Evolution vs. Creation

[cuppajoe_9]

They use oxygen or CO2 to breathe once they have passed the level of bacteria.

Ok, first off, 'organic' when refering to molecules, doesn't necessarily mean 'alive'. Organic molecules don't breathe anything.

[Dante Wodehouse]

Ok, first off, 'organic' when refering to molecules, doesn't necessarily mean 'alive'. Organic molecules don't breathe anything.

Yes, but for that organic molecule to surpass the level of bacteria it would have to breathe.

[cuppajoe_9]

Yes, but for that organic molecule to surpass the level of bacteria it would have to breathe.

Yes. So what?

[Dante Wodehouse]

Yes. So what?

According to known fact, amino acids and RNA can only develop in an oxygen/CO2 free environment, but for it to evolve further it needs oxygen/CO2.

[cuppajoe_9]

According to known fact, amino acids and RNA can only develop in an oxygen/CO2 free environment, but for it to evolve further it needs oxygen/CO2.

The first self-replicating molecules don't need do be chemically the same as RNA for the hypothesis to hold.

[Redzeppelin]

Then I can only conclude that the quotation was taken out of context or is inaccurate, because organic compounds can and do form without oxygen.

I would assume that DNA is as far down as one can go in terms of "life." I'm probably wrong, but allow me to blunder on. The hypothesis is not so much about bacterium as the DNA/RNA necessary to create life. The suggestion is that chirality is negatively effected either by the presence of oxygen (oxygen decays life) or its absence (protective ozone is missing from earth's atmosphere and ozone allows life to exist on earth). Since chirality is inherent in the construction/replication of DNA/RNA, I'm not sure how you've dismissed my post unless you're going to suggest that DNA/RNA had nothing to do with the initiation of life on earth.

The hypothesis in no way depends on the first self-replicating molecules being exactly like modern DNA and RNA, they need only share certain properties of them.

The suggestion points to a radically "streamlined" DNA (100,000 pairs) which is far less complex than modern DNA(1 million odd pairs). If it wasn't DNA/RNA then what was it, because from what mainstream media/science says, DNA is the "building blocks of life." Are you telling me there's something else?

I believe I've already said. Rougly: certain self-replicating organic molecules are formed in early earth and, over the course of a few billion years, evolve into cellular life. Your statistics on the probability of cellular life emerging fully-formed are indeed relevant, but do not in any way damage current thinking about abiogenesis, as nobody says that this is what happened.

Then please give me a simplified version (rather than a 1000-page website) of "what happened" so I sound less ignorant. Thanks.

Science has never emphasized stability or certainty.

No - but many of its adherents here have trumpeted its credibility. I'm just noting how that credibility requires constant revision. If the Bible altered its ideas about morality like science does about the nature of reality, the Bible would be dismissed as valid by even Christians.

If it is proven that abiogenesis is impossible, the ramifications for Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection (which is what we are talking about) are as follows: none. The evidence that shows common descent would remain completely intact, the observations of speciation completely unchanged, and the genetic markers that show hereditary realtionships with other species would remain.

That's fine - but I'm talking about abiogenesis primarily; evidence for the other things you mentioned (in the words of Porfiry in Crime and Punishment) "cuts both ways."

When I attack the God hypothesis, then my knowledge of it becomes relevant. I have not or, at least, not during the course of this particular discussion.

In my mind it is relevant because evolution/abiogenesis is an attack on God.

[cuppajoe_9]

If it wasn't DNA/RNA then what was it, because from what mainstream media/science says, DNA is the "building blocks of life." Are you telling me there's something else?

Perhaps (sheer speculation) some other molecule with the properties of self-replication at some point competed with DNA/RNA, lost and became extinct. This doesn't happen anymore, because anything organic that popped up would be unable to compete with modern, compex organisms.

Then please give me a simplified version (rather than a 1000-page website) of "what happened" so I sound less ignorant. Thanks.

I don't know what happened, I only know that there are several hypotheses, all of them complicated.

No - but many of its adherents here have trumpeted its credibility. I'm just noting how that credibility requires constant revision.

Easy. As new information becomes available, the theory has to change.

[cuppajoe_9]

That's fine - but I'm talking about abiogenesis primarily

Fine but that's not what the thread's about.

In my mind it is relevant because evolution/abiogenesis is an attack on God.

Ok, but it isn't. When I attack God, I'll tell you.

[Redzeppelin]

Fine but that's not what the thread's about.

I'm not quite sure I buy your decision; abiogenesis is connected to evolution and as such, it is related. There have been many other tangents followed in this discussion less relevant to evolution than abiogenesis.

Ok, but it isn't. When I attack God, I'll tell you.

Assuming you know when you're doing it. To be honest, the entire philosophic position of Naturalism is an attack on God. So is the theory of evolution/abiogenesis.

[cuppajoe_9]

I'm not quite sure I buy your decision; abiogenesis is connected to evolution and as such, it is related. There have been many other tangents followed in this discussion less relevant to evolution than abiogenesis.

Revision: it's not what we're talking about now. You said: acceptance of evolution involves tacit acceptance of long odds, but the only odds you've talked about are related to abiogenesis.

Assuming you know when you're doing it. To be honest, the entire philosophic position of Naturalism is an attack on God. So is the theory of evolution/abiogenesis.

I don't think I've advocated philosophical naturalism on this particular thread, and the theory of evolution is not in any way an attack on god, which is why many theists accept it.

[atiguhya padma]

<True, life evolving is beyond all odds. There shouldn't even be one planet in the whole universe that has life. But there is. >

I thought that there was an equation based on the amount of carbon in the Universe, and that this suggested that carbon-based life should be found somewhere.

[Jay]

General mod note:

Please, don't personalize your posts and respect each other's beliefs and/or opinions even if you don't agree with them.

[peaches054]

To me it doesn't matter of evolution or creation, i mean believe what you want to believe but it's mostly how and what you did for your little world it's how to make a difference and know that you did something good in your life as one of my fav quote says not quoted directly but while your planning your life it's litterally passing you by, so instead of talking what you believe in why not do something to better another persons' life and share what you every day throw away or abuse

[Redzeppelin]

Revision: it's not what we're talking about now. You said: acceptance of evolution involves tacit acceptance of long odds, but the only odds you've talked about are related to abiogenesis.

I think the odds of the necessary mutations "just happening to happen" involve similarly large odds.

I don't think I've advocated philosophical naturalism on this particular thread, and the theory of evolution is not in any way an attack on god, which is why many theists accept it.

I don't want to pursue this line much farther because I think we're hair-splitting; any belief system that advocates that the only reality is material and that denies the existence of God is Naturalistic in nature. I suppose some theists have compromised their beliefs in order to reconcile science with the Bible: so be it. But evolution contradicts the Bible - and unless the entire Bible is true, then there's no need to take any of it seriously as the "Word of God." Just my position. We're free to let this point drop (and I ought not have pursued it).

Perhaps (sheer speculation) some other molecule with the properties of self-replication at some point competed with DNA/RNA, lost and became extinct. This doesn't happen anymore, because anything organic that popped up would be unable to compete with modern, compex organisms.

A violation of Occam's Razor: in order to refute my post about the odds of DNA chirality, you speculate into existence a non-existent entity to explain why my posted statements aren't true. That's a handy argument: I don't like/agree with what the conclusions based upon what we can reasonably speculate lead to (DNA is here and we should assume it always has been since it's so fundamental to life, and as such we'll assume that life is responsible because of DNA) so I will imagine another entity that eventually died out. Convenient.

I don't know what happened, I only know that there are several hypotheses, all of them complicated.

I will accept any simplied form you can give or direct me to so that I cease sounding so ignorant on this thread.

Easy. As new information becomes available, the theory has to change.

A fact I'm aware of; my attacks on the "certainty" or "stability" of science are indirect attacks on its often dogmatic adherents - not upon science itself. To listen to some of the posters here, you would never guess that science is often tentative in its conclusions and is always open to revision, or (worse) that it might be wrong. Even I (liberal arts man who is fairly science-ignorant) get that.

[cuppajoe_9]

I think the odds of the necessary mutations "just happening to happen" involve similarly large odds.

Not when you account for the number of trials taking place they don't.

I will accept any simplied form you can give or direct me to so that I cease sounding so ignorant on this thread.

The simplest form of the hypothesis that I can give you is contained in the opening chapters of Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, which you apparently refuse to read. I'm not an expert on abiogenesis, I know very little about it, and I'm not particularly interested.

A violation of Occam's Razor: in order to refute my post about the odds of DNA chirality, you speculate into existence a non-existent entity to explain why my posted statements aren't true. That's a handy argument: I don't like/agree with what the conclusions based upon what we can reasonably speculate lead to (DNA is here and we should assume it always has been since it's so fundamental to life, and as such we'll assume that life is responsible because of DNA) so I will imagine another entity that eventually died out. Convenient.

Since I'm only speculating, and not claiming what I say is fact, I can say whatever I like. There is no reason why what I said is not possible. You asked a question and I answered it based on my limited knowledge of the topic.