I'm sorry, but I must -- Evolution!

[Saviourmachine]

The bigger question is “where did we come from?”

 

That is the question that has motivated more scientist than any other. The theory of evolution doesn’t even address the core of that question.

 

Creation does. It is a more complete theory than evolution because it starts at the beginning rather than picking up the process in the middle.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Invictus, that we say that evolution doesn't account for the origin of life, doesn't mean that we don't have a theory or theories for abiogenesis. Just ask, if you don't understand. Spooky already gave some starting points. Because there are two different theories commonly accepted in science doesn't make them any less valid. However, evolution is almost like special relativity so founded upon observations. Abiogenesis is in a more virgin state yet (but there have been discoveries and there are manners to falsify hypotheses also in regard to abiogenesis).

 

If you want to get an answer to your "bigger question" you've to look for more than evolution theory alone. By the way, your question has great illocutionary force. Are you exclaiming in pain? How sincere are you about this question? How open are you for receiving an answer? What are you willing to spent (time, secular books) to achieve results? What conditions does the answer have to fulfill?

[Saviourmachine]

... why is it not someone else's right to use science to validate Biblical interpretations...

Do you have hypotheses? Please, tell us! About molecular genetics, about the deluge, about the amount of craters on the moon, on earth, about plate tectonics?

[Saviourmachine]

LUCASPA also happens to be a  post doctorate Proffesor/Scientist at a famous ivy league school,

and the wisest person youll ever meet on the internet regarding evolution.

P.s. if you find Lucaspa, he will refuse to debate theology, apologetics, and his christian faith. So dont even bother.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, I discussed a few things with him too when I was a creationist. Also because of him I became a christian evolutionist for a while (and because of EvCForum.net).

[Ouroboros]

Evolution also does not explain gravity, but then again, gravity is not formally a part of evolutionary theory.

 

Very good comment! My addition: Gravity has not yet been fully explained. We know its effects and we can make calculations and estimates, and somewhat we know what’s causing it, but we still don’t know what’s behind it.

 

Also, if creationism is a science, then what activities are being undertaken by creationists to attempt to falsify it?

That’s exactly the problem with creationism and ID. It can only be falsified if science can prove that God does NOT exist, which we will never be able to do.

 

 

HanSolo, I DO agree that 'God" does NOT choose one sect of people to reveal himself, yet MAY enter into discourse with us through ONE person who chose to 'listen' to him at that time and reveal/record what he has perceived. You and I can agree to disagree, on if the Bible really claims that it is the ONLY truth or claims any ownership of faith. I don't think so, yet perhaps many of its fans do.

Sorry Amanda, if you felt I was ranting on you, I wasn’t. I just wanted to clarify things a bit, so we could agree.

 

Perhaps all the spiritual books say something in regards to evolution, and I have unfortunately not been afforded the opportunity or gumption to have seeked such an encompassing spiritual knowledge to present it from such a multitude of formats.

 

However, I do not deny it exists. Having said that, now what would it mean if one of those many ancient 'sects' presented a theory over four thousand years ago, claiming to be from a divine source, that is paralell to, in harmony with, consistent to scientific researcher's present findings today regarding evolution? I'm just asking, what would be the most probable meaning of THAT? 

There’s nothing in any book about evolution, before Darwin. And there has not been any, today, known faiths that have been able to match science, maybe for the exception of deism and naturalism.

 

Once you questioned me about what would happen if I EVEN considered the possibility of there is no God...  ... and I must say, the manner in which you proposed it, it rocked my world for a moment or two.. thank you for that!!!  Yet I had to think for a moment that "I am" here and a stream of conscious thought process is present in some kind of awareness, and what makes that happen has an originating force that came from somewhere... and out of that awareness, you can only cause me to assess my previous understanding of God and challenge me into what I might perceive to be a more accurate assessment of God for now in my life.

 

As I discover deeper revelations than its surface from the Bible, it lets ME know there is something greater than what modern man can explain. Clear to ME. Perhaps what you call science and what I call God are the same things... just two of the many ways in which our evolution in our interpretions of its true identity will be getting us both to the same conclusion? Who knows? The thrust of this post, however, is to answer the question in paragraph two. Of course I welcome ANYONE's response.

So I shake your world!

 

Now you maybe see why you want something divine to exists, you can’t image that there’s not. That’s what a call “emotional argument”, and I don’t consider it bad, it’s the “god module” in you brain that moves you to it.

 

???

I have you still on my ignore list. I can’t hear you! lalalalalala!

 

Because you keep insisting that evolution is somehow "incomplete" until it does.

Non-Victus want us to provide with extraordinary proof for the ordinary claim of evolution.

At the same time he require us to willingly accept suppositions for an extraordinary claim.

 

He’s just a bully that needs attention, and he is afraid to be wrong, so he needs us to confess to his beliefs. And need this to support him in his doubts. He’s just afraid that God maybe doesn’t exist, and need us to tell him that “sure, God exists”. If we don’t back down, he will eventually lose his faith.

 

You are deliberately ignoring me and others when we kindly point out, for the Nth time, that a totally seperate theory deals with that.Well, I wonder what evolutionists are trying to hide.

Of course he does, because he doesn’t have an answer to you. Your questions are too straight to his weakness.

 

 

 

Mr Spooky, I understand your sentiments.

 

As in science, when things are happening... it is often not understood readily, and we now know... often initially misrepresented. It is with research and comparison to other ideas within those accepted confines (that we have come to accept in our evolving journey to know everything) that we can finally think we know how that particular aspect fits into the whole, in harmony with what we NOW consider to be the most accurate knowledge. That is how we learn and eliminate the 'kinks'. Many may refuse to use Biblical insights to validate science, and that's certainly anyone's right, but why is it not someone else's right to use science to validate Biblical interpretations, as we can seek to explain (without altering) any contradictions within itself? Isn't this much the way science does?

 

Further, it is common with some scientist to give their spin on why the latter theory is still prominent, while others support the new. Who knows who is right... we just seem to acknowledge the whole 'science' as that which gets the popular votes. That can be applied to other areas... which doesn't always suggests it is correct. As in Galileo and others...

There’s a big difference between science and faith.

 

Science is trying to find and prove the natural causes of events in the world, using natural tools.

 

Faith is trying to prove supernatural causes for events in the world, but by using natural tools.

 

 

Hi Invictus, that we say that evolution doesn't account for the origin of life, doesn't mean that we don't have a theory or theories for abiogenesis. Just ask, if you don't understand. Spooky already gave some starting points. Because there are two different theories commonly accepted in science doesn't make them any less valid. However, evolution is almost like special relativity so founded upon observations. Abiogenesis is in a more virgin state yet (but there have been discoveries and there are manners to falsify hypotheses also in regard to abiogenesis).

 

If you want to get an answer to your "bigger question" you've to look for more than evolution theory alone. By the way, your question has great illocutionary force. Are you exclaiming in pain? How sincere are you about this question? How open are you for receiving an answer? What are you willing to spent (time, secular books) to achieve results? What conditions does the answer have to fulfill?

Like I said above, Non-Victus doesn’t want the truth or proof, he only wants to debate to get someone to bend over and give him right. That way his doubting faith will be empowered again. He’s like a robot in need of a re-charge, by approval from us.

[Mr. Neil]

Neil,

 

You once told me that I had lost credibility. With all the “F-you” comments and not recognizing how some do argue that evolution was an agent of the Creator, what does that say about your credibility?

 

Why so hostile when I admit to your repeated assertion that evolution doesn’t address the origin of life?

See, now it's obvious that you're not even reading my posts. This is why you have no credibility and I have to treat you like a child.

 

I already answered this for you...

 

I'm not denying that.  I understand this.  But then you treat it as though [the fact that evolution doesn't address origins] is a problem, which it is not.

 

Evolution, by nature of its inquiry, leaves the question of original open.  We agree that it doesn't address origins, but what I'm saying is that it doesn't have to!

 

Your expectations are disingenuous.

Do you see that?

 

My argument has been, since the very beginning, that evolution doesn't have to address origins. But you keep saying that evolution doesn't account for origins. Do you see the difference between these two statements...

 

Invictus: Evolution doesn't account for origins.

 

Mr. Neil: Evolution doesn't have to account for origins!

 

Do you see the difference now!? This is not an agreement. This is me trying to show you that your expectation, that evolution should address origins, is disingenuous, and I'd been saying so all along!

 

In fact, that was point of the joke I posted much earlier in the topic! Observe...

 

Notice what the guy says in the very first panal is saying! He's saying what you're saying, and then he goes on to make unwarranted demands, just like you!

 

And now here you are, being disingenuous again, trying to pretend as though we're accusing you of not agreeing that evolution doesn't address origins, but that's not the issue. It's the fact that you keep tossing this unwarranted expectation at evolution as though it should! You've insisted that evolution is somehow incomplete without abiogenesis, and that's the fucking problem!

 

Evolution doesn't have to address origins to be a valid theory of biology!!!!

 

Tattoo it backwards on your ass so you can read it in the mirror!

[John]

I still can’t believe you guys missed invictus1967's point. His point was evolution doesn’t account for the origins of life, but creationism does. So, why don’t you talk about abiogenesis instead since you are trying to brush it aside?

 

However, creationism has been debunked so many times!

 

Every test undertaking to prove abiogenesis has went bad. At some point a consistent person would assume it is not the answer to life from inanimate matter.

 

Here is a reply that went not answered. If someone cannot answer these simple comments then you are making abiogenesis untestable.

 

Also, why is abiogenesis taught in schools, but not ID since it is entirely based on faith?

 

Damn too many replies!

 

It's important to note that abiogenesis is a field that still needs a lot of work.

 

Uh-huh, certainly sounds like alchemy!

 

And yes, there is the "chirality problem" that we don't quite know what the basis is yet.

 

Yeah, it would definitely be a miracle to render just left-handed amino acids and right-handed sugars!

 

And I don't quite know about the ribose/deoxyribose thing. A sugar is pretty much just a circular ester with some hydroxides attached to em. Don't recall how to create them from scratch, it's been a few months since I used any organic chemistry.

 

Oh, I was merely indicating that sugars were not produced in the Miller-Urey experiments, which are the foundation of nucleotides.

 

Maybe. I haven't looked into the exact details of the Miller-Urey experiement in full (though I do plan on reading the original paper when I find it).

 

Here's some stuff from the NCSE website. Hopefully it addresses what you're looking for.

 

No, it didn’t address what I was looking for, but this did. http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Abiogenesis

 

“After about a week, the simulated ocean accumulated some brown tar -- and a variety of dissolved organic molecules, including several biological amino acids.”

 

“And while some biological molecules, like the smaller amino acids and nucleic-acid bases, are readily produced in Urey-Miller experiments, others, like sugars, are not. This means that nucleic acids are difficult to produce, since they contain the sugar ribose and its derivatives; this is a major difficulty with the otherwise-very-attractive "RNA world" hypothesis.”

 

“Thus, how to get from there to a complete self-reproducing system is still an unsolved problem, but this question is being actively researched.”

 

To my knowledge, researchers Sydney Altman, Thomas Cech, and others found that RNA is partially autocatalytic. They can be both replicators as well as enzymes in their own processes.

 

Uh, MrSpooky, no self-replicating RNA has been found nor have been created in the laboratory.

 

Yes, some varieties of RNA in living cells do have a restricted power to catalyze chemical reactions, but this is surely no undertaking that a more crude pre-RNA could catalyze a lot with no aid from DNA.

 

Of course, you believe that an uncomplicated substance could catalyze chemical reactions a lot better than real RNA, i.e., well adequate to bring forth proteins all by itself. Enzymes, accelerate up chemical reactions, otherwise these reactions would occur so tardily, the cell would expire while it awaited for the first protein to be brought in.

 

MrSpooky, just curious, how long would it take to create just one new protein?

 

Phospholipids are relatively simple polymers. They just consist of carbon chains (of varied length) with hydrophilic attachments. Much much simpler than proteins.

 

Yes, they’re uncomplicated, but lipids can only be made by a “real manufacturing plant” such as a living cell.

 

Also, MrSpooky, what would occur if ultraviolet radiation was applied to the Miller-Urey experiments since the Earth’s early atmosphere had no ozone layer?

[Mr. Neil]

I still can’t believe you guys missed invictus1967's point. His point was evolution doesn’t account for the origins of life, but creationism does.

We got that, actually, but the problem is that creationism isn't science, so the point is moot. Also, evolution doesn't have to account for the things that creationism claims to account for.

 

Incidentally, saying "God did it" doesn't count as "accounting for origins". So sorry. It's in no way scientific, it can't be falsified or tested, and have absolutely no explanatory power. It's completely worthless.

 

So, why don’t you talk about abiogenesis instead since you are trying to brush it aside?

We're not brushing anything aside, John. We're trying to make him understand that despite his asinine reasoning, evolution is a valid theory of biology. He keeps insinuating that it's incomplete without addressing origins, and that's wrong!

 

He's welcome to ask any question about abiogenesis he wants, but this is an evolution topic, and therefore his unwarranted expectations to account for origins are not welcome here. He needs to start his own topic about origins and stop polluting other people's topics.

 

However, creationism has been debunked so many times!

You are correct. I'm glad you agree.

 

Every test undertaking to prove abiogenesis has went bad. At some point a consistent person would assume it is not the answer to life from inanimate matter.

And that means what exactly? We may have to check with Spooky about these alleged failures you speak of. I know they haven't gotten life from non-life in the lab, but that doesn't mean that they don't have a basic concept of how life may have come from non-life. Since he's more knowledgeable about these things, I'll let him address that.

 

Now mind you, I'm not sticking vigorously by the current concept of abiogenesis. If their current theories don't hold up, then we don't know where life came from. But that doesn't reflect upon evolution, which Invictus doesn't seem to understand.

 

Here is a reply that went not answered. If someone cannot answer these simple comments then you are making abiogenesis untestable.

In case you haven't noticed, this is an evolution topic. That's actually part of the point. It's only people like you and Invictus who insist on making it about abiogenesis. Please start another topic.

 

Also, why is abiogenesis taught in schools, but not ID since it is entirely based on faith?

Abiogenesis is taught in schools? There's something to teach? Enlighten me. What are they teaching?

 

Oh, and did I mention this is an evolution topic?

[Guest marktaylor]

Of course there is evolution! Not to add a few sparks to the brew...  but that is even in that "Book" you all don't like!   

 

If one reads into that "Book", (like none of you have  ), you will see the whole book is about the evolution of man in learning to stand and walk upright. Even Adam, which I think is no more "A" man than the crowmagnum man... and probably IS the crowmagnum man. It represents a time where genders had no specific role, till a side of mankind was alotted to each gender. The fruit of good and evil is the ability to reason, hence the spark of civilization. Not to mention, man was made from the dust.... uhummm... I mean amino acids. Even Chxlub hitting the earth and distroying the dinosours is there! NO, I'M NOT CRAZY... THANK YOU! It is there my dear friends... and I'm disappointed 'cause I know you probably don't want to go there.... but I still enjoy your company immensely.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

DAMN BABY!!!!

[John]

And that means what exactly? We may have to check with Spooky about these alleged failures you speak of. I know they haven't gotten non-life from life in the lab, but that doesn't mean that they don't have a basic concept of how life may have come from life. Since he's more knowledgeable about these things, I'll let him address that.

 

Alright, but why doesn’t MrSpooky or anyone deliberately try to create life. For example, putting pentose sugars in the organic broth, and removing any brown tars from the solution.

 

In case you haven't noticed, this is an evolution topic. That's actually part of the point. It's only people like you and Invictus who insist on making it about abiogenesis. Please start another topic.

 

Alright, I understand, but you must admit most threads do get off topic. Sorry, for hijacking the thread.

 

Abiogenesis is taught in schools? There's something to teach? Enlighten me. What are they teaching?

 

Oh, and did I mention this is an evolution topic?

 

Yes, abiogenesis is taught in schools. I know since I’m only seventeen years old. For years, those who thought that the first life sprang naturally taught that uncomplicated chemicals became concentrated in the ocean, making an organic broth of ever more complex chemicals, which they had no evidence of.

[Guest marktaylor]

Perhaps what you call science and what I call God are the same things... just two of the many ways in which our evolution in our interpretions of its true identity will be getting us both to the same conclusion? Who knows?  Of course I welcome ANYONE's response.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I am proud to belong to a religion which has taught the world both tolerance and universal acceptance. We believe not only in universal toleration, but we accept all religions as true. As different streams having different sources all mingle their waters in the sea, so different paths which men take through different tendencies, various though they appear, crooked or straight, all lead to God.

SWAMI VIVEKANANDA

 

And, you hardly ever find a Hindu tract stuck in your door!

[Mr. Neil]

Yes, abiogenesis is taught in schools. I know since I’m only seventeen years old. For years, those who thought that the first life sprang naturally taught that uncomplicated chemicals became concentrated in the ocean, making an organic broth of ever more complex chemicals, which they had no evidence of.

Hmm... That's interesting. I was never taught about origins in school.

 

It probably shouldn't be there. Not because I don't think there aren't good reasons for speculating how and where life began. Science should always strive for these answers. I just don't see much reason to teach biochemistry in a highschool science course.

 

Again, I'll await Spook's response. My specialty is biology.

[Amanda]

Hi Invictus, that we say that evolution doesn't account for the origin of life, doesn't mean that we don't have a theory or theories for abiogenesis.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Saviourmachine... Abiogenesis... another derevative of spontaneous generation?

 

Is the abiogenesis in regards to Stanley Miller's experiment with the amino acids in the primordial soup and prehistoric atmospheric conditions? They simulated everything but have yet to cause the spark for life. Even if you are suggesting that life is a chemical reaction, from where did the chemicals come?

If you want to get an answer to your "bigger question" you've to look for more than evolution theory alone.

---------------------------------

What conditions does the answer have to fulfill?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I THINK what Invictus is saying is that we ALL agree that NO PRESENT scientific evidence conclusively supports any theory on what is or how the original genesis of the first 'anything' happened. Some out there assert that it just hasn't been discovered yet. I THINK that Invictus is saying that (for now) could it be possible to refer to "it" as God... (without defining God any further for now)? I think that perhaps just the suggestion of THAT makes many feel a little shaky inside. I know that feeling... thank you HanSolo... but I recovered.

[Amanda]

Do you have hypotheses? Please, tell us! About molecular genetics, about the deluge, about the amount of craters on the moon, on earth, about plate tectonics?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes... and are you able to accept another vocabulary, still in english of course, or do you only validate what is coined in the language you are accustomed? If so, then would that make YOUR way establish limits and boundaries to consider and recognize any discoveries? And since this thread is of creation and evolution... can that be the focus for now?

 

The Bible speaks of before the Big Bang, the Big Bang, the asteroid chxlub which brought necessary DNA ingredients for our origin and distroyed the dinosaurs, use of abiogenesis, evolution, and even the theory that reality is all an illusion. Are you open to seeing a deeper meaning that displays a pattern which becomes more and more obvious the more one sees it?

[crazy-tiger]

Hi Saviourmachine... Abiogenesis... another derevative of spontaneous generation?

"According to the theory of spontaneous generation, highly developed contemporary life forms can arise from unliving organic matter; according to the theory of abiogenesis, some sort of self-perpetuating, self-reproducing chemical reaction(s) which might be termed "life" can arise from unliving matter." (source: here)

[John]

Hmm... That's interesting. I was never taught about origins in school.

 

It probably shouldn't be there. Not because I don't think there aren't good reasons for speculating how and where life began. Science should always strive for these answers. I just don't see much reason to teach biochemistry in a highschool science course.

 

Well, that’s bizarre since I was taught this in biology class. Perhaps the states differ? Also, they touch on it briefly.

 

Even if you are suggesting that life is a chemical reaction, from where did the chemicals come?

 

The Big Bang Inflationary theory explains this.

[Amanda]

"According to the theory of spontaneous generation, highly developed contemporary life forms can arise from unliving organic matter; according to the theory of abiogenesis, some sort of self-perpetuating, self-reproducing chemical reaction(s) which might be termed "life" can arise from unliving matter." (source: here)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you for the informative articles... and it seems that the author does agree that abiogenesis is a derivative theory of spontaneous generation, in that life spontaneously occurs albeit by chemical interactions producing a simple form. Further more, as the original force to life that would be inaugurating Darwin's theory of evolution.

 

Here is a quote from that site you refer to above on abiogenesis

"However, no experiment has shown that living organisms are chemically different from non-living matter, or require anything more than basic chemical elements and their interactions in order to breathe, metabolize food, and reproduce."

So it seems to minimize recognition of this energy force, that animates these chemicals to do their interactions and take on the properties of life, and maybe reference it as an unknown. They know their is this property there, there is evidence of it, but in defense of their own dogma... God is not an option... they refuse to label it anything! l wonder if there will ever be a point where one FINALLY says... "Hey, for the heck of it... lets call this property 'God'." What would happen then? Would that one 'label' scare a lot of people?

[Amanda]

The Big Bang Inflationary theory explains this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

John, how did the Big Bang make the chemicals? From what?

[Valgeir]

I'll save Neil the trouble- this thread is not about the Big Bang. It is about evolution. Please, make another topic, I'm sure your questions will be answered.

[Cerise]

So it seems to minimize recognition of this energy force, that animates these chemicals to do their interactions and take on the properties of life, and maybe reference it as an unknown. They know their is this property there, there is evidence of it, but in defense of their own dogma... God is not an option... they refuse to label it anything! l wonder if there will ever be a point where one FINALLY says... "Hey, for the heck of it... lets call this property 'God'." What would happen then? Would that one 'label' scare a lot of people?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"God" is a label that comes with strings attached. You could call it fully loaded. If you want to call the unknown "God" then you're going to have to deal with all the banana strings that fall off that label as well, including the whole "omniscient, omnipotent, anthropomorphic, MALE, with a big beard sitting on a cloud" mythology aspect.

 

That's a lot of luggage to carry around for one word. I think it's probably best not to label random things "God" until you can say the word without banana strings.

[Cerise]

You and I can agree to disagree, on if the Bible really claims that it is the ONLY truth or claims any ownership of faith. I don't think so, yet perhaps many of its fans do.

 

 

That's like agreeing to disagree on whether or not the earth is flat.

 

Amanda, either you are wrong, or nearly everyone else in your entire religion of Christianity, for thousands and thousands of years, is wrong in this interpretation of the bible.

 

Which do you think I am leaning towards right now?

[Saviourmachine]

Alright, I understand, but you must admit most threads do get off topic. Sorry, for hijacking the thread.

That's a pity.

 

Last parallel: studies about sign language don't have to consider the origin of sign language to be very valuable and reliable.

 

But in favour of the questioners of abiogenesis, let us give this discussion a new title:

 

Abiogenesis vs genesis

 

Don't get off topic with cosmical evolution, big bang, biological evolution etc, stay focused on the issue of symmetry breaking that seem to occur when going from the state non-life to life. Studies with chemical experiments can be used, as endeavours to create artificial life. Bible verses can be used or reformulated in falsifiable form as hypotheses that can subsequently be justified or falsified by experiment.

 

Does everybody agree?

[Saviourmachine]

Alife

For a start take a look at this very accesible webpage [www.calresco.org]: Complexity & Artificial Life - What are they?; moulded in archaic language. See also the pages about Self-organization & Extropy and Autopoiesis.

 

I suppose you know Tierra. And here is a FAQ of the comp.ai.alife newsgroup.

[MrSpooky]

John:

 

I think your biggest mistake in reasoning is that you're looking for immediate answers and hasty responses from the scientific community. Yes, there is a big difference between "facts" and "non-facts," but within the realm of "non-facts" you'll still find a lot of elements quite relevant and important to human knowledge. One must remember that knowledge is not JUST about evidence, it is also about having a context within which to evaluate it.

 

For example, no one has seen a black hole before, nor have we performed tests on a black hole. However, one cannot say black holes don't exist from this lack of evidence (though of course one can't say that black holes DO exist from this alone either)... what made the existence of black holes acceptable in science before we went out to look for SIGNS of black holes is the fact that we had a context within which we could understand "hey, these things might exist." We knew from mathematical constructs and physics certain laws and behaviors of stellar bodies, and extrapolated what might happen. This body of a priori ideas acted a CONTEXT that, when put together, said "these things called black holes should exist given these premises."

 

And I would say that we DO have a context within which modern abiogenesis has a good, solid starting point.

 

Is the field of biochemistry fully equipped to explain abiogenesis right now? No, not at all. However, this does not mean that abiogenetic theory exists within a vacuum, nor does it mean that abiogenesis is a failure. Unexplained is NOT the same as inexplicable.

 

Arguing that modern abiogenetic theory is incomplete misses the point entirely. Scientists are working on it. What is relevant to the question now is what exactly we have to work with. Do we have a context within which we can understand how life arose from pre-biotic materials?

 

I would say yes.

 

Despite the fact that the Miller-Urey experiement is no longer relevant to the oceanic "primordial goo" theory, it is still quite relevant because it demonstrates that under some conditions, amino acids are remarkably easy to make. As a result, scientists must research where and how those amino acids could've been produced. Modern scientists are looking at hydrothermal vents and meteoric compounds with the idea from Miller-Urey that "amino acids are easy to produce in the right environment... when we find the right environment we'll find the likely place where proteins came from." Scientists are working on it.

 

 

 

As for lipids:

 

Yes, they’re uncomplicated, but lipids can only be made by a “real manufacturing plant” such as a living cell.

 

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/reso...s_deamer3.shtml

 

You'll note that meteoric carbon contain amphiphilic compounds that could act as lipid structures to form bilayer membranes. It is quite patently false that such chemicals can only be made by a "'real manufacturing plant' such as a living cell."

 

I suppose more research will have to be done, but we've already got a starting point here. Scientists are working on it.

 

 

 

Uh, MrSpooky, no self-replicating RNA has been found nor have been created in the laboratory.

 

Again you miss the point entirely. RNA is found to have the capacity to act as a catalyst for certain reactions just as enzymes do: this is a pretty big deal. If these reactions include the facilitation of transcription and polymerization, we would have found a structure that can by itself (without depending on DNA or proteins) act as a substrate for life. Do we know how this could be done? No, but the fact that RNA can BOTH convey information and perform complex polymer reactions means that this is a good starting point to look for the beginnings of the seeds of life. Scientists are working on it.

 

 

 

Again, John, the jump you make from "abiogenesis to unsupported" to "abiogenesis is unsupportable" is a huge leap, especially when, as I've shown you, we have the supporting structures to conduct a serious scientific inquiry in the matter. I don't dispute that we have no evidence, but we have the MEANS to acquire evidence. Science needs both, not just the former. If that were the case, we wouldn't have quantum physics or evolution at all.

 

Evidence doesn't exist in a vacuum, and neither does abiogenesis.

[MrSpooky]

Yes, abiogenesis is taught in schools. I know since I’m only seventeen years old. For years, those who thought that the first life sprang naturally taught that uncomplicated chemicals became concentrated in the ocean, making an organic broth of ever more complex chemicals, which they had no evidence of.

 

Sadly there is a BIG difference between what the public schools teach you and what is actually out there being worked on in the scientific community. Ragging on the "RAIN+WATER+TIME" organic broth theory is beating a dead horse because modern research doesn't make that case: it makes others.

 

I hope you'll look into this seriously once you get into college. You sound like a smart kid. I also highly recommend some courses in the philosophy of knowledge because people really need to know what knowledge is these days.

[Mr. Neil]

John, how did the Big Bang make the chemicals? From what?

God did it.

 

There, isn't that an intellectually unsatisfying answer? It sure is for me.

 

I'll save Neil the trouble- this thread is not about the Big Bang. It is about evolution. Please, make another topic, I'm sure your questions will be answered.

Indeed.

 

This is another reason why I like to keep the sciences separate. Not only are these entirely different fields of study, but if you let creationists lump them together, then they start playing the "What-Came-Before-That?" game.

 

They'll say stuff like, "Well if evolution explains change in biology, then where did life come from?", then "Oh, if life comes from a pre-biotic chemical compounds, where did those compounds come from?", and then "I see, well if the compounds came from the nuclear fission of stars, then where did the stars come from?", and then finally, "Well if stars came from the big bang, then what made the big bang go bang?"

 

And then of course, when you say you don't know, they go, "HA! See, you don't know! We Chrsitians know; it all came from God! No need for evolution or abiogenesis!" All of that just so they can justify their intellectually bankrupt assertion that an immaterial personal being waved his hands and created the universe from nothing.

 

There's always going to be something that science doesn't explain or can't account for. Science is an on-going investigation, because there are always going to new questions to be answered. To expect it to have immediate answers all the time is the wrong attitude to have. Once you start demanding that, then you've rendered science inert, because you've made it so that it can't proceed without complete understanding.

 

There's nothing wrong with having a theory of biological change that doesn't address origins. Even if science had no foundation for origins to work from, it would still not affect the theory of evolution, which does not rely on origins, but instead relies on biological similarities, both morphologically and molecularly.

 

Apparently to the average American, magic is a perfectly acceptable answer for those little things that science can't answer. I stopped thinking that way when I was a child.