And…
Is the process of non-living matter transforming in to living matter “evolution”?
And…
Why can’t the process be replicated in science labs today?
Thank you for your time.
- Sampler.
Simple, God made the mater into a simple life form, then it evolved :). Eveny if you can’t be sure of how it all started, that does not mean you can not see what happened in between the start of life on earth and it’s present state.
there are lots of great threads on this very debate here in GD. Try the search function.
I will be very happy to provide the answer to this, as soon as you explain to me in what way this question conduces to the increase of the love of God with all heart, soul, mind, and strength, and of neighbor as self.
You shot who in the what now?
It has been replicated in labs. Scientists have duplicated the conditions of the “primordial ooze” and watched it develop into amino acids (the building blocks of life).
Don’t be cheeky, Chas. I said living matter, not “the building blocks” that lead to it.
That should be ‘the building blocks that “allegedly” lead to it’.
Royal Sampler wrote:
No.
It’s called “abiogenesis” (or sometimes “biogenesis”), and does not involve evolutionary forces in any way whatsoever.
I think Polycarp thinks that you are a Christian creationist and he wants to know what creationism has to do with the core tenets of Christianity.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Royal Sampler *
**
Right. And my body only “allegedly” contains amino acids.
I decline to participate further in your little anti-evolution jihad unless you can provide me with documentary evidence of how life arose on earth.
There are a couple of problems. We don’t know the exact conditions life supposedly first appeared. Without this knowledge replicating it exactly will be impossible. Also, the life-from-non-life event probably happened only once and is very rare. Even if you had the exact conditions it may take thousands, or millions, of years for life to appear. No problem for the Earth, but most scientists just don’t have the patience.
Whats the difference between living matter and dead matter?
While Royal Sampler is probably a hard core creationist who won’t change his mind no matter what evidence is presented, I’ll try anyway.
No one knows for sure how life arose. We have a lot of good ideas, but nothing is known for certain. Keep in mind how new most of science is. We’ve only known the structure of DNA since 1953. We’ve only known about things like chromosomes, DNA, and Mendelian heredity for around a century. Even electricity–used in the Miller-Urey experiment–has only been commonplace since the turn of the last century.
The problems with creating life in a laboratory are manyfold. Firstly, even if scientists do manage to create life, there is no guarantee that the method they used would bear any resemblance to the method by which the first living creature arose. We could have just discovered a new way to make life which–while fascinating–would not tell us much about how life originated billions of years ago.
Secondly, life may have taken hundreds of millions of years to arise, with the entire Earth as a laboratory. Expecting scientists to accomplish the same feat in a matter of decades in small, controlled setting is rather ridiculous.
Thirdly, conditions of the early Earth aren’t particularly well known, so scientists must make educated guesses, which may not be correct.
I know that creationists get very excited at the “failures” of conventional science, because of course in their warped minds that proves creationism. But this type of argumentation is essentially a “god of the gaps” approach, which has fallen on its face many times before. Centuries ago, theists believed that angels moved the planets around, that God controlled the weather and caused natural disasters, that sickness was due to demonic possession, that the universe and all life was created by god, etc. Since then, scientists have found naturalistic causes for the movement of the planets, the weather, natural disasters, sickness, the universe, etc. But creationists now hang their hats on the origin of life as the one thing that scientists still haven’t adequately explained. This is a very dangerous basis for a belief system, because the next scientific discovery could completely undermine it. Of course, creationists avoid such danger by simply “jumping ship” to a new “unexplainable phenomenon” after each subsequent discovery.
With all due respect, Royal, will you please now share with us your explanation of where God came from?
Then tell me, which theory is better supported by available evidence? We’d love to hear something new. Sincerely.
Madame Cleo just called me up, and whispered to me her prediction of Royal Sampler’s answer to your question, Dunne U. Wurrie. Here it is, in all its glory:
[cricket, cricket]
I rather suspect we’ll never hear from Sampler again- it was just a drive-by witnessing. A shame, 'cause I’d love to actually hear a creationist attempt to bolster creationism with evidence, as opposed to using the “evolution can’t work because of [reason], so therefore creationism’s the way to go” argument.
So, Royal Sampler, have you ever considered asking, say, biochemists, instead of evolutionists, about the origin of life? Because, as has been pointed out previously, the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. Nor does evolution have anything to do with the origins of the universe, so don’t ask evolutionsts about the “Big Bang”, either (which is not to say some individuals might not actually know something about it, but the sciene of Evoltuion does not concern itself with such).
Evolution deals with genes, organisms, and populations of organisms. If you wish to pick holes in evolutionary theories, you’re going to have to constrain yourself to those, I’m afraid.
Royal Sampler wrote:
Okay, Royal Sampler, here you go. But just remember, you asked for it.
The experiment Chas.E is referring to is the Miller-Urey experiment. It is only the most famous in a line of other experiments, performed by other biochemists, that provide answers for how nearly every step on the road from lifelessness to life could have occurred.
The next crucial experiment was performed by Stanley Fox. He took amino acids – such as the ones created in the Miller-Urey experiment – and “baked” them under UltraViolet light. Remember, on the primordial Earth, the ozone layers had not yet developed in the atmosphere, so there was oodles of U.V. light in the ordinary sunlight that struck the ground. What Fox discovered was that, when baked in UV light, amino acids would form into short molecular chains called proteinoids that strongly resembled proteins.
“Big deal,” you say. “Short-chain proteins are hardly any closer to a living bacterium than amino acids are!” Well, while this is true, Mr. or Ms. Smarty Pants, this discovery pales in comparison with Stanley Fox’s NEXT experiment.
In the second Fox experiment, he took a lump of hot proteinoids – such as the ones formed by his first experiment – and soaked them in plain, sterile salt water. As you can imagine, Earth’s ancient oceans could easily have provided all the salt water you’d ever need. Within a few minutes of dunking the proteinoids in the salt water, Fox discovered that they were forming into little one-micron-wide bubbles, with salt water on the inside surrounded by a roughly spherical membrane of proteinoid material. He called these curious beasts PROTEINOID MICROSPHERES. Photographs of some proteinoid microspheres, taken under a conventional light microscope, can be found at http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/photos.htm.
Proteinoid microspheres have several properties in common with living beings:[ul][li]They are morphologically similar to bacteria.[/li][li]Their membranes exhibit osmotic properties.[/li][li]They absorb nutrients (other proteinoids) from their environment.[/li][li]Some chemical reactions in their interiors are catalyzed, much like an enzyme in a real living cell acts as a chemical catalyst.[/li][li]They “grow” as they absorb nutrients, by incorporating the nutrients into their own structure.[/li][li]When they get big enough, they divide into two microspheres, just like a bacterium undergoing mitosis.[/ul]If these proteinoid microspheres had also contained DNA or RNA, we would not hesitate to say they were alive![/li]And there have been other experiments in the realm of pre-biotic or near-biotic chemistry. The discovery of coacervates is among them. You can get a glympse of some of this work, as well as a good impression for how improbable abiogenesis really is, by reading the talk.origins interim abiogenesis FAQ at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-abiogenesis.html.
There is speculation (the ‘panspermia’ theory) that the process of biogenesis didn’t happen here on earth (further complicating the idea of working out the ‘starting conditions’), and that life, in the form of something like bacteria, is widespread in the universe.
OK, RS has got the terminology mixed up (it’s not evolution), but he has tried to ask a valid question and we shouldn’t turn this into a creation/evolution debate.
Okay, let’s play the devil’s advocate.
Suppose evolution (which doesn’t include abiogenesis, btw) is somehow proven false.
How does that automatically make Biblical creation the correct answer? Where is the evidence that men were created from dust, females were created from ribs, and talking non-slithering snakes existed?