientific law. There are very few of those. So, scientist cannot say that it is proven beyond a reaonable doubt as you stated.
Creation is a branch of philosophy and not a science (as far as I know). Evolution explains the the diversity and unity of life but not the origin - as stated earlier. It doesn't seem like evolution can prove the absence of God nor can creation prove the exists of God. Neither one can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, believers in creationism have nothing to lose if they are wrong.
Last edited by mommabear2; 08-15-2007 at 07:44 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
