An "origin theory" must have a beginning. Life must start.
Science constrains to "observable facts", and each person must evaluate the facts as presented. There is always a certain amount of "faith" in fact-finding; virtually none of us has the ability to engage in archeological digs, and/or travel to distant regions to examine evidence ourselves (nor do we have the equipment or expertise to engage in many laboratorial measurements). Just as many people accepted Charles Dawson's "find", we also must evaluate evidence, and use "logic" where appropriate.
In any view and/or discussion, Human fallibility will exist; because we ARE fallible. To be truly "objective", is extremely difficult. Do I view evidence a certain way because of what the evidence presents? Or do I see certain things IN the evidence, because of prior presumptions? Any of us could be guilty of the latter. It is with confidence that I both challenge each of you to BE "open minded", and I ACCEPT the challenge to be so, myself.
There are essentially three beliefs for the origin of mankind on Planet Earth:
1. Panspermia --- belief that life was "seeded" here by extraterrestrials. Since this exists beyond the scope of observable phenomena, it really also lies outside of "discussible points". We cannot observe life on other planets (assuming there WAS any), so we cannot discuss THEIR origins.
2. Intelligent Design --- view that intelligent thought caused certain molecular configurations; indeed, the existence of the molecules themselves founds on a series of "cosmic constants" which have the appearance of being "precisely tuned". Any deviation in those constants, or in the complexity of molecular interraction, precludes life as we know it.
3. Evolution --- view that life "began all by itself", that certain conditions existed in ancient history which allowed chance combination first to BEGIN a living creature, then (continuous chance chemical combinations) to allow that organism to INCREASE complexity and to diversify.
Some would accuse of an "intellectual shell game" --- that is, if neither Intelligent Design nor Evolution (for instance) can be positively verified, it's asserted to be "intellectual dishonesty" (shell-game) to try to prove one by falsifying the other.
...yet in the presence of a finite number of theories, it is sound science to consider the conflicts in one or more paradigms. By such consideration, the theory with the fewest conflicts, gains the most credibility.
So --- let's discuss the BEGINNING of Evolution.
In 1953 Urey theorized that "pre-historic Earth's atmoshphere may have been composed of gases like ethane, methane, ammonia, nitrogen, hydrogen, water". Therefore he included these gases in a flask. Further theorizing that "lightning was likely", he introduced a high-voltage electric arc. At the end of one week, 10-15% of the carbon had formed organic compounds, of which ~2% were "amino acids".
The newspapers declared, "LIFE CREATED IN THE LABORATORY!"
But the experiment had several problems. First, there was a circulatory system (it was not "closed"), non-naturally occurring. In that circulation, was an "amino acid trap" --- to carefully collect and protect any formed. The trap was also non-naturally occurring; without it, the destruct rate would have prevented formation of any amino acids.
The flask had no free oxygen, for that would "poison the system" and prevent amino acid formation. The geological stack does not exhibit any periods of "zero oxygen".
Other "problems" existed; for instance, the "lightning" in the experiment far exceeded probable phenomena.
But, for the sake of argument, let's pretend that the experiment was NOT a "fraud". Let's say that we have a flask of prehistoric organic "soup", from which life evolved.
Now, the amino acids in this "soup" existed in equal numbers of left-handed, and right-handed isomeric configurations. Please explain to me how only "left-handed" protiens assembled themselves, and gained the ability to replicate. If we propose a simple "virus" of only 10 units, and VERY generously give the probability of simultaneous occurrance of each unit to be 1 chance in a thousand, then (by multiplication) the chance of joint combination is 1 x 10[sup]30[/sup]. Someone said that number would be "about the number of electrons this part of the Universe could contain". Yet the Evolutionist contends it DID happen, perhaps dictated by hereto unknown "attracters" in a not-yet-fully-defined chaotic system.
But consider that this chance-happening, occurred TWICE (and in the same geological INSTANT!) --- first to create a "living cell", then to create "mitochondrea" (which are thought to have evolved separately, and then by a THIRD stroke of luck [perhaps a rock fell and gashed our struggling cell] mitochondrea became incorporated and thus began a beneficial symbiosis.)
Immediately we're faced with "irreducible complexity". Protiens assembling themselves into DNA, cannot function as DNA without cellular walls; and cell walls are created by DNA. Which came first?
It has been proposed that "perhaps life began not in a POOL, but on the ocean floor; around a "black smoker" (mineral-rich volcanic vent "belching" clouds of minerals looking like black smoke). Perhaps the cellular containment happened in volcanic rock VOIDS, so that DNA could form and function before it "learned" how to make cellular walls.
This all is but conjecture. There is no evidence suggesting a random beginning, and no one knows how all the "irreducible complexities" were overcome.
Chance and probability is remarkable; if our "test virus" is composed only of 10 units, and has a probability of only 1 x 10[sup]30[/sup], then what is the probability of a Human cell coming into existence, with its 23 chromosone pairs, each of which is composed of sequences of A, C, T, G, sequences that number THREE BILLION?
Three billion is a large number; one could COUNT to three billion, if he/she never ate nor slept nor took a bathroom break, and counted three-per-second; and was willing to devote THIRTY TWO YEARS.
So we have this extremely high probability against 10 units, then we consider three BILLION units --- the concept "extremely high", becomes "IDENTICALLY ZERO". It pays not to discuss "probabilities", or perhaps to propose an "undiscovered factor that significantly reduces the odds" (the science of Chaos, for instance).
All of this discussion serves to show that Evolution, in its beginning, founds not on facts, but on a "faith" that IT DID HAPPEN.
In the 19th Century was a view known as "Spontaneous Generation" --- they thought that life rose from non-life. Meat left outside, would spontaneously generate flies. The gelatinous interior of cells was thought to be "simple", therefore life could "simply arise".
...but we now know internal cellular structure is NOT simple --- vast and terribly sophisticated chemical processes, manufacturing, shipping and receiving (even molecular "transport trucks") exist and operate.
Our tiny cellular METROPOLIS, even has gates with "locks and keys" (receptor sites).
Evolution therefore seems to "revive" the view of "spontaneous generation". And it is not honest to call those who reject such a proposed "spontaneous beginning", as "intellectual idiots".
...I do not accept Miller's proposal, and I do not think I'm an "idiot"...
It takes far less faith for me, a degreed-engineer, to observe the incredible sophistication of life on Earth, and to think, "This exhibits intelligent thought in its design"...
Science constrains to "observable facts", and each person must evaluate the facts as presented. There is always a certain amount of "faith" in fact-finding; virtually none of us has the ability to engage in archeological digs, and/or travel to distant regions to examine evidence ourselves (nor do we have the equipment or expertise to engage in many laboratorial measurements). Just as many people accepted Charles Dawson's "find", we also must evaluate evidence, and use "logic" where appropriate.
In any view and/or discussion, Human fallibility will exist; because we ARE fallible. To be truly "objective", is extremely difficult. Do I view evidence a certain way because of what the evidence presents? Or do I see certain things IN the evidence, because of prior presumptions? Any of us could be guilty of the latter. It is with confidence that I both challenge each of you to BE "open minded", and I ACCEPT the challenge to be so, myself.
There are essentially three beliefs for the origin of mankind on Planet Earth:
1. Panspermia --- belief that life was "seeded" here by extraterrestrials. Since this exists beyond the scope of observable phenomena, it really also lies outside of "discussible points". We cannot observe life on other planets (assuming there WAS any), so we cannot discuss THEIR origins.
2. Intelligent Design --- view that intelligent thought caused certain molecular configurations; indeed, the existence of the molecules themselves founds on a series of "cosmic constants" which have the appearance of being "precisely tuned". Any deviation in those constants, or in the complexity of molecular interraction, precludes life as we know it.
3. Evolution --- view that life "began all by itself", that certain conditions existed in ancient history which allowed chance combination first to BEGIN a living creature, then (continuous chance chemical combinations) to allow that organism to INCREASE complexity and to diversify.
Some would accuse of an "intellectual shell game" --- that is, if neither Intelligent Design nor Evolution (for instance) can be positively verified, it's asserted to be "intellectual dishonesty" (shell-game) to try to prove one by falsifying the other.
...yet in the presence of a finite number of theories, it is sound science to consider the conflicts in one or more paradigms. By such consideration, the theory with the fewest conflicts, gains the most credibility.
So --- let's discuss the BEGINNING of Evolution.
Stanley Miller / Harold Urey Biogenesis Experiment
In 1953 Urey theorized that "pre-historic Earth's atmoshphere may have been composed of gases like ethane, methane, ammonia, nitrogen, hydrogen, water". Therefore he included these gases in a flask. Further theorizing that "lightning was likely", he introduced a high-voltage electric arc. At the end of one week, 10-15% of the carbon had formed organic compounds, of which ~2% were "amino acids".
The newspapers declared, "LIFE CREATED IN THE LABORATORY!"
But the experiment had several problems. First, there was a circulatory system (it was not "closed"), non-naturally occurring. In that circulation, was an "amino acid trap" --- to carefully collect and protect any formed. The trap was also non-naturally occurring; without it, the destruct rate would have prevented formation of any amino acids.
The flask had no free oxygen, for that would "poison the system" and prevent amino acid formation. The geological stack does not exhibit any periods of "zero oxygen".
Other "problems" existed; for instance, the "lightning" in the experiment far exceeded probable phenomena.
But, for the sake of argument, let's pretend that the experiment was NOT a "fraud". Let's say that we have a flask of prehistoric organic "soup", from which life evolved.
Now, the amino acids in this "soup" existed in equal numbers of left-handed, and right-handed isomeric configurations. Please explain to me how only "left-handed" protiens assembled themselves, and gained the ability to replicate. If we propose a simple "virus" of only 10 units, and VERY generously give the probability of simultaneous occurrance of each unit to be 1 chance in a thousand, then (by multiplication) the chance of joint combination is 1 x 10[sup]30[/sup]. Someone said that number would be "about the number of electrons this part of the Universe could contain". Yet the Evolutionist contends it DID happen, perhaps dictated by hereto unknown "attracters" in a not-yet-fully-defined chaotic system.
But consider that this chance-happening, occurred TWICE (and in the same geological INSTANT!) --- first to create a "living cell", then to create "mitochondrea" (which are thought to have evolved separately, and then by a THIRD stroke of luck [perhaps a rock fell and gashed our struggling cell] mitochondrea became incorporated and thus began a beneficial symbiosis.)
Immediately we're faced with "irreducible complexity". Protiens assembling themselves into DNA, cannot function as DNA without cellular walls; and cell walls are created by DNA. Which came first?
It has been proposed that "perhaps life began not in a POOL, but on the ocean floor; around a "black smoker" (mineral-rich volcanic vent "belching" clouds of minerals looking like black smoke). Perhaps the cellular containment happened in volcanic rock VOIDS, so that DNA could form and function before it "learned" how to make cellular walls.
This all is but conjecture. There is no evidence suggesting a random beginning, and no one knows how all the "irreducible complexities" were overcome.
Chance and probability is remarkable; if our "test virus" is composed only of 10 units, and has a probability of only 1 x 10[sup]30[/sup], then what is the probability of a Human cell coming into existence, with its 23 chromosone pairs, each of which is composed of sequences of A, C, T, G, sequences that number THREE BILLION?
Three billion is a large number; one could COUNT to three billion, if he/she never ate nor slept nor took a bathroom break, and counted three-per-second; and was willing to devote THIRTY TWO YEARS.
So we have this extremely high probability against 10 units, then we consider three BILLION units --- the concept "extremely high", becomes "IDENTICALLY ZERO". It pays not to discuss "probabilities", or perhaps to propose an "undiscovered factor that significantly reduces the odds" (the science of Chaos, for instance).
All of this discussion serves to show that Evolution, in its beginning, founds not on facts, but on a "faith" that IT DID HAPPEN.
In the 19th Century was a view known as "Spontaneous Generation" --- they thought that life rose from non-life. Meat left outside, would spontaneously generate flies. The gelatinous interior of cells was thought to be "simple", therefore life could "simply arise".
...but we now know internal cellular structure is NOT simple --- vast and terribly sophisticated chemical processes, manufacturing, shipping and receiving (even molecular "transport trucks") exist and operate.
Our tiny cellular METROPOLIS, even has gates with "locks and keys" (receptor sites).
Evolution therefore seems to "revive" the view of "spontaneous generation". And it is not honest to call those who reject such a proposed "spontaneous beginning", as "intellectual idiots".
...I do not accept Miller's proposal, and I do not think I'm an "idiot"...
It takes far less faith for me, a degreed-engineer, to observe the incredible sophistication of life on Earth, and to think, "This exhibits intelligent thought in its design"...