Non-life to life

[LuisDantas]

Anyone may correct me if I am wrong, but I think today no one knows how we passed from inert to alive. Evolution doesnt explain this(and by that I am not refuting the evidence for evolution mind you)

We do not know, true. But the amount of evidence pointing towards abiogenesis seems quite convincing to me.

Among the remarkable similarities between simple robots and real insects, the experiments involving coacervates and the mathematics of reproduction of the simplest microorganisms, I will be very surprised if abiogenesis turns out not to have happened.

That said, I don't see why abiogenesis should be taken as an attack or refutation to religious beliefs either, much as I don't understand why some see the Theory of Evolution as being adversarial to religious belief either. The development of life is a miracle of sorts, regardless of how well science can eventually explain it or fail to. It is certainly not evidence against the existence of a God.

 

[Me Myself]

We do not know, true. But the amount of evidence pointing towards abiogenesis seems quite convincing to me.

Among the remarkable similarities between simple robots and real insects, the experiments involving coacervates and the mathematics of reproduction of the simplest microorganisms, I will be very surprised if abiogenesis turns out not to have happened.

That said, I don't see why abiogenesis should be taken as an attack or refutation to religious beliefs either, much as I don't understand why some see the Theory of Evolution as being adversarial to religious belief either. The development of life is a miracle of sorts, regardless of how well science can eventually explain it or fail to. It is certainly not evidence against the existence of a God.

I wouldnt think it would invalidate religion or creation from a god either. After all the bible does say we come from mud given life (to give an example).

 

[Ouroboros]

So, as the theory of evolution is the study of life began and you don't know how life began in the first place, ie, the very first bit of evolution, is it fair to say it has no foundation? Just wondering.

Does study in English require a study in linguistics and history of languages and all languages that ever existed?

Does study in math require someone to know when, where, and how the digit 0 (zero) came about? It might be interesting to know, but it's not required to understand algebra.

Do you have to know quantum mechanics to become an electrical engineer?

Evolution means "change". The change over time in DNA does not require an understanding in the biochemical roots of its origin. It's interesting, but doesn't explain or take away how DNA works today, as opposed to millions of years ago.

Evolution can be, and is, studied right now, this moment, and can be observed. Many examples exist of documented mutations in our time.

 

[Youtellme]

Does study in English require a study in linguistics and history of languages and all languages that ever existed?

Does study in math require someone to know when, where, and how the digit 0 (zero) came about? It might be interesting to know, but it's not required to understand algebra.

Do you have to know quantum mechanics to become an electrical engineer?

Evolution means "change". The change over time in DNA does not require an understanding in the biochemical roots of its origin. It's interesting, but doesn't explain or take away how DNA works today, as opposed to millions of years ago.

Evolution can be, and is, studied right now, this moment, and can be observed. Many examples exist of documented mutations in our time.

That's a fair point. I didn't consider that. I won't be using that argument again! (That's not sarcasm by the way.)

 

[Sunstone]

Anyone may correct me if I am wrong, but I think today no one knows how we passed from inert to alive.

Well, if you listen to my ex-wife, she passed from inert to alive by divorcing me.

 

[Ouroboros]

That's a fair point. I didn't consider that. I won't be using that argument again! (That's not sarcasm by the way.)

You're welcome. Thanks for understanding and for expressing it. It shows dignity and honesty. :bow:

Just to add one thing, in the and, abiogenesis most likely will fall under the science of Evolution anyway, just because so many demands the answer. It's like astronomy need a big bang to explain the beginning, even if it didn't have to have it to explain how stars are formed or supernovas go *boom*.

Another example would be cooking food. A chef doesn't need to know the name of the cow from where the meat came to make a good meal. Neither does he have to know farming to use carrots. French style cooking isn't dependent on how to make butter from milk.

And so on. There are innumerable examples like that. Just like you can use internet and posting on a forum without knowing who invented what technology and when. How about TCP/IP? Do you know it? Or Ethernet protocol? Can you crimp a TP? Don't have to, right? And that's how it works. We don't have to know everything to be able to explain somethings.

Ok. Now I'm done.

 

[Alceste]

The difference between abiogenesis and the resurrection of Christ is that at this very moment, hundreds - possibly thousands - of scientists are busily recreating the early conditions on earth in order to observe the emergence of the building blocks of life, with the hope of proving or falsifying various hypotheses. Nobody is researching whether or not Christ rose from the dead. There isn't any way to research a phenomenon that is supposed to have happened only once in the entire history of the earth and is never expected to happen again. That claim is unfalsifiable.

On the other hand, there is no more reason to believe it than there is to believe one hippo in all of history sprouted wings and flew to the top of mount Everest. You can't prove that false either.

 

[jtartar]

I was thinking about the expression "Non-life" and in particular with regards to Abiogenesis. I'm not 100% sure on this, but I believe this is expression is used when people talk about how the first life arose; it went from "non-life" to "life".

However, I thought perhaps another way of describing "non-life" is "dead". If something is not alive, it is dead. Obviously. And yet, at some point it went from being dead to alive.

So, I was wondering why it is that some regard the resurrection of Jesus to be unscientific, as nothing can come to life if it is dead, and yet that is sort of what is supposed to be what happened at the start...just a thought.

Youtellme,
For several years science tried every trick in the book, both invivo, and invitro, to create life out of any substance. They finally gave up, realizing that abiogenesis was impossible.
I believe that there is absolutely no evidence that any evolution has ever taken place on earth, either plant or animal. The Bible mentions that the Law of Prestabilism was in effect since God created the first living thing. Notice in the first chapter of Genesis 1:21,24,25, where animals would reproduce AFTER THEIR OWN KIND!!! This law cannot be broken!!
To my mind the Theory of Evolution is Blasphemy against the Almighty Creator, who is the source of all life, Ps 36:9.
Consider what the Bible says about creation, and the warning that goes with it, Rom 1:18-25.

 

[Koldo]

They finally gave up, realizing that abiogenesis was impossible.

Says who?

 

[Me Myself]

Well, if you listen to my ex-wife, she passed from inert to alive by divorcing me.

She must have been envious of your sense of humor!

 

[Ouroboros]

Youtellme,
For several years science tried every trick in the book, both invivo, and invitro, to create life out of any substance. They finally gave up, realizing that abiogenesis was impossible.

Huh?

No one has given up, and the research has actually been quite successful. Funny. Maybe we're not reading the same science papers?

I believe that there is absolutely no evidence that any evolution has ever taken place on earth, either plant or animal.

You believe? How about going to a college and take some classes about it and learn about all the evidence that actually do exist. Then you would know it's true, based on facts, just like someone like me.

The Bible mentions that the Law of Prestabilism was in effect since God created the first living thing. Notice in the first chapter of Genesis 1:21,24,25, where animals would reproduce AFTER THEIR OWN KIND!!! This law cannot be broken!!

Uhm... :areyoucra

Take a class, will ya'? Or pick up a book and learn something. This is ridiculous.

To my mind the Theory of Evolution is Blasphemy against the Almighty Creator, who is the source of all life, Ps 36:9.
Consider what the Bible says about creation, and the warning that goes with it, Rom 1:18-25.

Yet another fundamentalist going in my ignore bucket.