Answering any questions on Evolution

[Jazer]

If life is merely chemistry in concert,

Does Quantum Physics, IE String Theory or M-theory tell us that life is merely chemistry?

 

[Jazer]

I would comment on the rest, but there is just so much there to digest. If you and I could concentrate on a more specific part at a time, I would be more than happy to help if I can.

This is the part I do not understand: 1:26 And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:" For example who is "US"?

Also I wonder what is "tree of knowledge of good and evil"?

 

[verysincere]

Tell me what's wrong with the logic trail there. Evolutionists constantly fall back on the Urey Miller experiment as proof that the necessary ingredients for life can arise, that all they need to do is arrange themselves in a life sustaining/replicating order, and add a shot of "energy" (whether it's electrical or some other form), and viola! Life! If we were to take a dead human, all the information is right there. It's in perfect order as it had to be for that person to survive for a moment, let alone a lifetime. Everything is there for life, minus the "energy".

So where am I mistaken?

You are mistaken in at least two places:

1) You've confused the theory of evolution with abiogenesis.

(Thus, "Evolutionists constantly fall back on the Urey Miller experiment..." makes little sense. It is like saying, "Gravitationalists constantly fall back on the Michelson-Morley Experiment....")

2) Your "dead human" analogy confuses the original "Frankenstein Monster" novel and movie with actual scientific inquiry.


.

 

[Zaius137]

You are mistaken in at least two places:

1) You've confused the theory of evolution with abiogenesis.

(Thus, "Evolutionists constantly fall back on the Urey Miller experiment..." makes little sense. It is like saying, "Gravitationalists constantly fall back on the Michelson-Morley Experiment....")

2) Your "dead human" analogy confuses the original "Frankenstein Monster" novel and movie with actual scientific inquiry.


.

Evolutionists these days beg off the suggestion of abiogenesis because it is scientifically impossible. Think about thou, how evolution could be free from the intervention of God if they could not explain the origin of life. If you look at the papers that research possible paths to life (abiogenesis), you will see that the scientists involved are hard-core evolutionists. Do not be fooled evolutionists would jump for joy if a legitimate finding ever showed abiogenesis was real.

Without abiogenesis, evolution is impotent.

About the second point… Google “evolutions hopeful monster”.

“Since the time of Darwin, evolutionists have looked to the fossil record for historical evidence of evolution. Most evolutionists now concede, however, that the fossil record fails to show the progressive transformation of any living organism into a distinctly different kind of organism.”

The Hopeful Monsters of Evolution by David Menton

 

[NailsII]

This is the part I do not understand: 1:26 And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:" For example who is "US"?

Also I wonder what is "tree of knowledge of good and evil"?

The early Jews were pagans - they had many gods, and most of their origin story is Babylonian in origin.
The tree is just made up as a plot device.

Evolutionists these days beg off the suggestion of abiogenesis because it is scientifically impossible.

Darwin wrote on the difficulties of the origins of life, so 'these days' is a mute point.
It is a genuine issue, but at least scientists are honest enough to admit there is gaps in human knowledge.

Think about thou, how evolution could be free from the intervention of God if they could not explain the origin of life.

It already is.
As is gravity.

If you look at the papers that research possible paths to life (abiogenesis), you will see that the scientists involved are hard-core evolutionists.

Funny that, 'cos a religious scientist wouldn't bother looking for any evidence, they would just conclude that god did it.
So what exactly is a hard-core evolutionist?

Do not be fooled evolutionists would jump for joy if a legitimate finding ever showed abiogenesis was real.

Yes, I agree.
Any new finding which supports our understanding of the universe is esciting - as is anything which showsw our models are not consistant with reality. Because when you have been proved wrong, there is the exciting dawn of new discoveries on the horizon.

Without abiogenesis, evolution is impotent.

Without abiogensis, evolution is evolution.
It changes nothing, even if there is rock solid conclusive proof that an intelligent designer/god/whatever seeded life on this planet.
All the evidence points to slow, gradual change over hundreds of millions of years, and an increase in complexity and diversity of biological life over time. There are also periods of rapid change, and periods of virtually no change - but the overall pattern is exactly the same across all species.

“Since the time of Darwin, evolutionists have looked to the fossil record for historical evidence of evolution. Most evolutionists now concede, however, that the fossil record fails to show the progressive transformation of any living organism into a distinctly different kind of organism.”

Even if that was true (which it most certainly is not, so shame on you for violating the 9th commandment) - genetic evidence is compelling.

 

[Trogool]

Without abiogenesis, evolution is impotent.

Do you even know what evolution is? It doesn't require any particular origin of life, just that life existed through whatever mechanism and evolved.

 

[Zaius137]

Do you even know what evolution is? It doesn't require any particular origin of life, just that life existed through whatever mechanism and evolved.

Yes I do… Evolution is impudent without an explanation of abiogenesis. A explanation should require some accompanying evidence. Evolution supplies neither evidence nor a credible explanation.

 

[Guy1]

Yes I do… Evolution is impudent without an explanation of abiogenesis. A explanation should require some accompanying evidence. Evolution supplies neither evidence nor a credible explanation.

You clearly do not since you're making that statement.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Yes I do… Evolution is impudent without an explanation of abiogenesis. A explanation should require some accompanying evidence. Evolution supplies neither evidence nor a credible explanation.

An important role of science is not only to tell us how things worked/happened, but to also let us know what we do understand, and what we don't yet understand. E.g. a scientific experiment may give results which fit NO current theory, in which case we have to throw away the current theories and start again.

Nothing, neither science nor religion, gives us a fully developed explanation of how life originally got started. Science can't because we don't know (e.g.) how life got started on earth so quickly that there was cellular life so soon after the earth was formed. Religion typically says that the world was created with developed species, while much evidence shows that life evolved from very simple forms from a long time ago. Religion also offers us no credible explanation of where God came from.

We need further evidence to develop theories as to how life started off in the first place. E.g. evidence of closely related life on Mars would suggest that cellular life came from Mars, e.g. as spores in a Mars meteorite. Other evidence of Earth being seeded from space would help. Otherwise we need to know how the first cells on Earth could have appeared so fast, and this means we clearly don't know what we need to know about how this process could have happened.

That science identifies holes in our knowledge and understanding is not a weakness of science, but a mighty strength. As it tells us where to look next, and also tells us when our current theories are inadequate and we need to keep looking.

 

[verysincere]

If you look at the papers that research possible paths to life (abiogenesis), you will see that the scientists involved are hard-core evolutionists.

1) What is the definition of a "hard-core evolutionist"?

2) If I affirm that the theory of evolution is the best explanation we have for the data BUT I never became an evolutionary biologist, does that make me a "soft-core evolutionist"?

3) Does the Discovery Channel only show "soft-core evolution" but never hard-core? (After all, children are often watching.)

4) Considering that the Bible affirms abiogenesis in Genesis 2:7 (Adam was made from non-living ingredients, "the dust of the ground"), why do you get so worked up over abiogenesis? I thought that if the Bible says something, that settles it? [I'm a Bible-believing Christ-follower myself and that has always been my rule.]

.

 

[verysincere]

Evolution is impudent without an explanation of abiogenesis.

Yeah, I've always been annoyed that The Theory of Photosynthesis, neither before nor after Einstein, has ever bothered to take a stand on Relativity! After all, they BOTH INVOLVE LIGHT!

If those cowardly botanists weren't so afraid of relativity and its implications, they wouldn't go around pretending that The Theory of Photosynthesis isn't dodging an important topic about the nature of light!

But they don't WANT you to think about relativity. After all, it doesn't fit so easily into their evil chlorophyll dogma!!! [I used three exclamation marks so that makes it three times as true!!!] [Hey, did you like that trick? I just CUBED the truth of the original statement!]

Yes, for some reason, the field of biology is rife with dishonesty and cowardly behavior! But that is how the Father of Lies wants it. And that is why we ALL KNOW that biologists (if not scientists in general) are all Sons of Satin [sic]!

.

 

[Zaius137]

You my friend are very polite and before offending you, I thought I might pay you that compliment.

An important role of science is not only to tell us how things worked/happened, but to also let us know what we do understand, and what we don't yet understand. E.g. a scientific experiment may give results which fit NO current theory, in which case we have to throw away the current theories and start again.

I think that science has done a very good job of dispelling the possibility of spontaneous generation.

Nothing, neither science nor religion, gives us a fully developed explanation of how life originally got started. Science can't because we don't know (e.g.) how life got started on earth so quickly that there was cellular life so soon after the earth was formed. Religion typically says that the world was created with developed species, while much evidence shows that life evolved from very simple forms from a long time ago. Religion also offers us no credible explanation of where God came from.

In case you are unaware that the Bible gives the full account of how life originated on earth in Genesis chapter 1. There is no evidence that the idea of common descent works, especially with chimps and man. There is no evidence of a universal common ancestor. There is no evidence of spontaneous generation. God is beyond an event horizon that no information can return to man, similar to a black hole in cosmology.

We need further evidence to develop theories as to how life started off in the first place. E.g. evidence of closely related life on Mars would suggest that cellular life came from Mars, e.g. as spores in a Mars meteorite. Other evidence of Earth being seeded from space would help. Otherwise we need to know how the first cells on Earth could have appeared so fast, and this means we clearly don't know what we need to know about how this process could have happened.

The only further evidence that would help the case for abiogenesis would be the discovery of a new chemistry and new physical laws we are at present yet unaware. Nothing works… RNA worldview or self-replicating proteins.

That science identifies holes in our knowledge and understanding is not a weakness of science, but a mighty strength. As it tells us where to look next, and also tells us when our current theories are inadequate and we need to keep looking.

There is no weakness in the scientific principle it is in the wrongful expectation of science when science clearly demonstrates an innate impossibility (abiogenesis).

I am also a polite person in general but somehow evolution brings out the worst in me… please forgive that shortcoming.

 

[Zaius137]

You clearly do not since you're making that statement.

Guy1…

Good to see you.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

I think that science has done a very good job of dispelling the possibility of spontaneous generation.

How has science dispelled the possibility of spontaneous generation? There are many papers which say that we don't understand how it happened, but that is a different thing entirely from saying that it couldn't happen.

In case you are unaware that the Bible gives the full account of how life originated on earth in Genesis chapter 1. There is no evidence that the idea of common descent works, especially with chimps and man. There is no evidence of a universal common ancestor. There is no evidence of spontaneous generation. God is beyond an event horizon that no information can return to man, similar to a black hole in cosmology.

The Bible provides an explanation. But this explanation (e.g. all animals and plants being created over a short time span in their modern forms) doesn't tie in with evidence, e.g. fossil evidence, biochemical evidence. Etc. Hence when evaluating which theory is our current best explanation of how life got to where it is today, the Bible's account doesn't explain things as well as evolution. Even if evolution doesn't explain absolutely everything perfectly.

Another major flaw in the Bible's account is that it doesn't explain where God came from, and you need God before you get creation. So, the totality of creation by God is largely unexplained.

I would say that there is plenty of evidence for evolution. Similarity of morphology. Similarity of DNA and other biochemical properties.

The only further evidence that would help the case for abiogenesis would be the discovery of a new chemistry and new physical laws we are at present yet unaware. Nothing works… RNA worldview or self-replicating proteins.

The chemistry fits. Current chemistry would support abiogenesis starting with self-replicating proteins, or the RNA world. You say that these don't fit, but can you support this statement. Prions are an example of a self-replicating protein. We're still learning how RNA can form biologically active forms. So we don't need a new chemistry, we need an understanding of how the first proto-life formed, and known chemistry is entirely feasible. This doesn't mean of course that self-replicating proteins or the RNA world are what actually happened, just that they are among the possible explanations. We don't have a known sequence that leads from non-life to life, but we have nothing that suggests that this sequence is impossible.

The main mystery at present seems to be the lack of time, that cellular life appeared too quickly on earth after life on earth became possible. (At least as far as we understand "possible"). This doesn't disprove abiogenesis. It must means that either the path to cellular life forms was far shorter/quicker than we currently imagine. OR that life came from space, with Mars and distribution of life from Mars through spores in meteorites being one possibility. If that happened, then a wet fertile Mars provides billions more years for the development of early life.

Personally I don't like the theory of life from Mars. But currently I have to grudgingly accept that the evidence is weighing in its favour (or other life from space theories).

There is no weakness in the scientific principle it is in the wrongful expectation of science when science clearly demonstrates an innate impossibility (abiogenesis).

Again, how has anyone shown that spontaneous abiogenesis is impossible?

At one point we didn't understand how bumblebees flew, with "current scientific understanding" suggesting that it was impossible. This just mean that we'd identified something that we didn't understand, and subsequent research discovered the mechanisms.

At one point we didn't understand about microbes or how infectious diseases spread, and came up with all sorts of odd theories. Eventually we learned, and now have a good understanding.

IMHO we're at that point with abiogenesis. We know that something happened, but are still trying to work out how it happened.

I am also a polite person in general but somehow evolution brings out the worst in me… please forgive that shortcoming.

Your post is entirely reasonable and polite. But can I point out that you're not discussing evolution at all in your post. You're discussing abiogenesis. Evolution is a process by which some life forms can evolve (including splitting) into other life forms. It says nothing about where life came from in the first place. Abiogenesis is an entirely different process/field. Evidence for or against particular theories of how life got started says nothing about evolution at all, because evolution makes no assumptions about how life got started in the first place.

 

[USincognito]

I think that science has done a very good job of dispelling the possibility of spontaneous generation.

How has science dispelled the possibility of spontaneous generation? There are many papers which say that we don't understand how it happened, but that is a different thing entirely from saying that it couldn't happen.

Most Creationists conflate abiogenesis and spontaneous generation in order to elicit responses like this.

Spontaneous generation is an archaic concept that has long been falsified.

Clearly abiogenesis has not been falsified.

 

[SkyWriting]

Most Creationists conflate abiogenesis and spontaneous generation in order to elicit responses like this. Spontaneous generation is an archaic concept that has long been falsified. Clearly abiogenesis has not been falsified.

Perhaps because so many Creationists are readers of the English language?

Dictionary » A » Abiogenesis
Abiogenesis
Abiogenesis

(Science: study) The study of how life originally arose on the planet, encompasses the ancient belief in the spontaneous generation of life from non living matter.


abio·gen·e·sis noun \ˌā-ˌbī-ō-ˈjen-ə-səs\
Definition of ABIOGENESIS
: the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter—called also spontaneous generation; compare biogenesis

 

[Zaius137]

Most Creationists conflate abiogenesis and spontaneous generation in order to elicit responses like this.

Spontaneous generation is an archaic concept that has long been falsified.

Clearly abiogenesis has not been falsified.

I contend that abiogenesis and Spontaneous generation are alike because the two propositions both rely on the existence of magic.

If you wish to defend abiogenesis, the spotlight is yours, maybe you have some evidence I have overlooked.

 

[Guy1]

I contend that abiogenesis and Spontaneous generation are alike because the two propositions both rely on the existence of magic.

If you wish to defend abiogenesis, the spotlight is yours, maybe you have some evidence I have overlooked.

Spontaneous generation: The idea that fully formed, complex life forms just kind of ... appear... out of nowhere ... just because.

Abiogenesis: The idea that conditions in the early earth caused certain molecules to group together and organize themselves in neat formations due to their chemical properties.

 

[NailsII]

I think that science has done a very good job of dispelling the possibility of spontaneous generation.

I think common sense would tell you that straw + bread crumbs does not make mice.

In case you are unaware that the Bible gives the full account of how life originated on earth in Genesis chapter 1. There is no evidence that the idea of common descent works, especially with chimps and man. There is no evidence of a universal common ancestor. There is no evidence of spontaneous generation. God is beyond an event horizon that no information can return to man, similar to a black hole in cosmology.

Every society has had its own creation story, Genesis is nothing special/
Common descent is a fact.
The evidence for chimps and humans sharing a common ancestor is ocerwhelming, no matter how many times you misrepresent it.
I agree about spontaneous generation.
Question - if god is behind a black hole, how do you know he's there?
There is evidence for black holes, but none for god - why is that?

The only further evidence that would help the case for abiogenesis would be the discovery of a new chemistry and new physical laws we are at present yet unaware. Nothing works… RNA worldview or self-replicating proteins.

The chemistry is fine, as is the physics and the biology.
The only thing that prevents you from undestanding this is your religious worldview.

There is no weakness in the scientific principle it is in the wrongful expectation of science when science clearly demonstrates an innate impossibility (abiogenesis).

highly improbable does not mean impossible.

I am also a polite person in general but somehow evolution brings out the worst in me… please forgive that shortcoming.

Don't take it personally.
I don't, but I admit it is hard sometimes.

I contend that abiogenesis and Spontaneous generation are alike because the two propositions both rely on the existence of magic.

If you wish to defend abiogenesis, the spotlight is yours, maybe you have some evidence I have overlooked.

False premise - they are not the same.
spontaneous generation is the belief that hay (or straw) plus breadcrumbs = mice. (especially in a dark corner of a room, they just appear overnight all by themselves).
Abiogenesis is not the same, it is not a single step where life suddenly appears. It is (again) a long winded chain of events whereby organic chemicals form (under certain conditions) which can become self-replicating proteins.
Abiogenesis is plausible, it is cetainly not impossible or requiring magic.

 

[verysincere]

I contend that abiogenesis and Spontaneous generation are alike because the two propositions both rely on the existence of magic.

And yet the Bible describes in Genesis 2:7 and yet Genesis says nothing about spontaneous generation.

And if by "magic" you mean "miracles", why is a "miracle" a problem. Was the creation of HADAM a miracle? So what's the problem?

If you wish to defend abiogenesis, the spotlight is yours, maybe you have some evidence I have overlooked.

1) Life exists and we know from both the Bible and from Science that living things are composed of non-living ingredients (the dust of the ground.)

2) Yes, you overlooked Genesis 2:7, among other scriptures.

Keep in mind that unlike the Theory of Evolution, abiogenesis processes are still being hypothesized and nobody claims that they have a end-all theory of abiogenesis.

In any case, seeing how God's Bible and God's Creation in no way deny abiogenesis, I don't see why you imply some kind of problem.

After all, Science investigates the Theory of ElectroMagnetism and no Christians appear to get upset about the fact that no science textbook adds "and God did it". Yet, with some topics in science, a subgroup of the Christian community gets quite unhappy that Science does not wander into the realm of theology and declare "And God did that." So why is it OK for a biology book to talk about photosynthesis without mentioning its creator (God) but when the same book describes various hypotheses about abiogenesis, some cry foul. Why the double-standard???

Yet another mystery of the world when the scientifically-illustrate starting tell the scientists how to do their jobs.

Entertaining? Sometimes. Helpful to the Kingdom? Rarely.
.