# Evolutionists: How did life evolve from non-living matter? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 29, 2001, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-how-did-life-evolve-from-non-living-matter/84484 "2001-09-29T14:40:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2001, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-how-did-life-evolve-from-non-living-matter/84484/61 "2001-10-01T18:12:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mangetout \* > \*\ ***Glee:** If he comes out with **any** unsupportable claims or arguments, then I’ll be joining in with the debate against them (If I’m able), and please feel free to say you told me so, but let’s not frighten people off with aggression before we’ve tried patience (OK, I know everybody here is tired to death of the whole creationist thing, having seen it a million times, but each individual creationist newcomer isn’t aware of our pain; IMHO, we shouldn’t make the newcomers suffer simply because other people have made us tear our hair out, that is, we shouldn’t make them suffer until they have given us just cause). > > There is just the faintest possibility that by reasoned debate, we can convince the creationist (generally, not specifically you RS, as you’ve said you’re sitting on the fence) to examine the evidence with open, unbiased eyes. \*\* This is well put. I would claim that I have been polite throughout, but your position above is impeccable. Here’s to the next creationist! ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2001, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-how-did-life-evolve-from-non-living-matter/84484/62 "2001-10-01T22:17:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by glee \* > \*\*Here’s to the next creationist! \*\* I can hardly wait. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2001, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-how-did-life-evolve-from-non-living-matter/84484/63 "2001-10-01T23:06:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by glee \* > **The only two types of people who ask ‘How did life evolve from non-living matter?’ are Christian creationists and slightly confused students.** I find that very difficult to believe. There are many, MANY people who believe in a Creator, and yet who are either non-Christians or non-creationists. Roman Catholics, for example, do not subscribe to creationism, yet many of them do believe that the odds are overwhelmingly against life arising from randomness. Hindus also believe in life-creating dieties, and I’m sure that many Moslems would also argue that life is too well-ordered to have arisen from chaos. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2001, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-how-did-life-evolve-from-non-living-matter/84484/64 "2001-10-01T23:13:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by hansel \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Royal Sampler \* > > \*\*But you’re not going to convince me that what Fox and the likes did in their experiments was create life. It’s very easy to point out all of the ‘life-like’ charactertics about microspheres, but at the end of the day, what Fox created WAS NOT life. > > \*\* > > I think you’re missing the point, Royal. What those experiments did was map out parts of the road from inert-chemicals to life, showing not just that life _could have_ arisen from the chemical soup, but that there were many plausible ways for it do so.\*\* Actually, it only shows how _one_ of these steps might have arisen. It’s still a far cry from proving that life itself could have risen, and it doesn’t show that there are “many plausible ways” for it to do so. As other posters have already emphasized, it’s all pretty speculative right now. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2001, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-how-did-life-evolve-from-non-living-matter/84484/65 "2001-10-01T23:19:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by hansel \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Royal Sampler \* > > \*\* > > A living organism would suffice just fine. \*\* > > Does the fact that a majority of the path from inert chemicals to living organism has been mapped make it plausible (though not necessarily true) to you that biochemists are on the right track? \*\* I think it’s overstating the case to say that “a majority of the path” has been mapped out. We’ve got some ideas of how it might have happened, but there are still many questions that are a long way from being answered – how DNA came about, for example. Or how ribosomes, cell membranes and mitochondria were formed. Or how rRNA, tRNA and mRNA all came about, each component being critical for cellular replication. I’m not arguing against abiogenesis, mind you. I just think that it’s naive to say that most of the critical steps involved have already been determined. We’re not even close. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2001, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-how-did-life-evolve-from-non-living-matter/84484/66 "2001-10-01T23:30:30Z")
Y’all should read a transcript of a chat with [Dr. Terry Mortenson](http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/01/evolution3_092801.htm), researcher for [http://www.answersingenesis.org](http://www.answersingenesis.org) . It’s hysterically funny, IMHO. A few choice quotes from the Doc: > [@](#): > > you may not realize that modern science was born in the womb of Christianity So was anti-Semitism; what’s your point? > [@](#): > > you will have to visit [http://www.answersingenesis.org](http://www.answersingenesis.org) and read the homepage critiques of each PBS episode to really see scientific debate in action _SNORT!_ > [@](#): > > The whole universe is only several thousand years old (about 6000-10,000), according to the Bible. The variable is related to whether or not there are gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11. Some young-earth creationists believe there are. I do not believe their arguments from Scripture are persuasive. So, I favor the roughly 6000 date, but won’t “die on a hill” for that exact age. Okey-dokey. > [@](#): > > faith in God is no different from faith in your doctor or car mechanic or evolutionary geology teacher. But I can SEE a doctor or an auto mechanic or even touch them and speak to them and listen to them say, “Stop touching me!” I can’t do that with God. > [@](#): > > Creationists do not oppose the teaching of evolution. As long as it isn’t taught as a fact, right? > [@](#): > > Earth is the only world mentioned in Genesis. Does that mean there’s no life in the rest of the universe? > > Dr. Terry Mortenson: Yes, I believe so. This is because of the way that the Bible ties the redemptive work of Christ on the cross to the whole of creation. See Romans 8:19–25, Colossians 1: 15–20 , II Peter 3:3–13 and Revelation 21:1–5. Furthermore, there is literally no, zero, scientific evidence that biological life exists anywhere but on earth, in spite of years of trying to find it. It sounds like he’s afraid that the discovery of extra-terrestrial life would undermine all of Christianity. There’s more, but I don’t want to take the chance of violating copyright. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2001, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-how-did-life-evolve-from-non-living-matter/84484/67 "2001-10-02T00:20:35Z")
I’m increasingly of the opinion that Dr. Mortenson is a danger to himself and to Christianity. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2001, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-how-did-life-evolve-from-non-living-matter/84484/68 "2001-10-02T00:44:09Z")
I haven’t read all of this thread, because I find them tiresome, and besides, I could probably replicate the whole thing on my own based on the hundreds of other threads I’ve read on this subject. I just popped in to give my usual plug for a book called “At Home in the Universe” by Stuart Kuffman. It does a brilliant job of explaining how life could have arisen from non-living material, and how, instead of being an unbelieveably unlikely process, it could be seen as likely - even inevitable. If you’re truly interested in understanding this subject (as opposed to blindly insisting that you’re right), you must read this book. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2001, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-how-did-life-evolve-from-non-living-matter/84484/69 "2001-10-02T11:20:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by glee \* > > The only two types of people who ask ‘How did life evolve from non-living matter?’ are Christian creationists and slightly confused students. > > I find that very difficult to believe. > > There are many, MANY people who believe in a Creator, and yet who are either non-Christians or non-creationists. Roman Catholics, for example, do not subscribe to creationism, yet many of them do believe that the odds are overwhelmingly against life arising from randomness. Hindus also believe in life-creating deities, and I’m sure that many Moslems would also argue that life is too well-ordered to have arisen from chaos. Um, my main point was that life coming from non-living matter is (a)biogenesis, not evolution. Hence the ‘slightly confused student’ example. Christians who believe the Bible is literally true state that: 1. God created all life 2. humans didn’t evolve, since they were ‘ready-made’ in the first week of life 3. the Universe is about 5,000 years old, so there is no time for other evolutionary processes to have happened. Since such creationists have no evidence to support their claims (‘God faked the evidence to test our faith’), they rely on attacking scientists, with claims such as the above. I’m interested in your statement that no Roman Catholics are creationists - can you tell me more? I don’t think it matters that Hinduism has Creators, unless they have a history timeline of the Universe. If God exists, he could have set things in motion so that evolution would have resulted in us. The only clash with a religion and evolution is if there is a tight time scale (as above). As for ‘life is too well-ordered to have arisen from chaos’, I would like a clear example of what this means. It sounds suspiciously like ‘since everything that lives underwater\* can breathe underwater, this proves God made things that way’. \*just for accuracy, I mean ‘lives permanently’. I’ve seen whales surfacing! ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2001, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-how-did-life-evolve-from-non-living-matter/84484/70 "2001-10-02T11:27:48Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by glee \* > As for ‘life is too well-ordered to have arisen from chaos’, I would like a clear example of what this means. > It sounds suspiciously like 'since everything that lives underwater can breathe underwater, this proves God made things that way’._ Oh **glee** , can’t you see that if life was the result of random chaos, we’d see loads of organisms that aren’t at all suited to where they live :rolleyes: 😉 ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2001, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-how-did-life-evolve-from-non-living-matter/84484/71 "2001-10-02T14:30:10Z")
Mangetout, now who’s being facetious?! Of course my next few questions would be: - why, if this is a God made world, do natural disasters kill so many people? - why did the dinosaurs have to die? (didn’t they matter to God?) - why is there so much evil? (yes, I know God wants us to have free will. Except in heaven, presumably.) ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2001, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-how-did-life-evolve-from-non-living-matter/84484/72 "2001-10-02T14:45:33Z")
sorry, couldn’t help myself ---
**Author:** ![nerv](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/85e7bf/32.png) [@nerv](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nerv)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2001, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-how-did-life-evolve-from-non-living-matter/84484/73 "2001-10-02T15:22:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by glee \* > I’m interested in your statement that no Roman Catholics are creationists - can you tell me more? I belive this is a reference to the fact that the pope recently announced that catholic dogma accepted evolution as fact. (Or something like that–I don’t really follow the religious world very closely) ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2001, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-how-did-life-evolve-from-non-living-matter/84484/74 "2001-10-02T19:51:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by glee \* > **I’m interested in your statement that no Roman Catholics are creationists - can you tell me more?** That’s not quite what I said. What I actually said is “Roman Catholics do not believe in creationism”; after all, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Genesis account is non-literal, and promotes theistic evolution. In other words, it’s a general statement, rather than a mathematically precise one. It’s like saying that Jehovah’s Witnesses oppose blood transfusions. There may be exceptions to that statement (and indeed, there are), but it is generally correct. At any rate, the point remains. Someone can believe that the odds are overwhelming against abiogenesis WITHOUT being a “Christian creationist.” ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2001, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-how-did-life-evolve-from-non-living-matter/84484/75 "2001-10-02T22:57:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by glee \* > > I’m interested in your statement that no Roman Catholics are creationists - can you tell me more? > > That’s not quite what I said. What I actually said is “Roman Catholics do not believe in creationism”; after all, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Genesis account is non-literal, and promotes theistic evolution. In other words, it’s a general statement, rather than a mathematically precise one. > > It’s like saying that Jehovah’s Witnesses oppose blood transfusions. There may be exceptions to that statement (and indeed, there are), but it is generally correct. Ok, I accept that as a general statement. (When dealing with a fundamentalist topic, I sometimes assume everything is meant literally). > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > At any rate, the point remains. Someone can believe that the odds are overwhelming against abiogenesis WITHOUT being a “Christian creationist.” \*\* That’s not what I said! I repeat: the only two types of people who ask ‘How did life **evolve** from non-living matter?’ are Christian creationists and slightly confused students. My point is that creationists (by which I don’t mean people who believe in a creator, but people who dismiss evolution because of how and when they think life began) usually don’t understand the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2001, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-how-did-life-evolve-from-non-living-matter/84484/76 "2001-10-03T01:05:52Z")
JThunder wrote: > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by hansel \* > > **What those experiments did was map out parts of the road from inert-chemicals to life, showing not just that life _could have_ arisen from the chemical soup, but that there were many plausible ways for it do so.** > > Actually, it only shows how _one_ of these steps might have arisen. Um, we’re not **just** talking about the Urey-Miller experiment here, we’re also talking about the two follow-on experiments of Stanley Fox (which produced proteinoids and lifelike proteinoid microspheres, respectively), and the experiments of other folks which produced coacervates. Not to mention the experiments with self-catalyzing RNA molecules. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2001, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-how-did-life-evolve-from-non-living-matter/84484/77 "2001-10-03T09:19:56Z")
Actually, I saw some (non-creationist) sources describing biogenesis as ‘chemical evolution’, but maybe that was just an attempt to make it accessible to the layman. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2001, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-how-did-life-evolve-from-non-living-matter/84484/78 "2001-10-03T17:50:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by wevets \* > \*\* > It may be helpful to point out that being a Christian and a believer in evolutionary theory and/or abiogenesis are not mutually exclusive. > > This is not particularly hard to do if one is willing to accept that Genesis may not be a literal account. \*\* I know. God. What do these people think - that if god used evolution as a tool to shape the world, that genesis would read: Billions of years ago, I sculpted amino acids into tiny little micro-organisms that you couldn’t see, and over the years, eventually they became man? I mean, are YOU going to suggest that you tell this to primitive cultures 2000 years ago? The logic of strict creationists baffles me. ---
**Author:** ![Kaje](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f04885/32.png) [@Kaje](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kaje)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2001, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-how-did-life-evolve-from-non-living-matter/84484/79 "2001-10-03T21:44:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SenorBeef \* > \*\*I mean, are YOU going to suggest that you tell this to primitive cultures 2000 years ago? The logic of strict creationists baffles me. \*\* Well, 2000 years ago this may have been possible… Democritus believed that everything was built of tiny, invisible blocks called “atoms” back around 400BC if memory serves me However the genesis story originated long before that, unfortunately since ages and all that are extra fishy in early bible stories its pretty tough to tell when… I’m going to (completely ignorantly and haphazardly) guess 6000 years…either way its before any sort of atom theory so your statement stands ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2001, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-how-did-life-evolve-from-non-living-matter/84484/80 "2001-10-04T22:53:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by glee \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*\*\*Originally posted by JThunder \* > > At any rate, the point remains. Someone can believe that the odds are overwhelming against abiogenesis WITHOUT being a “Christian creationist.” \*\* > > That’s not what I said! > I repeat: the only two types of people who ask ‘How did life **evolve** from non-living matter?’ are Christian creationists and slightly confused students.\*\* Once again though, I’d have to question that. If other people believe that the odds are against life emerging from randomness (without a Creator, that is), then why wouldn’t they ask the very same question? Heck, when I was a Catholic, I certainly asked that question. Why wouldn’t others? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-how-did-life-evolve-from-non-living-matter/84484.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-how-did-life-evolve-from-non-living-matter/84484.md?page=5)