Can you explain this for me?

[pastorkevin73]

Okay, this question has been on my mind ever since I first heard about evolution in Jr. High.

Please explain to me how evolution accounts for the first "life" to evolve. How is it that this "life" got everything right on the first try? I mean look at the human body, the essentials organs we need to live (brain, heart, lungs, etc...). If evolution didn't get it right the first time, then where did the "life" come from? Further, where did the first "life" come from and how did that "life" become life?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Evolution does not even touch these subjects, the ToE starts only after life began. ToE needs life that reproduces, passes on traits imperfectly and a changing environment to be in place. Before these things are all in place you are dealing more in Chemistry and Physics than Biology.

If you wish to know what some of the ideas that science is currently working on in the area of the beginning of life look up abiogenesis and RNA world.

 

[steen]

Okay, this question has been on my mind ever since I first heard about evolution in Jr. High.

OK, I got more than a working knowledge of Evolution and the supportive science, so I'll give it a try.

Please explain to me how evolution accounts for the first "life" to evolve.

It doesn't. Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life. It ONLY deals with how life changes from generation to generation in a population, once life is already there.

How is it that this "life" got everything right on the first try?

We don't know that it did, and the science of evolution doesn't make any such claim. Generally, multiple mutations have occurred, and only a few of them actually made it.

I mean look at the human body, the essentials organs we need to live (brain, heart, lungs, etc...). If evolution didn't get it right the first time,

Actually, the basis for these were laid down something like 400+ million years ago, hundreds of millions of years before even the very first hominid or even before the mammals.

then where did the "life" come from? Further, where did the first "life" come from and how did that "life" become life?

Ah, the scientific field dealing with that is called "Abiogenesis." It is a field in chemistry, not biology, and is not Evolution.

I am glad I was able to clear that up for you.

 

[herev]

OK, I got more than a working knowledge of Evolution and the supportive science, so I'll give it a try.

It doesn't. Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life. It ONLY deals with how life changes from generation to generation in a population, once life is already there.

We don't know that it did, and the science of evolution doesn't make any such claim. Generally, multiple mutations have occurred, and only a few of them actually made it.

Actually, the basis for these were laid down something like 400+ million years ago, hundreds of millions of years before even the very first hominid or even before the mammals.

Ah, the scientific field dealing with that is called "Abiogenesis." It is a field in chemistry, not biology, and is not Evolution.

I am glad I was able to clear that up for you.

good explanation

 

[Redneck Crow]

Okay, this question has been on my mind ever since I first heard about evolution in Jr. High.

Please explain to me how evolution accounts for the first "life" to evolve.

The theory of evolution addresses change in life forms over successive generations, as others have pointed out. Perhaps you are looking for the theory of abiogenesis.

That's a whole 'nother ballgame.

 

[Dannager]

Yes, you are discussing the wrong process. What you are talking about is abiogenesis, not evolutionary theory. The fact that you are conflating the two tells us that you don't have a very good working knowledge of what evolutionary theory actually is. For more information on evolutionary theory (that I feel is understandable), check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution.

 

[ChristianSoldier07]

Simple chemistry drives all of life.

Viruses are an interesting thing to look at considering that they are not living and yet posses several mechanisms simmilar to those of a simple bacterium.

 

[Poke]

Please explain to me how evolution accounts for the first "life" to evolve. How is it that this "life" got everything right on the first try? I mean look at the human body, the essentials organs we need to live (brain, heart, lungs, etc...). If evolution didn't get it right the first time, then where did the "life" come from? Further, where did the first "life" come from and how did that "life" become life?

The imagination of Evolutionist's have thus far failed to give them much of a story on the origin of life. So, they prefer to beg out of answering, even though they believe in abiogenesis.

As far as I know, all animals have a brain, heart, and lungs. Where did the heart and lungs come from? Evolutionists usually avoid trying to answer such questions. They prefer to stick to things like "Monkeys sure do look like us?"

 

[Melethiel]

As far as I know, all animals have a brain, heart, and lungs.

You are wrong. There are many, many critters that fall under the kingdom Animalia that do not have a brain, heart, or lungs (or gills, for that matter...) Some lack these functions completely, while others have very rudimentary forerunners of these organs.

 

[Mallon]

As far as I know, all animals have a brain, heart, and lungs. Where did the heart and lungs come from? Evolutionists usually avoid trying to answer such questions. They prefer to stick to things like "Monkeys sure do look like us?"

The evolution of brains, hearts, and lungs is well documented. Just because you don't take the time to examine the literature for yourself doesn't mean the explanations don't exist. Do some research!

 

[Willtor]

The imagination of Evolutionist's have thus far failed to give them much of a story on the origin of life. So, they prefer to beg out of answering, even though they believe in abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis is another field. When/if a sequence of events that could lead to abiogenesis is uncovered, it won't be adopted into evolution because evolution only works with life as it exists. There is a tendency to categorize all disliked fields of science as evolution, but you have to fight that tendency. If you don't like abiogenesis, say that you don't like abiogenesis. But don't call it evolution because evolutionists will know that you don't know what you're talking about if you confuse them.

As to abiogenesis, itself, not all evolutionists think the field will ever succeed. If you want to attack abiogenesis, you'll have to address abiogenesisists (is that a word?).

 

[ChristianSoldier07]

But abiogenesis is a good hypothesis.

The definition of animals specifically is a eukaryotic heterotroph which contains tissues. Which then allow for animals such as sponges, jellyfish, etc. (as opposed to the heart/ lungs/ brain definition)

 

[stumpjumper]

In regards to abiogenesis... We must always remember the theist in theistic evolutionist...

I think God started it all as does everyone else posting in this section...

 

[steen]

The imagination of Evolutionist's have thus far failed to give them much of a story on the origin of life. So, they prefer to beg out of answering, even though they believe in abiogenesis.

I would like for you to revise your statement, as it is a misrepresentation of science and of "evolutionists." It has nothing to do with imagination; it simply is about The Scientific Theory of Evolution looking only at how life changes, not how it originated.

Yes, I could engage you in a long discussion about Abiogenesis, but in a tread asking questions about Evolution, this would be off-topic. So please correct your claim, and if you want to raise challenges against Abiogenesis, please start a tread about it. I promise I will participate in good faith.

As far as I know, all animals have a brain, heart, and lungs.

Nope. Look at many fish and other forms of life. They have no lungs. Starfish have no lungs, not a brain. And when you move further down the evolutionary levels, you will find animals without hearts as well.

Where did the heart and lungs come from? Evolutionists usually avoid trying to answer such questions.

Now you are again misrepresenting us. I would prefer that you don't, as it is offensive. If you want to start a tread about where hearts, lungs and brains came from, feel free to do so. It might be more appropriate in the "Creation and Evolution" forum, but if you want to do so here, that will be fine as well. I promise you that I can find the scientific sources by "Evolutionists" that documents the development of these organs.

They prefer to stick to things like "Monkeys sure do look like us?"

This is also a serious misrepresentation. Please do not carry false witness about us, thanks.

 

[Willtor]

And when you move further down the evolutionary levels, you will find animals without hearts as well.

I presume you mean back in time, and not a species that is "less evolved" as all species, today, are equally evolved and suited to their respective niches. Just clarifying so that you aren't quote-mined.

 

[steen]

I presume you mean back in time, and not a species that is "less evolved" as all species, today, are equally evolved and suited to their respective niches. Just clarifying so that you aren't quote-mined.

Yes, you are right. I forget that my view of the evolutionary process is not necessarily the same as those who haven't actually studied this stuff.

 

[Poke]

I would like for you to revise your statement, as it is a misrepresentation of science and of "evolutionists." It has nothing to do with imagination; it simply is about The Scientific Theory of Evolution looking only at how life changes, not how it originated.

I don't believe the original poster had in mind Darwinism, but the broader evolutionism. In this case, the origin of the species.

Nope. Look at many fish and other forms of life. They have no lungs. Starfish have no lungs, not a brain. And when you move further down the evolutionary levels, you will find animals without hearts as well.

You can have this point. Now, when I refute one of your statements, I'll expect an admission of such, just to be fair.

Now you are again misrepresenting us. I would prefer that you don't, as it is offensive. If you want to start a tread about where hearts, lungs and brains came from, feel free to do so. It might be more appropriate in the "Creation and Evolution" forum

Isn't this thread about where hearts, lungs, and brains come from? The original poster of this thread is asking from where these "essential organs" came from.

Let's talk about that starfish. A starfish has a complex nervous system that functions as a non-centralized brain. Where did this brain come from, such as which pre-starfish species? Also, would you say that a starfish brain an an ancestor of the human brain? Do you know of any starfish-like species that evolved from starfish and that are in the human lineage? Or, do you think the starfish brain is a different branch and has nothing to do with the origin of the human brain?

 

[Willtor]

I don't believe the original poster had in mind Darwinism, but the broader evolutionism. In this case, the origin of the species.

The origin of the species is the content of evolution. But notice that it uses the word, "species," and not the word, "life." The notion of a species presupposes life. One cannot think of evolution (or Darwinism or whatever you want to call it) as a foundation for understanding life. That is not its focus. Merely, species.

My field is Computer Science and if someone were frustrated that I wasn't able to tell them about the technology that goes into developing smaller and smaller disks, it would be because they didn't understand my field. Now, I can say some things about hardware because it is related to my field and I'm rather intrigued by it, but it is not strictly the content of Computer Science. If someone said to me that he didn't believe in capacitors, and, therefore, that Computer Science is a bogus field, I'd argue with him, but he's barking up the wrong tree. He'd do better to speak to an Electrical Engineer.

 

[Redneck Crow]

Let's talk about that starfish. A starfish has a complex nervous system that functions as a non-centralized brain. Where did this brain come from, such as which pre-starfish species? Also, would you say that a starfish brain an an ancestor of the human brain? Do you know of any starfish-like species that evolved from starfish and that are in the human lineage? Or, do you think the starfish brain is a different branch and has nothing to do with the origin of the human brain?

I think that starfish have share common ancestors with man. Our most recent common ancestor lived long ago and the pre-starfish ancestors and the pre-human ancestors diverged. I doubt that you will find many who believe that human beings are descended from the modern starfish.

 

[pastorkevin73]

Two more questions:

1) Are all, some or none TEs Darwinists?
2) Doesn't Darwin's theories include or stem from abiogenesis?