The first creature could not have come into being by random chance. It is impossible.

[SavedByTheLord]

Well not really. These are silly questions, or rather, questions that are not silly in themselves but are being used in a silly way. As such they don't deserve an answer.

It is not exactly news that there are numerous unanswered questions about how abiogenesis took place. If we knew all the answers, there would be nothing left to study. So compiling a random list of such questions is not exactly taxing. Science has no theory of abiogenesis at present, though it has a number of possible building blocks and more are added every year.

The questioner is committing the standard creationist fallacy of suggesting our current lack of answers to all the outstanding questions is somehow evidence of supernatural intervention in nature. It isn't, any more than our lack of answers to other outstanding questions in science. History has amply shown the power of science to obtain answers to previously imponderable questions about nature, given time. Abiogenesis is an especially difficult field to study, due to the lack of direct evidence of events that took place over 3.5bn years ago. We have to construct hypotheses from the limited information we have about the chemistry and geophysics of the early earth. So expecting instant answers, or a fully worked out theory, is naïve at best, or disingenuous at worst.

This creationist fallacy may be useful rhetorically, when preaching to the ignorant, to reinforce a set of primitive religious beliefs. It is a lot less useful when arguing with educated people.

So you believe in the evolution religion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you believe in the evolution religion.

I always love how religious creationists try to drag evolution down by calling it a "religion". As if the label "religion" suddenly makes it less likely to be true. As if an idea being religious is, in and of itself, an argument against it.

It is absolutely hilariously ironic.



Off course, regardless of that shoot-my-own-foot sillyness, evolution is not a religion. It's a scientific theory like any other. The main difference with many other theories, is that evolution is better supported then most.

 

[exchemist]

I always love how religious creationists try to drag evolution down by calling it a "religion". As if the label "religion" suddenly makes it less likely to be true. As if an idea being religious is, in and of itself, an argument against it.

It is absolutely hilariously ironic.



Off course, regardless of that shoot-my-own-foot sillyness, evolution is not a religion. It's a scientific theory like any other. The main difference with many other theories, is that evolution is better supported then most.

I think, rather, it is a rhetorical tactic of asserting a false equivalence between religion and science: your "beliefs" are no better than my beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

..and you keep avoiding answering them

Well I just answered them for him. Will he understand the answer? Probably not.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Abiogenesis is an especially difficult field to study, due to the lack of direct evidence of events that took place over 3.5bn years ago..

Indeed .. that is the whole point, I would say.
i.e. an argument against "evolution" being responsible for our existence

We have to construct hypotheses from the limited information we have about the chemistry and geophysics of the early earth. So expecting instant answers, or a fully worked out theory, is naïve at best, or disingenuous at worst.

Oh well .. not everybody has a scientific background

 

[muhammad_isa]

No, evolution is not a religion. It is a fact. You should try to learn what a religion is..

Mmm .. I would say that you were both wrong.

"evolution" is not a fact, depending on what "evolution" means
It means different things to different people.

A common belief, is that evolution means that we are monkeys

 

[muhammad_isa]

Where did it get its supply of amino acids?

Optimum Nutrition Gold powder online?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Indeed .. that is the whole point, I would say.
i.e. an argument against "evolution" being responsible for our existence

No. It matters not to evolution how life originated on earth.
Sheesh man, how many times must this be explained here?

Oh well .. not everybody has a scientific background

And certain folks go out of their way to make sure they don't acquire one.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Mmm .. I would say that you were both wrong.

"evolution" is not a fact, depending on what "evolution" means
It means different things to different people.

We are talking about science. In scientific context, evolution means only one thing in biology.

There are the facts of evolution: species change over generations, species share ancestry (yes, common ancestry of species is a genetic fact)

Then there is the explanation of the facts. The process by which it happens. The mechanism underpinning these facts. And that is the theory of evolution (in a nutshell: mutation followed by selection).

So even if one would succesfully disprove the theory... then the mechanism / the process is the thing that is shown incorrect. We'ld need a new working theory. And that new theory would STILL have to account for all the facts. Facts like the genetic fact of common ancestry of species.


It's like gravity. There are the facts of gravity (mass attracts mass, and the amount of pull is directly related to the amount of mass) and then there is the theory, the mechanism / explanation of the facts. How does it work; why does mass attract other mass. The answer so far is in relativity.
If it is disproven tomorrow, then mass still attracts mass in accordance with how big the masses are.

Things still fall to earth instead of randomly shooting into space.
The force of gravity on this planet will still exert a pull causing an acceleration of 9.81 meters per second per second in a vacuum.
None of this would change if gravitation theory were disproven.

Same goes for evolution theory. Disproving the theory, won't make the facts go away. The genetic fact of species sharing ancestry would still require an explanation.

A common belief, is that evolution means that we are monkeys

No, apes / primates. Monkey is a type of primate. So is a human.
And that's not a belief.... that's again a biological fact. We are apes/primates. Just like we are mammals. And tetrapods. And vertebrates. And eukaryotes.

I alway say it like this:
It is impossible to come up with a definition for "primate" that includes ALL primates, but which excludes humans. Unless we explicitely add arbitrary criteria which would be the equivalent of saying simply "....but not humans"

The same goes for mammals. Try and define what a mammal is in such a way that it includes ALL mammals, but excludes humans, without arbitrarily adding to the definition "...except humans".

You can't do it. Because humans ARE mammals and primates and vertebrates and etc.


And just to pile on, since I am on the subject, in the same way it is impossible to come up with a definition for "dinosaur" which includes ALL dino's yet excludes birds, without explicitly adding "...but not birds".

So here's a question:

Do you accept that humans are mammals? If not, why not?
If yes, why not also accept humans are apes by the same reasoning?

(I assume you don't accept humans are apes / primates, since your quote appeared to imply that - if you do accept humans as apes, then my question is not relevant and I misunderstood you)

 

[exchemist]

Indeed .. that is the whole point, I would say.
i.e. an argument against "evolution" being responsible for our existence


Oh well .. not everybody has a scientific background

I have just explained why it is NOT an argument against natural processes being responsible for life on earth.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I have just explained why it is NOT an argument against evolution being responsible for life on earth.

Where did all the orderly laws of nature come from?

What was the first living creature?
How did it handle osmosis and diffusion?
This is more than just water. There are many other ions whose flow and concentration must be tightly controlled.
What was controlling the gating of these functions and what transport was used?
How did it replenish its chemical energy stores?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Mmm .. I would say that you were both wrong.

"evolution" is not a fact, depending on what "evolution" means
It means different things to different people.

A common belief, is that evolution means that we are monkeys

Why do you think that it is not a fact? Many people do not understand that scientific theories explain facts. The theory of gravity explains the fact of gravity. Oddly, very few people will deny that gravity exists, yet many deny evolution even though there is ore scientific evidence for evolution than there is for gravity.

And cladistics tells us that we are monkeys. The theory of evolution explains that fact to us.

 

[exchemist]

Indeed .. that is the whole point, I would say.
i.e. an argument against "evolution" being responsible for our existence


Oh well .. not everybody has a scientific background

In fact this is not about evolution at all. Abiogenesis is not evolution and there is no theory yet of abiogenesis anyway.

It is about the general principle that the behaviour of nature can be discovered by the scientific method, i.e. without invoking supernatural intervention in nature - in other words, without miracles. You can say this is just a belief, but it is one based on solid evidence: history shows it to be true.

There is no reason why the mechanisms of abiogenesis should, uniquely in all the natural world, not be amenable to being uncovered by science. It is just difficult, for the reasons I have explained.

 

[The Hammer]

Me.

I worship Odin, Thor, Freyja, Frigga, Heimdall, Loki, and Bragi.

@SavedByTheLord you don't like the fact that I worship them? You keep not responding to me.

Is subduction giving you a run for your money?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

@SavedByTheLord you don't like the fact that I worship them? You keep not responding to me.

Is subduction giving you a run for your money?

Not really

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not really

Then why did you run away from our logic discussion? Actions speak louder than words.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Then why did you run away from our logic discussion? Actions speak louder than words.

I am here but you have no logic or facts

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am here but you have no logic or facts

No one believes you. And when you abandon a topic you are running away.

 

[The Hammer]

I am here but you have no logic or facts

That you "believe".

Belief is powerfully deceptive, even amongst the religious.

 

[The Hammer]

Not really

You don't really mind that I worship the Æsir? Awesome.

Did you know that by worshipping YHWH, your actually worshipping ODIN? They are both considered the creators of everything