Theistic Evolution - My Personal Problem with it

[AV1611VET]

He must have forgot about all those people who died a horrible death from polio before there was a cure.

What comes first?

The disease or the cure?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

What comes first?

The disease or the cure?

You missed the entire point, AV. This is a nonsensical question.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, what do the rules of this site tell you about questioning the religiosity of others.

I didn't question anyone's belief.

Plenty of Christians reconcile belief with science. Do you honestly think god is going to punish believers for not taking every word of the bible literally?

I believe what I was addressing was someone who asked about God punishing those who don't know science.

Assuming I remember the conversation correctly.

 

[AV1611VET]

You missed the entire point, AV.

I get told that a lot here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Problem 1: No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup

According to conventional thinking among origin of life theorists, life arose via unguided chemical reactions on the early Earth some 3 to 4 billion years ago. Most theorists believe that there were many steps involved in the origin of life, but the very first step would have involved the production of a primordial soup -- a water-based sea of simple organic molecules -- out of which life arose. While the existence of this "soup" has been accepted as unquestioned fact for decades, this first step in most origin-of-life theories faces numerous scientific difficulties.

In 1953, a graduate student at the University of Chicago named Stanley Miller, along with his faculty advisor Harold Urey, performed experiments hoping to produce the building blocks of life under natural conditions on the early Earth.4These "Miller-Urey experiments" intended to simulate lightning striking the gasses in the early Earth's atmosphere. After running the experiments and letting the chemical products sit for a period of time, Miller discovered that amino acids -- the building blocks of proteins -- had been produced.

For decades, these experiments have been hailed as a demonstration that the "building blocks" of life could have arisen under natural, realistic Earthlike conditions,5corroborating the primordial soup hypothesis. However, it has also been known for decades that the Earth's early atmosphere was fundamentally different from the gasses used by Miller and Urey.

The atmosphere used in the Miller-Urey experiments was primarily composed of reducing gasses like methane, ammonia, and high levels of hydrogen. Geochemists now believe that the atmosphere of the early Earth did not contain appreciable amounts of these components. (Reducing gasses are those which tend to donate electrons during chemical reactions.) UC Santa Cruz origin-of-life theorist David Deamer explains this in the journalMicrobiology & Molecular Biology Reviews:

This optimistic picture began to change in the late 1970s, when it became increasingly clear that the early atmosphere was probably volcanic in origin and composition, composed largely of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than the mixture of reducing gases assumed by the Miller-Urey model. Carbon dioxide does not support the rich array of synthetic pathways leading to possible monomers…6

Likewise, an article in the journalSciencestated: "Miller and Urey relied on a 'reducing' atmosphere, a condition in which molecules are fat with hydrogen atoms. As Miller showed later, he could not make organics in an 'oxidizing' atmosphere."7The article put it bluntly: "the early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller-Urey situation."8Consistent with this, geological studies have not uncovered evidence that a primordial soup once existed.9

There are good reasons to understand why the Earth's early atmosphere did not contain high concentrations of methane, ammonia, or other reducing gasses. The earth's early atmosphere is thought to have been produced by outgassing from volcanoes, and the composition of those volcanic gasses is related to the chemical properties of the Earth's inner mantle. Geochemical studies have found that the chemical properties of the Earth's mantle would have been the same in the past as they are today.10But today, volcanic gasses do not contain methane or ammonia, and are not reducing.

A paper inEarth and Planetary Science Lettersfound that the chemical properties of the Earth's interior have been essentially constant over Earth's history, leading to the conclusion that "Life may have found its origins in other environments or by other mechanisms."11So drastic is the evidence against pre-biotic synthesis of life's building blocks that in 1990 the Space Studies Board of the National Research Council recommended that origin of life investigators undertake a "reexamination of biological monomer synthesis under primitive Earthlike environments, as revealed in current models of the early Earth."12

Because of these difficulties, some leading theorists have abandoned the Miller-Urey experiment and the "primordial soup" theory it is claimed to support. In 2010, University College London biochemist Nick Lane stated the primordial soup theory "doesn't hold water" and is "past its expiration date."13Instead, he proposes that life arose in undersea hydrothermal vents. But both the hydrothermal vent and primordial soup hypotheses face another major problem.


The Origin of life hasn't been observed and other things and there are other problems eg Humans Display Many Behavioral and Cognitive Abilities that Offer No Apparent Survival Advantage But actually I agree with you that science explains the specifics of how God done things and the bible deals with spiritual truths. God is the greatest biologist. I still think there are still a lot of unexplained things in biology and it's still not a completed science.

There are quite a few errors in your post. First Miller-Urey may have been right about the atmosphere:

https://source.wustl.edu/2005/09/calculations-favor-reducing-atmosphere-for-early-earth/

Second it does not really matter if it was as reducing as they thought that the atmosphere is. The experiment has been done quite a few times in quite a few atmospheres and even with the change to the "correct" early Earth atmosphere it still produced amino acids:


http://ncse.com/files/pub/creationism/icons/gishlick_icons1.pdf

And third that was not the only source of amino acids.

Amino acids have been detected in space:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2003/aug/11/amino-acid-detected-in-space

They have been found on comets:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17628-found-first-amino-acid-on-a-comet/

And in meteorites:

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/life-components.html

So we may have had amino acids for the entire history of the Earth.

Perhaps you should do some real searching next time you look up a subject. Creationist sites such as the Discovery Institute have been shown to be incredibly unreliable. Obviously making a "Prebiotic soup" is no problem at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

Anyone seen Strathos around lately?

 

[PsychoSarah]

What comes first?

The disease or the cure?

Depends on if the cure is naturally occurring or not.

 

[dougangel]

The story of life’s origin is one of the great unsolved mysteries of science. The puzzle boils down to bridging the gap between two worlds–chemistry and biology. We know how molecules behave, and we know how cells work. But we still don’t know how a soup of lifeless molecules could have given rise to the first living cells. - See more at: http://www.astrobio.net/topic/origi...g-the-emergence-of-life/#sthash.5lnNTBly.dpuf
http://www.astrobio.net/topic/origi...oup-to-cells-measuring-the-emergence-of-life/

There are quite a few errors in your post. First Miller-Urey may have been right about the atmosphere:

https://source.wustl.edu/2005/09/calculations-favor-reducing-atmosphere-for-early-earth/

Second it does not really matter if it was as reducing as they thought that the atmosphere is. The experiment has been done quite a few times in quite a few atmospheres and even with the change to the "correct" early Earth atmosphere it still produced amino acids:


http://ncse.com/files/pub/creationism/icons/gishlick_icons1.pdf

And third that was not the only source of amino acids.

Amino acids have been detected in space:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2003/aug/11/amino-acid-detected-in-space

They have been found on comets:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17628-found-first-amino-acid-on-a-comet/

And in meteorites:

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/life-components.html

So we may have had amino acids for the entire history of the Earth.

Perhaps you should do some real searching next time you look up a subject. Creationist sites such as the Discovery Institute have been shown to be incredibly unreliable. Obviously making a "Prebiotic soup" is no problem at all.

I don't know where it's says in my post there's no amino acids in space. Which is most of your post. It's saying the conditions were not right on earth at the time with all the gases.
http://www.astrobio.net/topic/origi...oup-to-cells-measuring-the-emergence-of-life/

From Soup to Cells: Measuring the Emergence of Life
ByJohnny Bontemps- Mar 7, 2014

Sara Walker, assistant professor at Arizona State University. Credit: BEYOND, ASU

The story oflife’s originis one of the great unsolved mysteries of science. The puzzle boils down to bridging the gap between two worlds–chemistry and biology. We know how molecules behave, and we know how cells work. But we still don’t know how a soup of lifeless molecules could have given rise to the first living cells.

- See more at: http://www.astrobio.net/topic/origi...g-the-emergence-of-life/#sthash.5lnNTBly.dpuf

That's secular.

 

[Derek Meyer]

I'm not really too sure why you placed this one. All your links say that we don't know how life started.

Not too sure how you think that changes the theory of evolution as the theory of evolution doesn't address the origin of life.

 

[AV1611VET]

Depends on if the cure is naturally occurring or not.

I doubt that.

God sent "wonderful plagues" on the people.

I would assume the cure came later.

Numbers 21:8 And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The story of life’s origin is one of the great unsolved mysteries of science. The puzzle boils down to bridging the gap between two worlds–chemistry and biology. We know how molecules behave, and we know how cells work. But we still don’t know how a soup of lifeless molecules could have given rise to the first living cells. - See more at: http://www.astrobio.net/topic/origi...g-the-emergence-of-life/#sthash.5lnNTBly.dpuf
http://www.astrobio.net/topic/origi...oup-to-cells-measuring-the-emergence-of-life/


I don't know where it's says in my post there's no amino acids in space. Which is most of your post. It's saying the conditions were not right on earth at the time with all the gases.
http://www.astrobio.net/topic/origi...oup-to-cells-measuring-the-emergence-of-life/

From Soup to Cells: Measuring the Emergence of Life
ByJohnny Bontemps- Mar 7, 2014

Sara Walker, assistant professor at Arizona State University. Credit: BEYOND, ASU

The story oflife’s originis one of the great unsolved mysteries of science. The puzzle boils down to bridging the gap between two worlds–chemistry and biology. We know how molecules behave, and we know how cells work. But we still don’t know how a soup of lifeless molecules could have given rise to the first living cells.

- See more at: http://www.astrobio.net/topic/origi...g-the-emergence-of-life/#sthash.5lnNTBly.dpuf

That's secular.

You ignored the errors that I pointed out and focused only on small aspects of the post. You claimed that there was no basis for a pre-biotic soup. I explained your errors to you. Starting with the fact that Miller Urey may have been right. By the way there was not just one early earth atmosphere. It changed quite a fit as the planet degassed.

I will agree that abiogenesis is a complex problem that we are just beginning to understand.

 

[SharkOfTheCovenant]

Problem 1: No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup

According to conventional thinking among origin of life theorists, life arose via unguided chemical reactions on the early Earth some 3 to 4 billion years ago. Most theorists believe that there were many steps involved in the origin of life, but the very first step would have involved the production of a primordial soup -- a water-based sea of simple organic molecules -- out of which life arose. While the existence of this "soup" has been accepted as unquestioned fact for decades, this first step in most origin-of-life theories faces numerous scientific difficulties.

In 1953, a graduate student at the University of Chicago named Stanley Miller, along with his faculty advisor Harold Urey, performed experiments hoping to produce the building blocks of life under natural conditions on the early Earth.4These "Miller-Urey experiments" intended to simulate lightning striking the gasses in the early Earth's atmosphere. After running the experiments and letting the chemical products sit for a period of time, Miller discovered that amino acids -- the building blocks of proteins -- had been produced.

For decades, these experiments have been hailed as a demonstration that the "building blocks" of life could have arisen under natural, realistic Earthlike conditions,5corroborating the primordial soup hypothesis. However, it has also been known for decades that the Earth's early atmosphere was fundamentally different from the gasses used by Miller and Urey.

The atmosphere used in the Miller-Urey experiments was primarily composed of reducing gasses like methane, ammonia, and high levels of hydrogen. Geochemists now believe that the atmosphere of the early Earth did not contain appreciable amounts of these components. (Reducing gasses are those which tend to donate electrons during chemical reactions.) UC Santa Cruz origin-of-life theorist David Deamer explains this in the journalMicrobiology & Molecular Biology Reviews:

This optimistic picture began to change in the late 1970s, when it became increasingly clear that the early atmosphere was probably volcanic in origin and composition, composed largely of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than the mixture of reducing gases assumed by the Miller-Urey model. Carbon dioxide does not support the rich array of synthetic pathways leading to possible monomers…6

Likewise, an article in the journalSciencestated: "Miller and Urey relied on a 'reducing' atmosphere, a condition in which molecules are fat with hydrogen atoms. As Miller showed later, he could not make organics in an 'oxidizing' atmosphere."7The article put it bluntly: "the early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller-Urey situation."8Consistent with this, geological studies have not uncovered evidence that a primordial soup once existed.9

There are good reasons to understand why the Earth's early atmosphere did not contain high concentrations of methane, ammonia, or other reducing gasses. The earth's early atmosphere is thought to have been produced by outgassing from volcanoes, and the composition of those volcanic gasses is related to the chemical properties of the Earth's inner mantle. Geochemical studies have found that the chemical properties of the Earth's mantle would have been the same in the past as they are today.10But today, volcanic gasses do not contain methane or ammonia, and are not reducing.

A paper inEarth and Planetary Science Lettersfound that the chemical properties of the Earth's interior have been essentially constant over Earth's history, leading to the conclusion that "Life may have found its origins in other environments or by other mechanisms."11So drastic is the evidence against pre-biotic synthesis of life's building blocks that in 1990 the Space Studies Board of the National Research Council recommended that origin of life investigators undertake a "reexamination of biological monomer synthesis under primitive Earthlike environments, as revealed in current models of the early Earth."12

Because of these difficulties, some leading theorists have abandoned the Miller-Urey experiment and the "primordial soup" theory it is claimed to support. In 2010, University College London biochemist Nick Lane stated the primordial soup theory "doesn't hold water" and is "past its expiration date."13Instead, he proposes that life arose in undersea hydrothermal vents. But both the hydrothermal vent and primordial soup hypotheses face another major problem.


The Origin of life hasn't been observed and other things and there are other problems eg Humans Display Many Behavioral and Cognitive Abilities that Offer No Apparent Survival Advantage But actually I agree with you that science explains the specifics of how God done things and the bible deals with spiritual truths. God is the greatest biologist. I still think there are still a lot of unexplained things in biology and it's still not a completed science.

How do you know there's "no mechanism for a primordial soup?" We dont even know how life first started and what the Soup, if there was any, is. Are you claiming to have a better understanding of the universe than everyone else? Besides evolution doesnt even care about the origin of life.

 

[Loudmouth]

The story of life’s origin is one of the great unsolved mysteries of science.

It also has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I doubt that.

God sent "wonderful plagues" on the people.

I would assume the cure came later.

Numbers 21:8 And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.

Actually, many medicines are naturally occurring, just not in concentrations that are the easiest to administer.

 

[SharkOfTheCovenant]

Problem 1: No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup

According to conventional thinking among origin of life theorists, life arose via unguided chemical reactions on the early Earth some 3 to 4 billion years ago. Most theorists believe that there were many steps involved in the origin of life, but the very first step would have involved the production of a primordial soup -- a water-based sea of simple organic molecules -- out of which life arose. While the existence of this "soup" has been accepted as unquestioned fact for decades, this first step in most origin-of-life theories faces numerous scientific difficulties.

In 1953, a graduate student at the University of Chicago named Stanley Miller, along with his faculty advisor Harold Urey, performed experiments hoping to produce the building blocks of life under natural conditions on the early Earth.4These "Miller-Urey experiments" intended to simulate lightning striking the gasses in the early Earth's atmosphere. After running the experiments and letting the chemical products sit for a period of time, Miller discovered that amino acids -- the building blocks of proteins -- had been produced.

For decades, these experiments have been hailed as a demonstration that the "building blocks" of life could have arisen under natural, realistic Earthlike conditions,5corroborating the primordial soup hypothesis. However, it has also been known for decades that the Earth's early atmosphere was fundamentally different from the gasses used by Miller and Urey.

The atmosphere used in the Miller-Urey experiments was primarily composed of reducing gasses like methane, ammonia, and high levels of hydrogen. Geochemists now believe that the atmosphere of the early Earth did not contain appreciable amounts of these components. (Reducing gasses are those which tend to donate electrons during chemical reactions.) UC Santa Cruz origin-of-life theorist David Deamer explains this in the journalMicrobiology & Molecular Biology Reviews:

This optimistic picture began to change in the late 1970s, when it became increasingly clear that the early atmosphere was probably volcanic in origin and composition, composed largely of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than the mixture of reducing gases assumed by the Miller-Urey model. Carbon dioxide does not support the rich array of synthetic pathways leading to possible monomers…6

Likewise, an article in the journalSciencestated: "Miller and Urey relied on a 'reducing' atmosphere, a condition in which molecules are fat with hydrogen atoms. As Miller showed later, he could not make organics in an 'oxidizing' atmosphere."7The article put it bluntly: "the early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller-Urey situation."8Consistent with this, geological studies have not uncovered evidence that a primordial soup once existed.9

There are good reasons to understand why the Earth's early atmosphere did not contain high concentrations of methane, ammonia, or other reducing gasses. The earth's early atmosphere is thought to have been produced by outgassing from volcanoes, and the composition of those volcanic gasses is related to the chemical properties of the Earth's inner mantle. Geochemical studies have found that the chemical properties of the Earth's mantle would have been the same in the past as they are today.10But today, volcanic gasses do not contain methane or ammonia, and are not reducing.

A paper inEarth and Planetary Science Lettersfound that the chemical properties of the Earth's interior have been essentially constant over Earth's history, leading to the conclusion that "Life may have found its origins in other environments or by other mechanisms."11So drastic is the evidence against pre-biotic synthesis of life's building blocks that in 1990 the Space Studies Board of the National Research Council recommended that origin of life investigators undertake a "reexamination of biological monomer synthesis under primitive Earthlike environments, as revealed in current models of the early Earth."12

Because of these difficulties, some leading theorists have abandoned the Miller-Urey experiment and the "primordial soup" theory it is claimed to support. In 2010, University College London biochemist Nick Lane stated the primordial soup theory "doesn't hold water" and is "past its expiration date."13Instead, he proposes that life arose in undersea hydrothermal vents. But both the hydrothermal vent and primordial soup hypotheses face another major problem.


The Origin of life hasn't been observed and other things and there are other problems eg Humans Display Many Behavioral and Cognitive Abilities that Offer No Apparent Survival Advantage But actually I agree with you that science explains the specifics of how God done things and the bible deals with spiritual truths. God is the greatest biologist. I still think there are still a lot of unexplained things in biology and it's still not a completed science.

My bad, I didnt even read your last paragraph. You're right, there is alot about biology we dont understand. And truth is, we don't know exactly what it was that started life. People will say God did it but what I mean is the physical process in which it began. The universe is full of order and reason so to me it would only make sense that God would design a physical process from which life sprang. Most people would agree that it was probably molecule chains that absorbed certain materials around them, creating a self constructing chain. Later came things like amino acids and much later cells.

 

[Practical-Christianity]

I am new to these forums, this is my first post. I've thought about theistic evolution before, and reading through Genesis this verse gets my attention: "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so." - Genesis 1:11

Later in Genesis 1:29 it says "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat."

My problem then, is if theistic evolution is true, why did fruit trees evolve before animals that would eat the fruits existed? Not only that, but the fruit from the trees were good for eating. Even if the fruit trees somehow evolved seed bearing fruit without animals to eat the fruit, how would the fruit become good as food for animals that didn't yet exist through the process of natural selection?

I started another topic on this forum called "A New Interpretation of Genesis." In it, I talk about the "polemic" interpretation of Genesis and how it gets rid of having to try to reconcile questions like the above. Genesis is all about who God is, not about a scientific description of how we got here. Doesn't that make sense in light of who we know God/Jesus to be? It's all about the relationship. Anyways, hope it is helpful.
-Stephen