Haha looks like I should have read the whole thread before I posted. Looks like much of what I said has already been said. One thing I also thought I should clarify...I do think that significant arguments can be made to put the theory of macroevolution to death. By avoiding that argument, I'm not saying that I don't have arguments against it. In fact, there are scientific, philosophical, moral arguments etc, that I think are very convincing against it.I just find it a lot cleaner to attack naturalist biogenesis. People tend to get sidetracked in the details of the macroevolution arguments, and no one ends up being convinced, even when the logic is there.
Evolution What It Really Is
- Thread starter ForYou
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
(ForYou;45666)
I have seen a lot of misunderstanding of evolution around here. In biology today our teacher explained it to us. I at first asked her well do you believe in it she said yes then she explained. Evolution is a theory,just as Gravity is. They actually do have proof of evolution I am not saying we came from monkeys that is a complete misunderstanding.She was saying not that we came from goop or monkeys or fish whatever,she was saying that it means we adapt to our surroundings and this is true. Look you see how we have to create new medicine,new vaccines,new pestisides, because the insects adapt and it no longer harms them,and look at bacteria we constantly are finding new ways to cure that,but it evolves and adapts to it. So evolution is not the cause of coming from monkeys or anything like that it just shows how we adapt and stuff. Again they do have proof of this. So I see no problem in evolution
Just trust the Lord at His Word... you'll never be disappointed.There are huge problems with believing in Evolution.By one man's sin (Adam) who was created by God fully formed (not by a process of evolution), brought death into the world by his sin.The "Greater than Adam," Jesus Christ (the 2nd Adam), brought us salvation. By one man sin came in, by one man sin went out. This is only a tip of the iceburg. But, Evolution and Christianity are polar opposite worldviews.I pray, look into it... and trust in God's Word... He will eventually bring you to understanding why it is this way. Do not be swayed, and the Lord will show you more.
Read Romans 5, it talks about sin entering by one man... and by Christ, one man... sin going out.
I have seen a lot of misunderstanding of evolution around here. In biology today our teacher explained it to us. I at first asked her well do you believe in it she said yes then she explained. Evolution is a theory,just as Gravity is. They actually do have proof of evolution I am not saying we came from monkeys that is a complete misunderstanding.She was saying not that we came from goop or monkeys or fish whatever,she was saying that it means we adapt to our surroundings and this is true. Look you see how we have to create new medicine,new vaccines,new pestisides, because the insects adapt and it no longer harms them,and look at bacteria we constantly are finding new ways to cure that,but it evolves and adapts to it. So evolution is not the cause of coming from monkeys or anything like that it just shows how we adapt and stuff. Again they do have proof of this. So I see no problem in evolution
Just trust the Lord at His Word... you'll never be disappointed.There are huge problems with believing in Evolution.By one man's sin (Adam) who was created by God fully formed (not by a process of evolution), brought death into the world by his sin.The "Greater than Adam," Jesus Christ (the 2nd Adam), brought us salvation. By one man sin came in, by one man sin went out. This is only a tip of the iceburg. But, Evolution and Christianity are polar opposite worldviews.I pray, look into it... and trust in God's Word... He will eventually bring you to understanding why it is this way. Do not be swayed, and the Lord will show you more.
12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. 15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
(treeoflife;47676)
Just trust the Lord at His Word... you'll never be disappointed.
The beautiful thing about being a Christian, is knowing that it is the truth. I could not be a Christian if I was always finding places where the Bible was wrong, inconsistencies, logical problems, etc. I do have faith in the Bible, BUT my faith is not unfounded. Whatever CAN be tested about the Bible is true, and the Bible is logical. So, I have a firm foundation to believe that the parts I can't directly test are true. And so I do. But I couldn't just blindly follow it.
Just trust the Lord at His Word... you'll never be disappointed.
The beautiful thing about being a Christian, is knowing that it is the truth. I could not be a Christian if I was always finding places where the Bible was wrong, inconsistencies, logical problems, etc. I do have faith in the Bible, BUT my faith is not unfounded. Whatever CAN be tested about the Bible is true, and the Bible is logical. So, I have a firm foundation to believe that the parts I can't directly test are true. And so I do. But I couldn't just blindly follow it.
(adren@line;46417)
Evolution aint' religion buddy. Neither is gravity.
Doesn't follow. Evolution and gravity are not the same theories, nor are they on the same level.I could say, God is not a religion either... He is simply is who HE IS. No religion required.In fact, that gravity thing... yeah, God made that.
Evolution aint' religion buddy. Neither is gravity.
Doesn't follow. Evolution and gravity are not the same theories, nor are they on the same level.I could say, God is not a religion either... He is simply is who HE IS. No religion required.In fact, that gravity thing... yeah, God made that.
(ForYou;46566)
I am really looking at all of these answers,some have said my teacher is wrong and this is a lie of Satan. All my teacher is telling us is we adapt to different places. She did not say we use to be monkeys etc. IDK
That's just it... and this is the thing you will want to understand.The word "evolution" just means "change over time." And Evolutionist (one who believes we came from monkeys... and prior to that... slime... etc... over millions of years), will try and get you to see "change over time," and then try and make you swallow what he or she believes... that over millions of years we came to be... we were once a monkey... etc.Do you have to believe both? Absolutely not.Fact is, change over time is not denied by Christians. We know that the world adapts and changes just as it was created to do, by God, ever since he made men fully formed.We simply trace our origin and any change over time that we see... back TO GOD, when me MADE MAN fully formed...An Evolutionist, on the other hand, traces our origin and any change over time back millions of years, to monkeys... and beyond.We believe in change over time... it would be silly not to. Our God is an awesome God and He created life to adapt and live an various kinds of places, and to thrive and persist through many adversities. He is very smart, our God. However, it hasn't been happening for millions of years. It has been happening since God made us fully formed, when God made us.I sincerely hope that helps! Know the truth and obey!God bless you.
I am really looking at all of these answers,some have said my teacher is wrong and this is a lie of Satan. All my teacher is telling us is we adapt to different places. She did not say we use to be monkeys etc. IDK
That's just it... and this is the thing you will want to understand.The word "evolution" just means "change over time." And Evolutionist (one who believes we came from monkeys... and prior to that... slime... etc... over millions of years), will try and get you to see "change over time," and then try and make you swallow what he or she believes... that over millions of years we came to be... we were once a monkey... etc.Do you have to believe both? Absolutely not.Fact is, change over time is not denied by Christians. We know that the world adapts and changes just as it was created to do, by God, ever since he made men fully formed.We simply trace our origin and any change over time that we see... back TO GOD, when me MADE MAN fully formed...An Evolutionist, on the other hand, traces our origin and any change over time back millions of years, to monkeys... and beyond.We believe in change over time... it would be silly not to. Our God is an awesome God and He created life to adapt and live an various kinds of places, and to thrive and persist through many adversities. He is very smart, our God. However, it hasn't been happening for millions of years. It has been happening since God made us fully formed, when God made us.I sincerely hope that helps! Know the truth and obey!God bless you.
(medicalmatt;47674)
*raises hand* Degree in Neurobiology, Physiology & Animal Behavior here.Problems Christians have in debating evolution: Microevolution is a non-debatable, observable, scientific fact. This is the common scientific usage of the generic term "evolution." Thus, saying "evolution is a theory" or "evolution doesn't exist" is like saying the moon doesn't exist. It does.Macroevolution is the extrapolation (ie guess) that if species can change their beak size, skin color, etc, then over a REALLY large amount of time, a species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, even kingdom of living things can turn into another. I don't personally believe this, but it's hard to argue one way or another from a scientific point of view. There just isn't enough data to concretely support or deny this theory.Where Christians can really weigh in, is naturalistic biogenesis: basically the theory that life arose from nonlife. There is absolutely no scientific proof for this, and no one can even come up with anywhere close to a plausible mechanism by which it could have happened. Trust me, knowing the INCREDIBLE complexity of the cellular level (and pretty much ALL of the structures would have had to have ALL spontaneously arranged themselves ALL at the same time...you can't just have one and then add another etc etc because without them all you don't have life, and it just falls apart according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics...all things tend toward chaos).Like I said, I don't believe in macroevolution, but my reasons for that are mostly relgious (conflicts with the Bible), although there are definitely some scientific arguments against it. I'd rather not get bogged down in something I can't scientifically disprove though, with an athiest. So, I just stick to naturalistic biogenesis, which is incredibly easy to shoot down from an entirely scientific point of view. It's sheer absurdity.My couple of cents
Like you stated, you mostly do not believe in evolution because of religion, and IMO that isnt a good enough reason. Sure, there are arguments against it, but most of these have been addressed by some scientist or another that has not been blinded by faith.
*raises hand* Degree in Neurobiology, Physiology & Animal Behavior here.Problems Christians have in debating evolution: Microevolution is a non-debatable, observable, scientific fact. This is the common scientific usage of the generic term "evolution." Thus, saying "evolution is a theory" or "evolution doesn't exist" is like saying the moon doesn't exist. It does.Macroevolution is the extrapolation (ie guess) that if species can change their beak size, skin color, etc, then over a REALLY large amount of time, a species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, even kingdom of living things can turn into another. I don't personally believe this, but it's hard to argue one way or another from a scientific point of view. There just isn't enough data to concretely support or deny this theory.Where Christians can really weigh in, is naturalistic biogenesis: basically the theory that life arose from nonlife. There is absolutely no scientific proof for this, and no one can even come up with anywhere close to a plausible mechanism by which it could have happened. Trust me, knowing the INCREDIBLE complexity of the cellular level (and pretty much ALL of the structures would have had to have ALL spontaneously arranged themselves ALL at the same time...you can't just have one and then add another etc etc because without them all you don't have life, and it just falls apart according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics...all things tend toward chaos).Like I said, I don't believe in macroevolution, but my reasons for that are mostly relgious (conflicts with the Bible), although there are definitely some scientific arguments against it. I'd rather not get bogged down in something I can't scientifically disprove though, with an athiest. So, I just stick to naturalistic biogenesis, which is incredibly easy to shoot down from an entirely scientific point of view. It's sheer absurdity.My couple of cents
Like you stated, you mostly do not believe in evolution because of religion, and IMO that isnt a good enough reason. Sure, there are arguments against it, but most of these have been addressed by some scientist or another that has not been blinded by faith.
(treeoflife;47678)
Doesn't follow. Evolution and gravity are not the same theories, nor are they on the same level..
By the arguments given, it does follow, and those arguments are that scientific theory = faith = same as religion.That is a juvenile argument.
I could say, God is not a religion either... He is simply is who HE IS. No religion required.
God is a concept in many religions, not religion itself.
In fact, that gravity thing... yeah, God made that
Who made God?
Doesn't follow. Evolution and gravity are not the same theories, nor are they on the same level..
By the arguments given, it does follow, and those arguments are that scientific theory = faith = same as religion.That is a juvenile argument.
I could say, God is not a religion either... He is simply is who HE IS. No religion required.
God is a concept in many religions, not religion itself.
In fact, that gravity thing... yeah, God made that
Who made God?
(adren@line;47736)
Who made God?
Who made the elements and laws which must exist for Evolution to be true?So, you're faith is your faith... ours is ours.God is God, period. He does not require a creator... he is God.
Who made God?
Who made the elements and laws which must exist for Evolution to be true?So, you're faith is your faith... ours is ours.God is God, period. He does not require a creator... he is God.
(adren@line;47735)
Like you stated, you mostly do not believe in evolution because of religion, and IMO that isnt a good enough reason. Sure, there are arguments against it, but most of these have been addressed by some scientist or another that has not been blinded by faith.
Hey now, did you read my other posts? Check out my post at the top of this page...there are PLENTY of arguments against macroevolution. I'm a hard core science nut at heart, and if Christianity flew in the face of the facts, I wouldn't believe it. That's a fact. Honest...show me that something came out of nothing, then life came from non-life, then that life diversified itself into all the organisms we have today, and that God is man's invention...and I'll become an atheist. I am predisposed to not believe in macroevolution because of what the Bible teaches, but checking out the facts...it just didn't happen.There's lots of arguments against it. No one has come close to making a defense or mechanism for macroevolution that doesn't break down immediately under scrutiny. I mostly stay away from arguing it because:A) I don't have the time.
The arguments get lengthy, and get jumbled up. I guarantee...we start talking about it, and no one argument will get taken to its conclusion, and nothing will come to light.C) Christians don't all agree at what point microevolution becomes macroevolution. We see species becoming other species today, but then again, "species" is a definition man invented. Pretty safe to say all Christians believe humans were a unique creation of God, not descended from any other creature, but after that the views are great. I'm personally not sure where to draw the line either. Not enough evidence.D) It's so much easier to argue against naturalistic biogenesis, and it gets to the same philosophical point as arguing against macroevolution...the need for a Creator. It just does so much more convincingly and time-efficiently
For the record, I don't think evolution is a religion
And yes, as a scientist, it really bugs me when people equate scientific theories with the common usage of the word "theory" which is really a hypothesis
Like you stated, you mostly do not believe in evolution because of religion, and IMO that isnt a good enough reason. Sure, there are arguments against it, but most of these have been addressed by some scientist or another that has not been blinded by faith.
Hey now, did you read my other posts? Check out my post at the top of this page...there are PLENTY of arguments against macroevolution. I'm a hard core science nut at heart, and if Christianity flew in the face of the facts, I wouldn't believe it. That's a fact. Honest...show me that something came out of nothing, then life came from non-life, then that life diversified itself into all the organisms we have today, and that God is man's invention...and I'll become an atheist. I am predisposed to not believe in macroevolution because of what the Bible teaches, but checking out the facts...it just didn't happen.There's lots of arguments against it. No one has come close to making a defense or mechanism for macroevolution that doesn't break down immediately under scrutiny. I mostly stay away from arguing it because:A) I don't have the time.
(medicalmatt;47797)
Honest...show me that something came out of nothing
The argument here, in its essence, is that everything that we see within the universe must have a cause, therefore the universe itself must have a cause. The problem with this argument is that it commits the fallacy of composition. Every mark on a map may be made of paint, but that does not mean that the map itself is made of paint. Similarly, it is entirely plausible that causation, a concept which requires a passage of time to even be coherent, is a concept that occurs within space-time. Space-time itself simply isn't subject to it.(medicalmatt)
then life came from non-life
Here's the thing about abiogenesis. The distinction between "life" and "non-life" sounds very spiritual and fuzzy, but then you realize: DNA is just an acid. It's completely naturalistic in its character. We know that all sorts of chemicals are produced naturally under certain conditions. Why is it inconceivable that DNA, or the other building blocks of life, be any different?And this isn't just speculation - it's backed up by experimental data. In the famous Miller-Urey experiment, basic organic monomers such as amino acids were formed from naturally occurring gases like hydrogen, methane and ammonia. So, life coming from non-life isn't impossible. All "life" is is the presence of certain chemicals in a combination such that they can metabolize and reproduce.(medicalmatt)
that life diversified itself into all the organisms we have today
The fossil record, as well as observed instances of both adaptation and speciation, is evidence of this.(medicalmatt)
and that God is man's invention
Heh, well that's a can of soup a bit too daunting for me to open up at 4:30 in the morning.(medicalmatt)
And yes, as a scientist, it really bugs me when people equate scientific theories with the common usage of the word "theory" which is really a hypothesis
This is a pet peeve of mine too, and even after being corrected some people continue to argue as such - drives me wild!
Honest...show me that something came out of nothing
The argument here, in its essence, is that everything that we see within the universe must have a cause, therefore the universe itself must have a cause. The problem with this argument is that it commits the fallacy of composition. Every mark on a map may be made of paint, but that does not mean that the map itself is made of paint. Similarly, it is entirely plausible that causation, a concept which requires a passage of time to even be coherent, is a concept that occurs within space-time. Space-time itself simply isn't subject to it.(medicalmatt)
then life came from non-life
Here's the thing about abiogenesis. The distinction between "life" and "non-life" sounds very spiritual and fuzzy, but then you realize: DNA is just an acid. It's completely naturalistic in its character. We know that all sorts of chemicals are produced naturally under certain conditions. Why is it inconceivable that DNA, or the other building blocks of life, be any different?And this isn't just speculation - it's backed up by experimental data. In the famous Miller-Urey experiment, basic organic monomers such as amino acids were formed from naturally occurring gases like hydrogen, methane and ammonia. So, life coming from non-life isn't impossible. All "life" is is the presence of certain chemicals in a combination such that they can metabolize and reproduce.(medicalmatt)
that life diversified itself into all the organisms we have today
The fossil record, as well as observed instances of both adaptation and speciation, is evidence of this.(medicalmatt)
and that God is man's invention
Heh, well that's a can of soup a bit too daunting for me to open up at 4:30 in the morning.(medicalmatt)
And yes, as a scientist, it really bugs me when people equate scientific theories with the common usage of the word "theory" which is really a hypothesis
This is a pet peeve of mine too, and even after being corrected some people continue to argue as such - drives me wild!
(treeoflife;47780)
Who made the elements and laws which must exist for Evolution to be true?So, you're faith is your faith... ours is ours.God is God, period. He does not require a creator... he is God.
Yeah, but we know the universe exists, so there is no faith. We dont know if God exists in any objective way. Even considering the mainstream definitions, then hes simply an invisible guy floating around in space, and hence in the universe. So if we follow the something-from-nothing argument, then God is indeed something. So it solves nothing. One can easily just state that the universe is the universe, period.Anything that exists within a universe (since there is nowhere else for it to exist) is subject to the laws of the universe, and hence was created at the big-bang.Ofcourse, a common "rebuttal" to this is that God exists outside of time and space, but that simply doesnt make any sense. Space is simply nothingness. Time itself is a measurement. Whenever God acts, the measurement between differing acts is a measurement of time. Whatever exists, exists within space, since space is simply nothing. To state that something exists outside of nothing is equatable to me stating that five divided by yellow = dog. It makes absolutely no sense.
Who made the elements and laws which must exist for Evolution to be true?So, you're faith is your faith... ours is ours.God is God, period. He does not require a creator... he is God.
Yeah, but we know the universe exists, so there is no faith. We dont know if God exists in any objective way. Even considering the mainstream definitions, then hes simply an invisible guy floating around in space, and hence in the universe. So if we follow the something-from-nothing argument, then God is indeed something. So it solves nothing. One can easily just state that the universe is the universe, period.Anything that exists within a universe (since there is nowhere else for it to exist) is subject to the laws of the universe, and hence was created at the big-bang.Ofcourse, a common "rebuttal" to this is that God exists outside of time and space, but that simply doesnt make any sense. Space is simply nothingness. Time itself is a measurement. Whenever God acts, the measurement between differing acts is a measurement of time. Whatever exists, exists within space, since space is simply nothing. To state that something exists outside of nothing is equatable to me stating that five divided by yellow = dog. It makes absolutely no sense.
Oh man, Lunar, where to start?
The argument here, in its essence, is that everything that we see within the universe must have a cause, therefore the universe itself must have a cause. The problem with this argument is that it commits the fallacy of composition. Every mark on a map may be made of paint, but that does not mean that the map itself is made of paint. Similarly, it is entirely plausible that causation, a concept which requires a passage of time to even be coherent, is a concept that occurs within space-time. Space-time itself simply isn't subject to it.
The thing is, everything we know about our physical world points to a beginning. Expansion of the universe points backwards to a point where the entire universe was contained in one point--commonly called the Big Bang (the point of Creation, I believe). The universe is winding down, according to the second law of thermodynamics. This points to a beginning. The world as we know it requires a beginning. It requires something OUT OF THIS WORLD to have eternally existed, and caused it. That's just what makes the most sense. I'm not saying you can't make an argument against this. It's not an ironclad argument, and I won't die defending it. But still.
Here's the thing about abiogenesis. The distinction between "life" and "non-life" sounds very spiritual and fuzzy, but then you realize: DNA is just an acid. It's completely naturalistic in its character. We know that all sorts of chemicals are produced naturally under certain conditions. Why is it inconceivable that DNA, or the other building blocks of life, be any different?[/i]
Oh, man. How much biology have you studied? I'm not being condescending, I just can't believe that someone who has more than a rudimentary knowledge of the cell can trivialize life down to this level. It's like saying a supercomputer is just a bunch of wires. I'd love to go deep into the fantastic complexities of microbiology, but I'll restrain myself
The problem, is that there are soooo many biological pathways that would ALL have to exist simultaneously. Even if one molecule happened to randomly form (for all practical purposes, impossible), what about all the rest? They would ALL have to randomly throw themselves together at the SAME time. Ok, if that's not enough, they also require the DNA blueprint to be able to replicate them later. And saying "DNA is just an acid" not only personally hurts (I have a crush on DNA haha), but it's just uninformed. DNA is an immensely complex molecule made of TONS (don't know the exact number) of nucleic acid building blocks, all arranged in the right fashion. I could continue, but I don't want this post to take an entire page
And this isn't just speculation - it's backed up by experimental data. In the famous Miller-Urey experiment, basic organic monomers such as amino acids were formed from naturally occurring gases like hydrogen, methane and ammonia. So, life coming from non-life isn't impossible. All "life" is is the presence of certain chemicals in a combination such that they can metabolize and reproduce.
Oh, if I only had a nickel for every time I heard about the Stanley Miller experiment. Soo many problems with the experiment. First, he interfered with the setup. He acted as a creator and prepared the setup to get the result he wanted...including putting energy into the system. Cheating! Second, he got a handful of organic molecules. True, but hardly impressive. It's like saying I made a couple of bricks appear out of nowhere! Ok, sweet, but if you want to build a skyscraper, and you have to not only MAKE the bricks, but also put ALL the MILLIONS of bricks in JUST the right order, and if you don't get it EXACTLY right, you're back to ground zero again, you start to scratch the surface of how impossible it is. Not to mention that organic life requires that the molecules have the correct "handedness" (chirality, for you science geeks). Some molecules can be either left or right handed, and the reactions of life require the correct handedness. Miller's experiment created a "racemic mixture" meaning equal numbers of both. That would screw up processes later on.I'll leave the rest of your comments aside for now
It's late for me as well, and I also have to get up at 4:30 in the manana! Please, try to listen to what I'm saying. And don't be rude or condescending. I'm not saying you have been in the past, just a lot of past experiences. I'll try to be open to what you have to say, and I'd appreciate the same in return.
The argument here, in its essence, is that everything that we see within the universe must have a cause, therefore the universe itself must have a cause. The problem with this argument is that it commits the fallacy of composition. Every mark on a map may be made of paint, but that does not mean that the map itself is made of paint. Similarly, it is entirely plausible that causation, a concept which requires a passage of time to even be coherent, is a concept that occurs within space-time. Space-time itself simply isn't subject to it.
The thing is, everything we know about our physical world points to a beginning. Expansion of the universe points backwards to a point where the entire universe was contained in one point--commonly called the Big Bang (the point of Creation, I believe). The universe is winding down, according to the second law of thermodynamics. This points to a beginning. The world as we know it requires a beginning. It requires something OUT OF THIS WORLD to have eternally existed, and caused it. That's just what makes the most sense. I'm not saying you can't make an argument against this. It's not an ironclad argument, and I won't die defending it. But still.
Here's the thing about abiogenesis. The distinction between "life" and "non-life" sounds very spiritual and fuzzy, but then you realize: DNA is just an acid. It's completely naturalistic in its character. We know that all sorts of chemicals are produced naturally under certain conditions. Why is it inconceivable that DNA, or the other building blocks of life, be any different?[/i]
Oh, man. How much biology have you studied? I'm not being condescending, I just can't believe that someone who has more than a rudimentary knowledge of the cell can trivialize life down to this level. It's like saying a supercomputer is just a bunch of wires. I'd love to go deep into the fantastic complexities of microbiology, but I'll restrain myself
And this isn't just speculation - it's backed up by experimental data. In the famous Miller-Urey experiment, basic organic monomers such as amino acids were formed from naturally occurring gases like hydrogen, methane and ammonia. So, life coming from non-life isn't impossible. All "life" is is the presence of certain chemicals in a combination such that they can metabolize and reproduce.
Oh, if I only had a nickel for every time I heard about the Stanley Miller experiment. Soo many problems with the experiment. First, he interfered with the setup. He acted as a creator and prepared the setup to get the result he wanted...including putting energy into the system. Cheating! Second, he got a handful of organic molecules. True, but hardly impressive. It's like saying I made a couple of bricks appear out of nowhere! Ok, sweet, but if you want to build a skyscraper, and you have to not only MAKE the bricks, but also put ALL the MILLIONS of bricks in JUST the right order, and if you don't get it EXACTLY right, you're back to ground zero again, you start to scratch the surface of how impossible it is. Not to mention that organic life requires that the molecules have the correct "handedness" (chirality, for you science geeks). Some molecules can be either left or right handed, and the reactions of life require the correct handedness. Miller's experiment created a "racemic mixture" meaning equal numbers of both. That would screw up processes later on.I'll leave the rest of your comments aside for now
(adren@line;47901)
Space is simply nothingness.
Yeah, more or less, but as Einstein shows us, space has its limits. There are boundaries to space. Just thought I'd mention that
Space is simply nothingness.
Yeah, more or less, but as Einstein shows us, space has its limits. There are boundaries to space. Just thought I'd mention that
(medicalmatt)
It's like saying a supercomputer is just a bunch of wires.
The point was not to say anything about the complexity of DNA, but to point out that what defines "life" can be defined in completely naturalistic terms.(medicalmatt)
The problem, is that there are soooo many biological pathways that would ALL have to exist simultaneously. Even if one molecule happened to randomly form (for all practical purposes, impossible), what about all the rest? They would ALL have to randomly throw themselves together at the SAME time.
Isn't this just the same old, classically fallacious notion of irreducible complexity that gets charged at biological evolution, but now applied to the chemical level?(medicalmatt)
And saying "DNA is just an acid" not only personally hurts (I have a crush on DNA haha), but it's just uninformed. DNA is an immensely complex molecule made of TONS (don't know the exact number) of nucleic acid building blocks, all arranged in the right fashion.
But it is an acid. There is nothing spiritual about it. That's the only point I was trying to make; your discussion of its complexity is completely besides the point. If you're worried I don't have an appropriate appreciation for the complexities of biology, fear not.(medicalmatt)
Oh, if I only had a nickel for every time I heard about the Stanley Miller experiment. Soo many problems with the experiment. First, he interfered with the setup. He acted as a creator and prepared the setup to get the result he wanted...including putting energy into the system. Cheating!
Why is this cheating? It's not like the earth is a closed system.(medicalmatt)
Second, he got a handful of organic molecules. True, but hardly impressive. It's like saying I made a couple of bricks appear out of nowhere!
Of course the Miller-Urey experiment isn't a definitive, end-all be-all proof of a particular theory of abiogenesis. What it demonstrates is that the process itself isn't inconceivable, impossible or even improbable.(medicalmatt)
Ok, sweet, but if you want to build a skyscraper, and you have to not only MAKE the bricks, but also put ALL the MILLIONS of bricks in JUST the right order, and if you don't get it EXACTLY right, you're back to ground zero again, you start to scratch the surface of how impossible it is.
Again, it sounds like irreducible complexity for chemical evolution.
It's like saying a supercomputer is just a bunch of wires.
The point was not to say anything about the complexity of DNA, but to point out that what defines "life" can be defined in completely naturalistic terms.(medicalmatt)
The problem, is that there are soooo many biological pathways that would ALL have to exist simultaneously. Even if one molecule happened to randomly form (for all practical purposes, impossible), what about all the rest? They would ALL have to randomly throw themselves together at the SAME time.
Isn't this just the same old, classically fallacious notion of irreducible complexity that gets charged at biological evolution, but now applied to the chemical level?(medicalmatt)
And saying "DNA is just an acid" not only personally hurts (I have a crush on DNA haha), but it's just uninformed. DNA is an immensely complex molecule made of TONS (don't know the exact number) of nucleic acid building blocks, all arranged in the right fashion.
But it is an acid. There is nothing spiritual about it. That's the only point I was trying to make; your discussion of its complexity is completely besides the point. If you're worried I don't have an appropriate appreciation for the complexities of biology, fear not.(medicalmatt)
Oh, if I only had a nickel for every time I heard about the Stanley Miller experiment. Soo many problems with the experiment. First, he interfered with the setup. He acted as a creator and prepared the setup to get the result he wanted...including putting energy into the system. Cheating!
Why is this cheating? It's not like the earth is a closed system.(medicalmatt)
Second, he got a handful of organic molecules. True, but hardly impressive. It's like saying I made a couple of bricks appear out of nowhere!
Of course the Miller-Urey experiment isn't a definitive, end-all be-all proof of a particular theory of abiogenesis. What it demonstrates is that the process itself isn't inconceivable, impossible or even improbable.(medicalmatt)
Ok, sweet, but if you want to build a skyscraper, and you have to not only MAKE the bricks, but also put ALL the MILLIONS of bricks in JUST the right order, and if you don't get it EXACTLY right, you're back to ground zero again, you start to scratch the surface of how impossible it is.
Again, it sounds like irreducible complexity for chemical evolution.
(Lunar;48084)
Of course the Miller-Urey experiment isn't a definitive, end-all be-all proof of a particular theory of abiogenesis. What it demonstrates is that the process itself isn't inconceivable, impossible or even improbable.
Yeah, but that's like saying, "We have discovered that metal in nature sometimes forms itself into long, thin, wire-like rods. Therefore, supercomputers can spontaneously form!" And yes, as I'm sure you know, since you say you have significant knowledge of biology, it really is that dramatic.You challenge the idea of irreducible complexity. Consider DNA alone. In order to have life, you need thousands of enzymes. Let's assume the (impossible) case that SOMEHOW, a bacterial cell arose, complete with plasma membrane, DNA, ribosomes, microtubules, etc etc etc, and all the enzymes required for metabolism, movement, degradation, etc etc. But even if you somehow randomly got all those enzymes together, you would also have to have the DNA there to be passed on to daughter cells, or else this life that somehow came to be, would simply die and nothing would come of it. So, not only would you need the basic components of a cell, not only would you need the DNA that somehow magically codes for those same components, but you would also need the machinery to copy the DNA. Here's just a couple of the enzymes required in prokaryotic (the most basic bacterial) cells.DNA Polymerase, the basic replicator: Note that this image also includes a section of DNA
Helicase, Required to open up the DNA so that it can be replicated. Don't forget all the proteins required to KEEP it open, once it's been opened:
Here's a Ribosome, required to translate the DNA into proteins. (I know I said that this was just going to be DNA replication enzymes, but I couldn't help throwing this in there...having DNA is worthless if you can't translate it!
So, you want to tell me that even these three things all happened to spontaneously form at the same time? Let alone the thousands of similar molecules that would be required to sustain and propogate a cell. Yes, these are mere molecules, composed of mere atoms. But still...dang. You see?
Of course the Miller-Urey experiment isn't a definitive, end-all be-all proof of a particular theory of abiogenesis. What it demonstrates is that the process itself isn't inconceivable, impossible or even improbable.
Yeah, but that's like saying, "We have discovered that metal in nature sometimes forms itself into long, thin, wire-like rods. Therefore, supercomputers can spontaneously form!" And yes, as I'm sure you know, since you say you have significant knowledge of biology, it really is that dramatic.You challenge the idea of irreducible complexity. Consider DNA alone. In order to have life, you need thousands of enzymes. Let's assume the (impossible) case that SOMEHOW, a bacterial cell arose, complete with plasma membrane, DNA, ribosomes, microtubules, etc etc etc, and all the enzymes required for metabolism, movement, degradation, etc etc. But even if you somehow randomly got all those enzymes together, you would also have to have the DNA there to be passed on to daughter cells, or else this life that somehow came to be, would simply die and nothing would come of it. So, not only would you need the basic components of a cell, not only would you need the DNA that somehow magically codes for those same components, but you would also need the machinery to copy the DNA. Here's just a couple of the enzymes required in prokaryotic (the most basic bacterial) cells.DNA Polymerase, the basic replicator: Note that this image also includes a section of DNA
And, just because I thought it would be fun, I decided to look up the spontaneous rates of peptide bond formation (the bonds between the amino acid "building blocks" required to form proteins...can range from about 50 to several thousand per protein, but the average is 300), and compare that to the catalyzed reactions in a ribosome. Note that this is just looking at the rate of formation. It doesn't take into account that spontaneous reactions form random bonds between random amino acids, whereas a ribosome forms a specific amino acid sequence based on transcripted RNA from DNA.Anyway, this study, published by the National Academy of Sciences, states that the presence of a ribosome speeds up the peptide bond formation reaction by 20,000,000 times. Just thought I'd throw that little tidbit in there
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlere...gi?artid=419528
medicalmatt: I don't have either the inclination or the expertise to completely derail the topic from evolution to abiogenesis, since they're two completely separate theories. Truth be told I wasn't expecting the tangent to carry on as long as it did, but I feel as though it's becoming increasingly unproductive in this discussion. I think that discussion of the chemical evolution that would lead from simple chemicals up to, say, a bacteria (for the record, no, I don't think it all just happened at once), just isn't relevant to the discussion because that's not what biological evolution seeks to explain. Biological evolution a theory that can stand on its own and be tested on its own grounds.Now, I know the immediate response is to say "But how could we even begin to talk about evolution without knowing where life came from?" But the truth is, that's kind of silly. We are allowed to have scientific discourse about something without understanding every event that precedes it. Think about it - modern science doesn't even come close to understanding the origins of the universe, an event which, if it is coherent to speak about it in temporal terms, precedes everything it studies. Does that fact undermine every discovery we've made in science, since it's all premised on a question mark? Of course not; we simply understand that each science has its own domain and when it comes to origins we say "We haven't figured that one out yet."Evolution is a theory about how life developed, not where it originated. I've always seen criticisms of abiogenesis or cosmological arguments as a strawman with respect to it.
(medicalmatt;48089)
So, you want to tell me that even these three things all happened to spontaneously form at the same time? Let alone the thousands of similar molecules that would be required to sustain and propogate a cell. Yes, these are mere molecules, composed of mere atoms. But still...dang. You see?
It happened over billions of years.Anyhow, do you have a better theory? One with just as much evidence, if not more? And by "evidence", I am referring to the scientific variety, the kind that is accepted by the scientific community world-wide, not a fringe-group of religious types who happen to have science degrees and live in a few states in the USA.
So, you want to tell me that even these three things all happened to spontaneously form at the same time? Let alone the thousands of similar molecules that would be required to sustain and propogate a cell. Yes, these are mere molecules, composed of mere atoms. But still...dang. You see?
It happened over billions of years.Anyhow, do you have a better theory? One with just as much evidence, if not more? And by "evidence", I am referring to the scientific variety, the kind that is accepted by the scientific community world-wide, not a fringe-group of religious types who happen to have science degrees and live in a few states in the USA.
Lunar: I completely respect your desire to not get into a discussion of abiogenesis. Also, I do fully grasp that one can discuss the theory of evolution without having decided how life actually began. As I'm sure you understand, I personally don't have the time for a lengthy discussion of macroevolution, nor have I had the time to be intimately aquainted with the myriad of information that would be required to make an informed case on my part. As I stated earlier in this thread, it's far more worth my time (personally) to make a case against abiogenesis. Why?1) Debunking abiogenesis and macroevolution both show the same result...that there must be a God.2) It's a lot easier to debunk abiogenesis.3) I don't have a firmly held belief, because there is neither the scientific evidence nor the direction in Scripture on the topic, of where microevolution stops and macroevolution begins.I've debated it extensively in the past, but it's mostly not worth my while. I'm sure you understand.
(adren@line;48170)
It happened over billions of years.
I'm going to need something better than that. HOW? The problem is, NO ONE has the slightest idea how this could happen, even with the concept of "billions of years" (for the record, last I heard, scientific belief is that the universe is only 4.7 billion years old).
Anyhow, do you have a better theory? One with just as much evidence, if not more?
Yes, I have a better theory. No, my theory does not have real concrete scientific evidence for it. But here's basically how it goes. Your theory is that somehow, by random chance collisions of atoms, a prokaryotic cell was formed. See a few posts above where I showed just a FEW of the (at least) MILLIONS of proteins that would have to form, at the same time, in order for this to happen. That's only proteins...doesn't say anything about phospholipids, DNA, RNA, or sterols. The only evidence we have about this theory is thata) It is possible, with the input of energy etc, to randomly make a few building blocks that are found in proteins, etc.
Such molecules also quickly degrade.c) After decades of research, no one has been able to come up with a plausible mechanism for any of the thousands of steps required to create life from inorganic materials, let alone how all the steps fit together in a timeframe that gives you ALL the necessary ingredients in the same area at the same time (ie, if protein A forms and then protein B forms, but by the time protein B is formed, protein A has degraded, it's as if protein A had never been formed).Thus, we must conclude that, at the very least, something so unusual such that we've NEVER seen it before, must have occured to bring the correct order of atoms and molecules together in the correct proportions, locations, and time. Something significantly unusual, since we have never seen any mechanism or law of nature that could even come REMOTELY CLOSE to doing this. Indeed, you could call it supernatural, defined by the dictionary as "of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal."
It happened over billions of years.
I'm going to need something better than that. HOW? The problem is, NO ONE has the slightest idea how this could happen, even with the concept of "billions of years" (for the record, last I heard, scientific belief is that the universe is only 4.7 billion years old).
Anyhow, do you have a better theory? One with just as much evidence, if not more?
Yes, I have a better theory. No, my theory does not have real concrete scientific evidence for it. But here's basically how it goes. Your theory is that somehow, by random chance collisions of atoms, a prokaryotic cell was formed. See a few posts above where I showed just a FEW of the (at least) MILLIONS of proteins that would have to form, at the same time, in order for this to happen. That's only proteins...doesn't say anything about phospholipids, DNA, RNA, or sterols. The only evidence we have about this theory is thata) It is possible, with the input of energy etc, to randomly make a few building blocks that are found in proteins, etc.
Similar threads
