• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What Proof Does Evolution Offer For Natural Beginning Of Life

**MOD POST**
Everyone: The topic is "Proof for Natural Beginnings of Life". Please make sure all your posts are related to that topic. Thanks. :)
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
how is this?

The modern era of abiogenesis research can be considered to start from Charles Darwin's speculations about life emerging ?in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present.? He also speculated that no environments for abiogenesis would exist on the present-day Earth, because such environments would be quickly consumed by various organisms.
But there was no further progress since the 1920's, when Aleksandr Ivanovich Oparin and John Burdon Sanderson Haldane independently worked out scenarios of "chemical evolution". They concluded from various chemical grounds that the Earth had originally had hydrogen, ammonia, carbon dioxide, methane, and other simple compounds in its atmosphere -- but no oxygen molecules. And larger and larger molecules formed by various chemical processes until some of them succeeded in making copies of themselves, forming the first living things.
Much of the Oparin-Haldane scenario was little better than hand-waving, but the first concrete support was provided by the famous Urey-Miller experiments, conducted in 1953 by Stanley Miller and Harold Clayton Urey in 1953. These involved a simulated early Earth atmosphere and ocean, complete with simulated lightning: an electric spark. After about a week, the simulated ocean accumulated some brown tar -- and a variety of dissolved organic molecules, including several biological amino acids.
Urey-Miller experiments have been repeated with a variety of energy sources and other conditions, and as long as the source mixture is chemically reducing, organic molecules readily form. Contrary to creationists' claims, Urey-Miller experiments are not rigged to produce the "right" results; no rigging seems to be necessary.
But the Earth's early atmosphere is nowadays thought to be neutral, consisting mostly of nitrogen and carbon dioxide, instead of hydrogen, ammonia, and methane (reducing), as had been suggested from cosmochemical grounds. Urey-Miller experiments performed with a neutral mixture are much less successful than those with a reducing mixture; however, the early Earth could easily have had reducing microenvironments, like hot springs and hydrothermal vents.
borrowed from http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Abiogenesis

wa:do
 

HelpMe

·´sociopathic meanderer`·
well if it pleases you, then you can ask no more:

right?
We can observe the chemicals were not produced by chance combination. The whole experiment was carefully supervised by the scientists. The chemicals were measured and added at the correct time and the electric spark was administered at the right moment. Therefore, it does not prove precursors of amino acids can be created by random combination of chemicals. It only indicates they may be able to be created in a controlled laboratory experiment carefully supervised by intelligent beings.
The chemicals didn't mix themselves. The scientists mixed them. Proving scientists can manufacture the precursors to amino acids from chemicals they have in their laboratory does not prove that life can come from matter simply by random chance...
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Much as I trust the Hare Krisnas when it comes to science... :rolleyes:
apparently you missed this part: Contrary to creationists' claims, Urey-Miller experiments are not rigged to produce the "right" results; no rigging seems to be necessary.

you also havent mentioned anything about the natural formation of Amino Acids in deep space. Amino Acids are MOORE pleniful on things like asteroids and meterites.
here is some more information on the formation of Amino Acids in deep space
http://www.neiu.edu/~chemdept/organic/organicspace.htm
http://astrochem.org/aanature.html

but if you really want Krishna to have made the univerce from an egg go for it.

wa:do
 

HelpMe

·´sociopathic meanderer`·
that quote had nothing to do with the scientific evidence presented.it was a simple few sentences using common sense refuting the idea that urey-miller proved anything.you are, of course free to disagree.and i, of course, am free to agree with a person/group's statement without agreeing with everything they've ever said.

if you don't mind i'll need more than "this may explain...".

painted wolf said:
...Urey-Miller experiments are not rigged to produce the "right" results; no rigging seems to be necessary...
an experiment carried out in a laboratory is just that whether you like it or not.when the experiments did not produce the 'right' results, they were altered to fit the needs for the desired outcome.

if you think we came from protiens or amino acids, i would like your empirical evidence.nebraska, neanderthal, african, or other.present.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
HelpMe we are made up of Protiens and Amino acids... there is no refuting that fact. Unless you find cause to disagree with modern medicine. DNA and RNA are built from Amino Acid as are all protiens.

http://ntri.tamuk.edu/cell/chapter3/amino-acids.html
http://www.cryst.bbk.ac.uk/education/AminoAcid/overview.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid

the fact that Amino Acids can form naturally from non-biological sources is proof that abiogenisis is possible. Unless you have an alternate theory for Amino Acid formation in deep space?

wa:do
http://www.chemie.fu-berlin.de/chemistry/bio/amino-acids_en.html
http://www.cryst.bbk.ac.uk/education/AminoAcid/overview.html
 

HelpMe

·´sociopathic meanderer`·
i never said that wasn't what we were made of.

i did however ask for your linking of said components to our present state.

have you seen Amino Acids form naturally from non-biological sources or is this just what seems to of happened?
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
are you suggesting that there is a biological source in deep space producing Amino acids on meteroites and nebule?

how more closely can I link amino acids and our current state? We are an assemblage of Amino acids.

wa:do
 

HelpMe

·´sociopathic meanderer`·
the only logical thing left to assume is that we must therefor of come from amino acids right?..

i would say valid links are necessary(articulation of the formation of acids to humans).we're also made of the same stuff the earth is made of, so what?this doesn't prove the bible's account to be right anymore than our similarity to amino acids.which, btw is off topic.excuse me.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
we are not SIMILER to amino acids... we are MADE OF amino acids.

it is difficult to discuss the process from amino acids to protiens to DNA to cells and on if you don't seem to understand the first step.

If those links didn't help you understand what Amino acids do for us and thus are 'invalid' I'm not shure I know what to do to help you understand.

perhaps a definition of Protien will help:
A protein is a complex, high molecular weight organic compound that consists of amino acids joined by peptide bonds. Proteins are essential to the structure and function of all living cells and viruses. Many proteins are enzymes or subunits of enzymes. Other proteins play structural or mechanical roles, such as those that form the struts and joints of the cytoskeleton. Still more functions filled by proteins include immune response and the storage and transport of various ligands. In nutrition, proteins serve as the source of amino acids for organisms that do not synthesize those amino acids natively.
wa:do
 

HelpMe

·´sociopathic meanderer`·
i knew i should i rephrased that.i already understan(oo)d that, but thanks for reelaborating.

again, i would like the relation between what we are made of becoming what we are now.

such as a protien becoming a plant or animal through whatever steps you have observed.
 

HelpMe

·´sociopathic meanderer`·
sry, i'm not interested in discussing 'most likely'.simply beacuse it will 'most likely' be something else sooner or later.

would you say the fruit fly is your strongest case to prove evolution?


*off-topic*what did the native americans call themselves?i forget.
 
painted wolf-- You're wasting your time here. HelpMe knows what he believes, and no amount of evidence will convince him that abiogenesis is possible, save the actual creation of life in a test tube. Sad really....abiogenesis in no way contradicts the existence or participation of supernatural entities. (HelpMe--did you know that painted wolf believes in god?)
 

HelpMe

·´sociopathic meanderer`·
yes i did.that is not the issue.

how many protiens have become plants or animals through any string of events in recorded history?laboritorical(sp,lol[in a laboratory]) or otherwise.
 

Druidus

Keeper of the Grove
how many protiens have become plants or animals through any string of events in recorded history?laboritorical(sp,lol[in a laboratory]) or otherwise.
How many times, in recorded history (Through sources from whom we can verify the data), have we seen God/s create life? ;)
 
HelpMe said:
how many protiens have become plants or animals through any string of events in recorded history?laboritorical(sp,lol[in a laboratory]) or otherwise.
Thank you for proving my point.
 

HelpMe

·´sociopathic meanderer`·
no problem spinkes, i was meaning to agree with your assessment of me.

and druidus, are you giving in that both are equally valid theories now?
 
Top