Question about evolution

GraftMeIn · Jul 13, 2002

If everything evolved, and wasn't created, then what was the very first thing that everything evolved from?

LiveFreeOrDie · Jul 13, 2002

Good question.  We don't really know for sure.  Some evidence points to RNA-based self-replicators, but that really isn't conclusive as this time.  We may in fact never know with any certainty.

GraftMeIn · Jul 13, 2002

hmmmm so if we assume that everything evolved from RNA-based self-replicators, where would the RNA-based self-replicators have come from?

and if they are self-replicators, then how did they evolve into something other than themselves?

Shai-Hulud · Jul 13, 2002

where would the RNA-based self-replicators have come from?

Another good question   Probably randomly combined from organic materials (chemical substances based around carbon) present on the early earth.

and if they are self-replicators, then how did they evolve into something other than themselves?

Because the replication sometimes goes wrong. Errors occur. Sometimes these errors chance the organism to replicate faster, sooner, ...

Shai-Hulud

GraftMeIn · Jul 13, 2002

Where would the organic materials come from then? wouldn't they have had to evolve from something also?

If errors occur that effect the speed of the process, how would it change the physical form of self replicators?

Shai-Hulud · Jul 13, 2002

Where would the organic materials come from then? wouldn't they have had to evolve from something also?

That's why I added chemical substances based around carbon.

They're simply chemical components like CH4 ,C2H6, C2H5OH,...

If errors occur that effect the speed of the process, how would it change the physical form of self replicators?

Probably other errors I can't tell you excactly how it worked though.

Shai-Hulud

GraftMeIn · Jul 13, 2002

I was under the impression that organic materials contained no chemicals.

So where would these chemical substances based around carbon have come from?

Wouldn't the organic material need a certain amount of oxygen to survive?

Shai-Hulud · Jul 13, 2002

Organic chemistry is about all chemical compounds containing C (carbon).

These substances are not alive. They're nothing more that a few bound atoms.

Shai-Hulud

GraftMeIn · Jul 13, 2002

If they aren't alive then how would life evolve from them?

Shai-Hulud · Jul 13, 2002

If they aren't alive then how would life evolve from them?

A lucky combination that was able to replicate itself.

Shai-Hulud

GraftMeIn · Jul 13, 2002

sorry for the double post, editing this so you don't have to read the same thing twice.

GraftMeIn · Jul 13, 2002

hmmm ok, it's a lucky combination then.

Where did the compounds that made up this lucky combination come from?

seebs · Jul 13, 2002

Originally posted by GraftMeIn
I was under the impression that organic materials contained no chemicals.

This would be a false impression. "Chemicals" is a generic term for just about everything. e.g., sugar is a "chemical" - it just happens to be a chemical that your body can use, and which is made by other creatures.

seebs · Jul 13, 2002

Originally posted by GraftMeIn
hmmm ok, it's a lucky combination then.

Where did the compounds that made up this lucky combination come from?

We don't really know for sure. For all we can *prove*, God waved His metaphorical hands, and said "Let there be amino acids". There's some evidence that, under "normal" circumstances, if you hit basic carbon and similar materials with lightning, boil them, freeze them, and otherwise abuse them, they start forming more complicated chemicals.

Have you ever played Conway's "life" game? If you just randomly make patterns of dots, sooner or later you get self-replicating ones.

GraftMeIn · Jul 13, 2002

Originally posted by seebs

We don't really know for sure. For all we can *prove*, God waved His metaphorical hands, and said "Let there be amino acids". There's some evidence that, under "normal" circumstances, if you hit basic carbon and similar materials with lightning, boil them, freeze them, and otherwise abuse them, they start forming more complicated chemicals.

Ahhhh! So in essence at one point or another something had to be created, by something or someone, Most likely that would have had to be God.

Have you ever played Conway's "life" game? If you just randomly make patterns of dots, sooner or later you get self-replicating ones.

Can't say I have ever played this game. are all the dots self replicated to look alike, or do they take on different forms? can they turn into squares or triangles, on their own?

seebs · Jul 13, 2002

Originally posted by GraftMeIn

Ahhhh! So in essence at one point or another something had to be created, by something or someone, Most likely that would have had to be God.

We don't actually know. Still, I don't think anyone has any objection to the belief that God created a few zillion particles so we'd have something to play with; the main scientific objection is to claims that it was done all at once, and recently.

Can't say I have ever played this game. are all the dots self replicated to look alike, or do they take on different forms? can they turn into squares or triangles, on their own?

The *dots* don't replicate; the *patterns* do. I can't really explain it except to say that it's a fun toy to play with. There's lots of computer versions of it; if you get one, you can easily set it up to see how ever-more-complicated patterns can be formed by gradual mutation, and every so often, you get a healthy pattern as a result.

If you were doing this over most of the surface of a planet, for, say, a billion years, it wouldn't be too surprising to get a few self-replicators with minimal defense mechanisms against being used as parts for other self-replicators... and from there, the race is on.

GraftMeIn · Jul 13, 2002

Originally posted by seebs

We don't actually know. Still, I don't think anyone has any objection to the belief that God created a few zillion particles so we'd have something to play with; the main scientific objection is to claims that it was done all at once, and recently.

hmmm seems like not even science can give us an exact age of the earth.

What do evolutionists think that the earth was composed of before life began to evolve? What was the very first compound that formed the earth?

And why is so hard for them to believe that God created man, like the bible says he did? from the dust of the earth, and not from an ape.

The *dots* don't replicate; the *patterns* do. I can't really explain it except to say that it's a fun toy to play with. There's lots of computer versions of it; if you get one, you can easily set it up to see how ever-more-complicated patterns can be formed by gradual mutation, and every so often, you get a healthy pattern as a result.

If you were doing this over most of the surface of a planet, for, say, a billion years, it wouldn't be too surprising to get a few self-replicators with minimal defense mechanisms against being used as parts for other self-replicators... and from there, the race is on.

dots are inanimate objects though, how can they become defensive?

blader · Jul 13, 2002

Originally posted by GraftMeIn
I was under the impression that organic materials contained no chemicals.

So where would these chemical substances based around carbon have come from?

Wouldn't the organic material need a certain amount of oxygen to survive?

All materials contain chemicals. "Organic" materiels refers to those compounds which contain C, H, and O. Organic materials don't need "oxygen" to survive. In fact, not all organic materials are "alive." When you die, you decompose into organic materials, but you're still dead. =)

blader · Jul 13, 2002

Originally posted by GraftMeIn

hmmm seems like not even science can give us an exact age of the earth.

4.5 billion years, give or take half a billion. Depending on who you ask, the Bible says the earth is around 5000 years old, give or take a few hundred.

What do evolutionists think that the earth was composed of before life began to evolve? What was the very first compound that formed the earth?

Click to expand...

A variety of minerals, water, and chemicals. There is no very first compound. Your question is like asking "what was the very first compound that formed Dodger Stadium?"

And why is so hard for them to believe that God created man, like the bible says he did? from the dust of the earth, and not from an ape.

Click to expand...

Man didn't come from an ape. Ape and man came from a common ancestor, is all. Geez.

And it's not very hard to believe that God created man from clay, because it's a very simple explanation. Also, it's not very hard to believe that Zeus makes lightning strike, either, but both of these are lazy explanations. Science tells us why lightning strikes, and science tells us where we came from. You can believe in myths if you like, but you're not going to get any closer to the truth.

seebs · Jul 13, 2002

Originally posted by GraftMeIn

hmmm seems like not even science can give us an exact age of the earth.

Not an exact one, no. "billions" is pretty well supported, though. But I don't *expect* an exact answer; I've never had one before.

What do evolutionists think that the earth was composed of before life began to evolve? What was the very first compound that formed the earth?

That would be cosmology, not biology, so most evolutionary biologists don't have an opinion. I believe the earth formed from mostly the same rocks and metals it's made of today, plus a fair bit of carbon. The earth wasn't just one compound; it was similar in a lot of ways to what it is now, matter being what it is.

And why is so hard for them to believe that God created man, like the bible says he did? from the dust of the earth, and not from an ape.

Because if He did, then He left an awful lot of skulls of apes with gradually bigger skulls lying around over the last few million years, and a lot of other bones and fossils for things we've never seen, and that would seem more than a little weird.

Most scientists start with the assumption that the correct answer to "how did this happen" is "I don't know yet". From there, you form theories, and test them, and study the things you find.

Essentially, I can find very good evidence (at least, I think it's pretty convincing; not everyone agrees, although I think just about all biologists do) that, in a number of cases, life forms have come about through gradual development from other life forms, often simpler ones. It is uncontroversial, in my mind, to observe that dogs and wolves are closely related, or that lions and tigers are closely related... and further out, that domestic cats and tigers probably have a common ancestor. Given that, and given the existance of other animals with substantial similaritios to humans, it seems likely to me that humans also came about by the same mechanism.

dots are inanimate objects though, how can they become defensive?

Dots are inanimate. Patterns of dots, running under a system of rules, are not inanimate.

That's like saying "how can a couple hundred pounds of organic compounds become defensive?". They can't - unless they're a person, who *can* become defensive.

Question about evolution

The Masters Gardener

Science Officer

The Masters Gardener

Active Member

The Masters Gardener

Active Member

The Masters Gardener

Active Member

The Masters Gardener

Active Member

The Masters Gardener

The Masters Gardener

God Made Me A Skeptic

God Made Me A Skeptic

The Masters Gardener

God Made Me A Skeptic

The Masters Gardener

Evilutionist

Evilutionist

God Made Me A Skeptic

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency