Evolutionist "poof" theory

[The Gregorian]

AKA Spontanious Biogenisis.

Non-theists generally accept "Evolution" as the means by which we exist today as we are.... but Evolution requires life in order to change life. Evolution SPECIFICALLY does not say how life started in the first place. It all traces back to a primordial ooze where proteins were randomly floating around in a puddle, then... umm... a living, functional cell existed... then started splitting, and "evolving" into all life today.

The best explanation I've heard so far came from an old college professor. He said that the proteins floated around and formed a bunch of inanimate cells then... umm... lightning hit the puddle.... and... they came to life. But the voltage in a lightning bolt is devistating... that kind of voltage would instantly boil water it comes in direct contact with, therefore killing any cells it could effect.

So... God or no God... there was a magical "poof" that made life exist... without a sentient cause for that "poof" how to you evolutionists logically substantiate that poof?

 

[Praxiteles]

Who are you calling a poof?

 

[Praxiteles]

BTW, if that's how your Professor explained abiogenesis, it's little wonder you think it's silly. If that was abiogenesis was, I'd think it was silly too.

 

[The Gregorian]

by the way, I just wanted to start out with a sort of digression... Yes, Natural Selection exists... that's an observable fact. Two different kinds of dogs can pass on traits to their offspring, these traits can be refined until you have a completely different looking Dog... But that still requires those traits to exist in the first place in order to be passed down. Natural selection weeds OUT existing undesirable traits... it never adds traits of its own. Therefore natural selection is further evidence against evolution... yet... evidence that we are "de-evolving" (by losing traits, albeit undesirable traits, making our "de-evolution" benificial... but... still.... ehrm... well, that made sense in my head... did that come out right?).

(btw... I have VERY good points... I just get side tracked and don't explain them right... if I say something that doesn't make sense, I won't take any offense to someone saying "Gregorian.... that made no sense. try talking in 'english' this time")

 

[The Gregorian]

nded

Who are you calling a poof?

YOU! hahahaha... eherm... heh... sorry... anywho... Yea, that's the slimmed down version of what he said. He showed some slides showing proteins bouncing into eachother... and sticking together when they... umm... were convenient for his explaination, eventually forming cell walls and a nucleus and a whole "cell" ... just dead. Then he said, once it was complete... ::cough cough:: something ::cough:: ... happened and it came alive and started evolving.

I wasn't all that impressed.

 

[troodon]

The best explanation I've heard so far came from an old college professor. He said that the proteins floated around and formed a bunch of inanimate cells then... umm... lightning hit the puddle.... and... they came to life. But the voltage in a lightning bolt is devistating... that kind of voltage would instantly boil water it comes in direct contact with, therefore killing any cells it could effect.

Assuming he's talking about the Miller-Urey experiment, lightning is actually one of the theoretical sources for the energy that created amino acids from organic compounds (among others, large amounts of cosmic radiation due to no ozone layer for example). The earliest life itself was theoretically created by some other means using these amino acids.

 

[Praxiteles]

BTW, it should be made clear that abiogenesis and evolution are two different things. Evolution deals with life once it already exists. Therefore it is possible to be an 'evolutionist' and not hold with abiogenesis.

Just thought you should know.

 

[The Gregorian]

BTW, it should be made clear that abiogenesis and evolution are two different things. Evolution deals with life once it already exists. Therefore it is possible to be an 'evolutionist' and not hold with abiogenesis.

Just thought you should know.

yep:

Evolution SPECIFICALLY does not say how life started in the first place.

Yea... I'm just trying to find a logical reason for life to exist in the stage it's in without something to have made it.

The professor pointed out that electricity can be used to generate amino acids... but even with amino acids and proteins floating around... life is still missing. No matter how it started, one moment there was no life on earth, the next there was... what happened during that moment? (Assuming cells formed over however long, with proper amino acids, DNA structure, etc... I just want to know what the accepted theory is for "life" entering a dead object.)

 

[Arikay]

Natural selection isn't the only part of evolution.

 

[corvus_corax]

BTW, it should be made clear that abiogenesis and evolution are two different things. Evolution deals with life once it already exists. Therefore it is possible to be an 'evolutionist' and not hold with abiogenesis.
Just thought you should know.

Exactly.
For example, I firmly believe in evolution, but Im willing to say that some possible deity I dont know about started life on this planet.
On the other hand, I think a natural explanation is just as likely.

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

Abiogenesis and Evolution lumped together........check

Primordial ooze....check

"de-evolution"....check



Yep. We've never seen this before.

 

[Praxiteles]

yep:


Yea... I'm just trying to find a logical reason for life to exist in the stage it's in without something to have made it.

The professor pointed out that electricity can be used to generate amino acids... but even with amino acids and proteins floating around... life is still missing. No matter how it started, one moment there was no life on earth, the next there was... what happened during that moment? (Assuming cells formed over however long, with proper amino acids, DNA structure, etc... I just want to know what the accepted theory is for "life" entering a dead object.)

OK, fair enough.

Current thinking on abiogenisis isn't that one moment there wasn't life, and the next there was. It's much more slow than that, and took place over a very long period of time and with a lot of small incremental steps.

It's more chemistry than biology.

I'm certainly no expert on the subject, but the way I understand it is that self-replicating molecules developed, and over a very long period (thousands or millions of generations) developed the structure of the cell. I suppose with the development of the cell we would say that 'life' as we know it would exist.

 

[Praxiteles]

Also, (and unrelated to abiogenesis), natural selection is only part of evolution. Mutations 'add' information, and natural selection weeds out those mutations which have an unsuccessful effect on the phenotype.

So evolution, being a combination of mutations (which we know occur) and natural selection (which we also know occurs), does have, as a net result, an increase in information.

 

[Dennis Moore]

Yea... I'm just trying to find a logical reason for life to exist in the stage it's in without something to have made it.

Have no Creationists on these forums heard of Google? If you really want clear info on abiogenesis hypotheses, and not the half-butted description your prof gave you, just Google "abiogenesis". It's really that simple. Heck just go the Wikipedia and look up Abiogenesis or Origin of Life for some simple, clear articles.

The professor pointed out that electricity can be used to generate amino acids... but even with amino acids and proteins floating around... life is still missing.

All "life" is in this sense is self-replication. Once self-replicating molecules formed, copying errors could begin; copying errors lead to changes in replication success based on local conditions, and hey! that's evolution.

 

[GeoffCC]

I'm with Gregorian - I haven't read a decent explanation for abiogenesis yet.

 

[The Gregorian]

Exactly.
For example, I firmly believe in evolution, but Im willing to say that some possible deity I dont know about started life on this planet.
On the other hand, I think a natural explanation is just as likely.

woot! I just learned something. That makes you a "TE." YAY! I win! (sorry... I'm in another thread with Praxiteles... he taught me new acronyms.)

Natural selection isn't the only part of evolution.

But an important part... I just wanted to point out I'm not one of those "GOD DID IT, IT'S MAGIC, THE EARTH IS FLAT, I HATE SCIENCE" people. I wanted to show that I'm not scientifically infantile, that I accept where science proves wrong what some fundamentalists think... but that I don't go to the other extreme and immediately look for ways to disprove theism in desperation to acquire acceptance in the scientific community (not to say that anyone HERE does that... but I've seen a LOT of that in my "I'm bored so I'm gonna argue newtonian physics with people on random forums" days.... anyone want to see why I don't believe in [certain aspects of newton's explanation of] gravity?)

Current thinking on abiogenisis isn't that one moment there wasn't life, and the next there was. It's much more slow than that, and took place over a very long period of time and with a lot of small incremental steps.

No matter how long the process of the forming of the proteins/amino acids/organelles/cell/organim there was still a moment when that cell was animated (by lightning or whatever).

Also, (and unrelated to abiogenesis), natural selection is only part of evolution. Mutations 'add' information, and natural selection weeds out those mutations which have an unsuccessful effect on the phenotype.

So evolution, being a combination of mutations (which we know occur) and natural selection (which we also know occurs), does have, as a net result, an increase in information.

True, in DNA mutation, sometimes a G,C,A, or T is copied twice instead of once, but more often that letter is simply replaced by another letter or skipped over entirely. Also, remember mutations are often not passed on at all to offspring. Example: Some people are born with 6 fingers on one hand... I've never heard/read about a single case when those people have kids with 6 fingers. So even when information is copied twice, whatever trait it produces would end up recesive, and it wouldn't be passed on until two people with the same exact mutated DNA had a kid... even then there's only a 25% chance that the recessive trait would come out. (what's that square called... I remember it from highschool biology... the one with the yellow peas and the grean peas... I hated those squares.)

 

[Praxiteles]

Have you looked for one? There are plenty out there.

 

[Praxiteles]

Bit of reading involved, but here's a good one.

http://www.rit.edu/~flwstv/biology.html

 

[Arikay]

Yep natural selection is part of evolution, but saying that natural selection can only remove information thus evolution is false is a pretty bad statement. It's like saying that cars have wheels, and wheels will only roll down hills not up, thus cars won't go uphills.

Speaking of mutations that get passed on, in the early 20th century there was a cross country skier who won the gold medal. It has been discovered that him and his family contained a mutation that allowed him to use oxygen more efficiently

 

[The Gregorian]

Have no Creationists on these forums heard of Google? If you really want clear info on abiogenesis hypotheses, and not the half-butted description your prof gave you, just Google "abiogenesis".

Yea... I've googled it a lot... and I've seen, in a LOT of places: "proteins mixed together until, over a long period of time, it animated." There's a big gap there. I don't need to know the formulas or dates I just want a discription more than "Over a long period of time... something... happened."

All "life" is in this sense is self-replication. Once self-replicating molecules formed, copying errors could begin; copying errors lead to changes in replication success based on local conditions, and hey! that's evolution.

true... but have you ever seen a coke bottle just start self-replicating? True, nanobacterium have been shown to grow inside already living matter, but I havn't read about people being able to take something free of nanobacterium, mix it up, and get succesful replication

Yep natural selection is part of evolution, but saying that natural selection can only remove information thus evolution is false is a pretty bad statement. It's like saying that cars have wheels, and wheels will only roll down hills not up, thus cars won't go uphills.

sorry, I wasn't trying to say that natural selection disproved evolution... rather, it was just evidence against it.