Creation vs. Evolution

[Famine]

I think we should be classified right next to monkeys in the big classification tree.

And we are.

Everything alive on this Earth today is the same distance, in terms of evolution, from the Primordial Soup as each other. We are all adapted equally well to live in our environments. Humans are, thus far, the only known species to adapt their environment to suit them, but from an evolutionary point of view, Spandau Ballet are as advanced as a rattlesnake.

 

[Zardoz]

Comments, please, on these throwbacks:

 

[Grand Prix]

I've never seen that before.

But of course we all know it's the work of the Devil trying to trick us!

 

[a6m5]

Wow. I had heard about them, but had never seen one until just now.

 

[Pako]

Pako: Those statements are correct in all parts but one.

In reference to post 1512.

So what one part did I not summarize correctly?

 

[Famine]

"We" has no place in that paragraph.

 

[Swift]

And we are.

Everything alive on this Earth today is the same distance, in terms of evolution, from the Primordial Soup as each other. We are all adapted equally well to live in our environments. Humans are, thus far, the only known species to adapt their environment to suit them, but from an evolutionary point of view, Spandau Ballet are as advanced as a rattlesnake.

uh....you talked about the soup and evolution in the same sentence. I thought you said on numerous times that they are seperate theories studied by different people.

 

[Pako]

"We" has no place in that paragraph.

So tell me, if you would be so kind, what CAN and CAN'T happen/exist in this infinite universe of ours?


[edited]

 

[Famine]

uh....you talked about the soup and evolution in the same sentence. I thought you said on numerous times that they are seperate theories studied by different people.

Soup has many aspects. There is the aspect of a puddle of amino acids. There is also the aspect of a congregation of cell-progenitors. These cell-progenitors could convert a chemical into another one (respiration and excretion), self-replicate (reproduction) - they were, effectively, "life".

So while Soup could be thought of as just chemicals, it can also be thought of as the location of the first life on Earth. And from that life, everything else has arisen, through evolution, to where it is today (though, as stated before, evolution doesn't care where the life came from, only that it is there).

The point being that everything alive now is precisely as evolved as everything else. It has survived, to the present day in its current form. There is no more-evolved lifeform than any other.


Pako - what CAN happen is anything the laws of physics allow. What CAN'T happen is anything the laws of physics do not allow.

 

[Swift]

Soup has many aspects. There is the aspect of a puddle of amino acids. There is also the aspect of a congregation of cell-progenitors. These cell-progenitors could convert a chemical into another one (respiration and excretion), self-replicate (reproduction) - they were, effectively, "life".

So while Soup could be thought of as just chemicals, it can also be thought of as the location of the first life on Earth. And from that life, everything else has arisen, through evolution, to where it is today (though, as stated before, evolution doesn't care where the life came from, only that it is there).

OK, see this is another place where I have a problem. The scientific community can't even agree on what was in the soup to begin with. I see where you coming from, but it still leaves the same amount of questions as before.

 

[Famine]

The Soup wasn't protein then, as soon as life appeared, it stopped being Soup. Think of Soup as a phase, rather than a specific time point. Soup phase lasted from primaeval Earth through to the point complex - or rather complex by the standards of the day - bacteria could thrive outside the Soup (this is potted Evolution - everything lived in the Soup until something could thrive outside it. Outside the Soup contained more space than inside, so they could replicate in much larger numbers without reaching a state of overpopulation, becoming the dominant organism - survival outside Soup conferred a survival advantage. More replication = more variation = more evolution, and so on).

What was in the Soup to begin with? Carbon compounds, nitrogen compounds (ammonia), sulphur compounds, phosporus compounds and water. Shake it all up, bake it at 2 bar and add a little lightning...

 

[Swift]

What was in the Soup to begin with? Carbon compounds, nitrogen compounds (ammonia), sulphur compounds, phosporus compounds and water. Shake it all up, bake it at 2 bar and add a little lightning...

You think life started with a bolt of lightning?

 

[Famine]

Nope. Primaeval Earth was a very hostile place, with a charged atmosphere. Lightning happened a lot, but it's the charge, rather than the lightning itself, that is an important factor.

 

[Zardoz]

Nice blurb on the original experiment:

http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=461

The gist of it:

To test whether a primordial pond or ocean could seed the stuff of life, some experiments were needed. Miller laid out an experimental plan. He filled a flask
with methane (natural gas), hydrogen and ammonia. Another flask below provided a miniature pond of water, as the model for an early ocean. Discharging flashes of voltage to simulate lightning provided just the necessary spark for new chemistry to begin. When he left the pot to cook overnight, the odds seemed stacked against coming in the next morning to discover the simulated ocean had turned reddish-yellow. But he was surprised: given a simulated ocean, atmosphere and lightning, then a hydrogen-rich mix of methane and ammonia could be transformed to amino soup.

Stanley Miller with his Nobel Laureate supervisor, Harold Urey, demonstrated that 13 of the 21 amino acids necessary for life could be made in a glass flask. Placing water in this atmosphere, sparking a lightning discharge into simple organic molecules like ammonia surprised everyone by producing some of biology's essential building blocks. Indeed the formation of life had begun to take on a distinctly molecular character, as Charles Darwin had foreseen as his classical warm pond of organic soup: ("... some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etc..." ).

 

[Grand Prix]

You think life started with a bolt of lightning?

"ONE POINT TWENTY-ONE GIGAWATTS?!?!?!"

 

[PS]

physically, genetcially, on a cellular level? In what way do you mean? But it still doesn't matter, because neither one of them originated itself.

The point is, there is no difference. Where we draw the line at "life" depends on the person's comprehension of what it means.

 

[PS]

I've never seen that before.

But of course we all know it's the work of the Devil trying to trick us!

Dude, you need to watch the news. Those cases are well documented and not uncommon. And if it's the devil trying to trick us, why in certain Indian cultures are the people who are born with tails revered and worshipped?

 

[Pako]

Pako - what CAN happen is anything the laws of physics allow. What CAN'T happen is anything the laws of physics do not allow.

Can the laws of physics be wrong, or better yet, can our understanding of the laws of physics be wrong?

 

[Grand Prix]

Dude, you need to watch the news. Those cases are well documented and not uncommon. And if it's the devil trying to trick us, why in certain Indian cultures are the people who are born with tails revered and worshipped?

That was sarcasm.

 

[Swift]

The point is, there is no difference. Where we draw the line at "life" depends on the person's comprehension of what it means.

I thought you were talking about science. I thought the scientific definition of life was a cell. Since when does science care about one person's comprehnsion over another? that would defeat the entire scientific method.

 

[Famine]

Can the laws of physics be wrong, or better yet, can our understanding of the laws of physics be wrong?

No and yes, in that order.

Though the second part is becoming more and more unlikely as we progress towards the Grand Unified Theory.

 

[PS]

I thought you were talking about science. I thought the scientific definition of life was a cell. Since when does science care about one person's comprehnsion over another? that would defeat the entire scientific method.

Cell = Life?

K. A peice of my finger is then life. A clipping of my hair, is life. A peice of my aloe-vera plant, is life.

What makes it so difficult to see life if your definition of life is only a cell?

Sperm are only a cell. Human eggs are only a cell. Would the sperm meeting the egg mean two lives? If after 1 day past the point of conception a woman takes the "Morning After" pill, is that still abortion?


Evolution is change in response to the environment. A baby growing in a woman's womb is just a different form of evolution. A sperm and an egg evolving. Imagine a protein and an amino acid evolving.

 

[PS]

No and yes, in that order.

Though the second part is becoming more and more unlikely as we progress towards the Grand Unified Theory.

You mean a GUT instinct?

 

[Earth]

Because physical evidence deems it not only possible but probable.

Why do you dismiss the Flying Spaghetti Monster? He is an equally valid proposition for the Creator.

Why? Because there never was a book written about the flying spaghetti monster that mentioned the creation of the universe, man, and has scientific facts that back up its creation account. Find me a creation myth that has those 3.

No, it doesn't; not in any meaningful way for this discussion.

The simple proteins and amino acids that coalesced to form the proto-life were chemically attracted to each other by the laws of physics, for the same physical-chemical reasons that certain elements attract each other to form compounds and certain other elements will not combine. Given time and exposure to each other (provided by, well, billions of years, and the constant geotechnical shifting of the young Earth), these proteins will chemically bond to each other in increasingly complex ways.

So your theory rests upon geological shifts and the passing of time? Just how steady of a theory is that? There is no facts or anything to prove that happened.

There is no physical-chemical imperative between the pieces of your PC motherboard, however. You can hold them against each other for millions of years and nothing will happen between them because they are not of the right chemical makeup.

Why did the perfect building blocks of life arise on their own? Also, you believe these parts met in a ocean?

In 1953 Stanley Miller passed an electric spark through an “atmosphere” of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water vapor. This produced some amino acids that exist, but they are just building blocks of protein. Also he managed to create only 4 of the 20 necessary for life. Even today, scientists are unable to create all 20 needed under any conditions that can be considered plausible.

Miller says the conditions in the flask were that of the primitive atmosphere. Why? He and a coworker said: “The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing (no free oxygen in the atmosphere) conditions.” But evolutionist theorize that oxygen was present.

Hitching: “With oxygen in the air, the first amino acids would have never got started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays.”

The fact is no one knows what earths primitive atmosphere was like.


If the amino acids escaped lightning in a primitive atmosphere, and survived the trip through ultraviolet radiation in the atmosphere, evolution say they found their way beneath the surface of water.

But once amino acids are in the water, they must get out of it to form larger molecules and evolve toward proteins for the formation of life. The problem is, once out of the water they are back in ultraviolet radiation again!

Hitching: “In other words, the theoretical chances of getting through even this first relatively easy stage (getting amino acids) in the evolution of life is forbidding.”

Biochemist George Wald on molecules linking to each other in water: “Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, then spontaneous synthesis.”

Look, give up. Believe what you want to believe, but admit to yourself that it's founded entirely on something non-rational, and quit trying to convince us that it is rational.

I'm unratrional? Am I the one who believes in 1 : 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 odds? If you went to a casino and you saw a man bet everything he owned on those odds what would you think of him? Would you think he was rational?

 

[Earth]

You're thinking wrong. Yes they did originate because of math.


So yes, planets originate because of newton's law of gravitation. Or rather, newton's law of graviation describes the interaction between massive objects and that interaction caused the formation of planets. But we describe that process in the universal language of mathematics.

I notice you call gravity Newton's law. How is it his? Better yet, who created this law?

Why is 1+1 always 2? Why is math perfect? Why can you use simple formulas to figure out pretty much anything number related? Why does it all fit together? If the universe was one big accident, why did an accident produce order? And if you say it started in disorder but became orderly, then, why? Why were laws in place that bring order out of disorder? It didnt have to be that way. You all well know that order does not result from accidents, and things left over a period of time get worst, not better. Does a car crash produce better results? Does a car crash produce order? Does a car crash create anything?

http://www.conference-cast.com/INOVA/mens_health/images/people/car.crash.jpg



How does great order come out of an accident? Geometry, everything, where did it come from? A large explosion?

Laws need a lawmaker

If the government put 1 good law in effect for every 100,000,000, would there be order? If a doctor did one good move for every 100,000,000 would you let him operate on you? If a driver did one good move for every 100,000,000 would you drive with him?

 

[meister_dan]

Cell = Life?

Yep a single cell is equal to life.. What do you call the single-cell organisms like the Paramecium or the lowly bacteria? Are they not alive? If you try to look at a Biology book single cells formed into multicellular organisms...

 

[meister_dan]

K. A peice of my finger is then life. A clipping of my hair, is life. A peice of my aloe-vera plant, is life.

What makes it so difficult to see life if your definition of life is only a cell?

Sperm are only a cell.

Another thing. Your piece of finger isn't technically life but the cells comprising your finger and hair is since each individual cell performs functions (i.e. metabolism etc.) necessary to keep it alive..

 

[Swift]

Cell = Life?

K. A peice of my finger is then life. A clipping of my hair, is life. A peice of my aloe-vera plant, is life.

What makes it so difficult to see life if your definition of life is only a cell?

Sperm are only a cell. Human eggs are only a cell. Would the sperm meeting the egg mean two lives? If after 1 day past the point of conception a woman takes the "Morning After" pill, is that still abortion?


Evolution is change in response to the environment. A baby growing in a woman's womb is just a different form of evolution. A sperm and an egg evolving. Imagine a protein and an amino acid evolving.

Leave it to PS to take it to the opposite extreme. I should've said, "Science says there can't be life without cells" Sheesh.

 

[(G)]

Okay, lemme take a crack at this.

Why? Because there never was a book written about the flying spaghetti monster that mentioned the creation of the universe, man, and has scientific facts that back up its creation account. Find me a creation myth that has those 3.

The Bible is a series of stories to guide morals of life. It is not composed entirely of fact. Arguably, it may have little to no fact.

So your theory rests upon geological shifts and the passing of time? Just how steady of a theory is that? There is no facts or anything to prove that happened.

There ARE facts to prove that happened. You just mentioned them yourself.

.

Why did the perfect building blocks of life arise on their own? Also, you believe these parts met in a ocean?

In 1953 Stanley Miller

Hitching: “With oxygen in the air, the first amino acids would have never got started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays.”

If I recall correctly, that experiment has been proven to be flawed. And do you really think that only ozone blocks UV radiation?

I'm unratrional? Am I the one who believes in 1 : 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000 odds?

It's a big universe - even with a figure you just made up, there's likelyness for it to happen.

I notice you call gravity Newton's law. How is it his? Better yet, who created this law?

It's called Newton's law because he devised the mathematical formulas to determine such forces. Thusly, they are collectivly named for him.

Laws need a lawmaker

If the government put 1 good law in effect for every 100,000,000, would there be order? If a doctor did one good move for every 100,000,000 would you let him operate on you? If a driver did one good move for every 100,000,000 would you drive with him?

The universe is on a slide to entropy, yes, but certain conditions allow for order as long as there is sufficient disorder to keep the progression going. The sun's life itself is more than enough to account for the Earth's order.

 

[Pako]

No and yes, in that order.

Though the second part is becoming more and more unlikely as we progress towards the Grand Unified Theory.

I'm glad to see that you are open to the fact that our understanding is a limited truth. As we gain knowledge, we are limited to only that knowledge of which we know.

What I'm curious about, however, is how is it that you are so confident that the laws of physics can't be wrong when our understanding of the laws of physics can be wrong. If your understanding of physics can be wrong, how can you be sure that the laws of physics can't also be wrong? To answer that for you, you can't be sure.