What Proof Does Evolution Offer For Natural Beginning Of Life

[HelpMe]

when did evolution begin?

1.should we forget the mod's friends?
2.lol

is evolution the most overhyped partial(no beginning) theory ever?

 

[Yerda]

although I could provide a pile of arguement to you I will instead just ask you 1 question;

when did evolution begin?

I can't say for certain that I know the answer. I do know that RNAs can replicate themselves, and are under selective pressure when doing so; those replicating faster are selected for. I'm not sure if you can label this evolution. All I can suggest is replicators are suspect to selective pressure. Sorry no chronology then.

Anyone have anything to add to this.

I've a question, did god (call it what you want) create all life?

 

[HelpMe]

has anyone denied micro evolution?

god did not create god's self, so no.

 

[LISA63]

I can't say for certain that I know the answer. I do know that RNAs can replicate themselves, and are under selective pressure when doing so; those replicating faster are selected for. I'm not sure if you can label this evolution. All I can suggest is replicators are suspect to selective pressure. Sorry no chronology then.

Anyone have anything to add to this.

I've a question, did god (call it what you want) create all life?

RNA's are a compund of chemicals and are not considered true life and yes evolution must provide consideration of chemical beginnings as the evolutionary theory depends on life being all natural.
I am in search of some real science backed proofs dealing with this subject and so far I see nothing of value in answer to this thread, what is the sense of writing here if these types of answers are all to be expected?
I am studying to be a biologist and after 3 years of study and tons of questions along the same vein as this thread and the one thing I have as a first question is;

how did evolution become a theory?
Science is based on observation of the physical world and the hypothesizing of reasons for the why and how things are the way they are, so if a hypothesis should be based on observable evidence then how do we get evolution as a theory? science has observed and proven that life only comes from life so what observable evidence does evolution bring to the table to override observable reality?
all I have seen in my studies is a lot of unproven theories and I am not sure that the science I learned about is the same unbiased tool that I learned it was supposed to be now that i am dealing with advanced subjects.
Is evolution a religious faith based on faith or what?
I have seen some of the most high tech labs in the eastern U.S. and it amazes me that they still can't create life from chemicals as is supposed by many of science theorists, why? we can setup and control all of the chemicals and variables so what is the problem?

 

[LISA63]

although I could provide a pile of arguement to you I will instead just ask you 1 question;

when did evolution begin?

Hey "63" nice number, corvette?

very good question hope an answer of some worth comes from it, this touches on some of the questions I have as well.
this is my first time coming into an online forum, but I was hoping for intelligent talk about these subjects that I can use to fill in some blanks but, it seems that the answers are posted by children seeking to mock rather than provide substance. is this how these forums operate? I don't want to waste my time here if this is the norm. do you know of any forums where this type of topic is debated in a manner more respective of substance.

 

[robtex]

Oh cool Lisa63 is a biologist. Hey do you know much about Dr. Sidney Fox's experiments on amino acids and microspheres? Am I correct in understanding that is the current scientific theory of the orgin of life? That the amino acids become microspheres and than life? I am afraid I am very ignorant about it but know of Dr Fox.

 

[LISA63]

Oh cool Lisa63 is a biologist. Hey do you know much about Dr. Sidney Fox's experiments on amino acids and microspheres? Am I correct in understanding that is the current scientific theory of the orgin of life? That the amino acids become microspheres and than life? I am afraid I am very ignorant about it but know of Dr Fox.

hmmm we did have an inclass discussion on the fox experiments and even though he is pushing his own theories the bottom line according to the professor is that his work was peer reviewed and found to not measure up, I believe it was written in one of the leading science mags. at this point I don't know enough about his work to give my own logic for or against him but I would suppose if his own peers shot him down then there must be good reason for it.

 

[HelpMe]

welcome to the forums lisa.

 

[Yerda]

RNA's are a compund of chemicals and are not considered true life and yes evolution must provide consideration of chemical beginnings as the evolutionary theory depends on life being all natural.
I am in search of some real science backed proofs dealing with this subject and so far I see nothing of value in answer to this thread, what is the sense of writing here if these types of answers are all to be expected?

Hello and welcome. Thanks for your feedback, I'm sorry your so disappointed with the content here.

The RNAs I was referring to are discussed in The Basics of Selection by Graham Bell I believe. I've not been in the habit of referencing here because it's all a bit more lighthearted than you might have expected. As for your search for answers maybe correspondance with experts will prove more fruitful than a religious forum.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Science is based on observation of the physical world and the hypothesizing of reasons for the why and how things are the way they are, so if a hypothesis should be based on observable evidence then how do we get evolution as a theory? science has observed and proven that life only comes from life so what observable evidence does evolution bring to the table to override observable reality?

Pedantry should be built on stronger stuff. (1) Science has not proven that "life only comes from life". (2) The issue of abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. (3) Neither the change in allele frequency over time nor descent with modification "override observable reality". All in all, not even marginally competent apologetics ...

 

[Ceridwen018]

The theory of evolution depends on natural beginnings without the hand of an intelligent designer, science denies the existence of I.D. so our beginnings must depend on evolutionary happenings for life to have evolved from basic chemicals to our current state so unless you can show me a reasonable arguement for what is wrong with the question then I will proceed.

Wrong. It is perfectly feasible to believe in god and evolution at the same time. You are confusing evolution and abiogenesis--an elementary mistake.

when did evolution begin?

Religious people would say that evolution began when god created the world. Scientifically speaking, evolution has always been in session, as long as there are living things present.

RNA's are a compund of chemicals and are not considered true life and yes evolution must provide consideration of chemical beginnings as the evolutionary theory depends on life being all natural.

As a biologist, you too should know the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. What college are you attending?

I am in search of some real science backed proofs dealing with this subject and so far I see nothing of value in answer to this thread, what is the sense of writing here if these types of answers are all to be expected?

Even though you don't seem to know it, what you really want evidence for is abiogenesis, so here goes:

From, www.talkorigins.com

Modern origins of life research

Oparin's book The Origin of Life in 1924, in which he proposed a chemical theory of the origin of life, was not published in English until 1936. Prior to that, it had been relatively uninfluential except in his native Soviet Union. Oparin (1894-1980) was personally well regarded in the Soviet Union, and was elected early to the Academy of Sciences. He was also unfortunately involved in the Lysenkoist debacle in Soviet genetics, and declared overtly that his views were compatible with the "dialectical materialism" of Soviet Leninism. However, despite this, it appears that the more important influence was the impact of colloid chemistry, then making great strides. {Farley 162-165}

Oparin's hypothesis was this: gels arose out of colloidal solutions which reacted in a way to cause more gels to be formed of the same chemical constitution. As the material in the surrounding watery medium diminished,"the more strongly and bitterly the struggle for existence was waged", so that gels either became "cannabilistic" or evolved to become autotrophs (organisms that metabolise non-living material, such as algae). {Farley 163}

He reasoned that if the early atmosphere lacked free oxygen, which is a product of plant respiration, simple organic compounds formed by vulcanism or lightning, containing the chemical elements that make up life - Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Nitrogen - would not be destroyed, but would accumulate, forming a broth of organic molecules. {Schopf 121}

Before Oparin's work became known, the English biochemist J. B. S. Haldane, who had since 1923 been working on enzymes, wrote his paper in 1929, published in The Rationalist Annual, on the origin of life, in which he stated that, as a result of biochemistry, "since his [Pasteur's] death the gap between life and matter has been greatly narrowed", and, influenced by d'Hérelle, thought that the bacteriophage was a "step beyond the enzyme on the road to life, but it is perhaps an exaggeration to call it fully alive". The precursors of life were like viruses, due to anaerobic fermentation for millions of years. {Farley 163-164}

Despite many arguments, largely theoretical but with some experimental work, spontaneous generation remained a viable option for the origins of life - for abiogenesis - but it was a very confused field. What caused it to change and become focused was the publication on 23 April 1953 of Crick and Watson's Nature paper on the structure of DNA. Three weeks later, a graduate student at the University of Chicago named Stanley Miller published a paper in Science, on 15 May, entitled "A production of amino acids under possible primitive earth conditions".

Miller was a doctoral student of Nobel laureate Harold C. Urey (a chemist who discovered deuterium), after he heard a lecture by Urey in which he noted in passing that earth's primordial hydrogen-rich (reducing) atmosphere would have been favourable for the formation of simple organic molecules. {Schopf 123} He decided, with Urey's permission, to test this, assuming an atmosphere of molecular hydrogen (H2), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and water vapour (H2O). Neither Urey nor Miller knew at this point that this was in line with Oparin's hypothesis, but as he prepared for the experiments, Miller read Oparin and mulled it over, along with Urey's hypotheses on the formation of the solar system. {Schopf 125}

He passed the atmosphere through a glass retort, continuously cycling it for several days, while exposing it to heat, electrical arcing, and cooling. After two days, the "ocean" (a flask of water through which the gases were passed) became pale yellow, and on analysis this turned out to be glycine, the simplest amino acid. They repeated the experiment for a week, and in the final yellow-brown solution, Miller detected seven amino acids, including three (glycine, anine and aspartic acid) found in modern living systems. In a period of three and a half months, Miller had confirmed Urey's and Oparin's hypotheses on the formation of the precursor molecules of life.

The claim was never that life had been made, but only that the necessary molecules for life could form spontaneously. Since Wöhler synthesised urea in 1828, this was becoming an inevitable conclusion - the molecular nature of life was more and more widely accepted and applied. Now there was no need to think that organic molecules had to come from organic systems. Later experiments use a more realistic atmosphere, replacing methane with carbon monoxide or dioxide (CO or CO2), or ammonia with molecular nitrogen (N2), with similar results.

An alternative to the Oparin-Miller model was proposed by Günter Wächtershäuser, who suggested that carbon oxides released from deep sea vents could stabilise on iron-sulphates, reacting with molecular hydrogen to form organic monomers (simple molecular units) from which life could form. Others have included the roles of clay substrates as catalytic templates for molecules to form on before there were genes, the formation of organic molecules in space (now well-established) seeding the early earth, and a formal model by Manfred von Eigen of how chemical reactions might generate copies of themselves - the hypercycle.

Sidney Fox successfully synthesised coascervate "cells" (a coascervate is a mixture of colloids that can, like lipids in modern cells, form a layer that will enclose molecules, but which can allow monomers to pass across it). These will, under some conditions, divide as they "grow" to form new cells.

Is evolution a religious faith based on faith or what?
I have seen some of the most high tech labs in the eastern U.S. and it amazes me that they still can't create life from chemicals as is supposed by many of science theorists, why? we can setup and control all of the chemicals and variables so what is the problem?

In what I quoted above, I hope you can see that scientists are making great headway in creating 'life', or at least evolving the primordial life they've already created. As a biologist, I certainly don't need to tell you what the 'problem' is here. Then again, perhaps I do.

1. We've just finished mapping the human geno. We can't possibly create life if we don't fully understand how it works, or what it's made of.
2. Evolution takes millions of years to be observed in most cases, and billions to reach modern levels. You aren't actually expecting scientists to be able to create a human baby, are you?
3. Life is complex, and there are nearly infinitely many different combinations of amino acids, etc., that are possible. Needless to say, it's going to take awhile.

Also, evolution is independent from all religion. In fact, that is why so many religious people have a problem with it. For you to suggest that it is the product of religious faith is laughable at best, frightening at worst--especially considering that you believe in the creationism 'theory' which cannot stand without divine support.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... I don't want to waste my time here if this is the norm. do you know of any forums where this type of topic is debated in a manner more respective of substance.

What a sweetly condescending way of saying that no one on here is capable of discussing the matter at hand on your level. Certainly the third year of collegiate biology is a very impressive item on your resume, but I don't think it puts you at the top of the list, even on this forum.
I'd like to ask what institution of higher learning you are in attendance at, but my guess is that the answer will be "Stanford" or "MIT". Whichever it is, I'd say that you might choose to begin attending class (unless, of course, you are enrolled at Liberty University or one of its contemporaries). The three points made by Deut in the post above, are pretty good signs that something is amiss. In the thread entitled "Evidence FOR the Creation Theory" you made the comment that "bipedalism is not also not preferred over quadrapeds..." which is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. I was dissapointed that Deut beat me to the punch on that gemstone of a thought.
I'm hoping that we don't dissapoint you too much, but if we do... C'est La Vie.

TVOR

 

[painted wolf]

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

from the top link:
"Among the 70 or more amino acids found in the Murchison meteorite, three have been formed in experiments which simulate deep space conditions. These three are alanine, glycine, and serine."

It is intresting that there are more amino acids avalable in deep space than there are here on Earth. There are just 20 major amino acids that make up our advanced mammal protiens. Imagine what we could have done with all 70.

wa:do

 

[HelpMe]

Religious people would say that evolution began when god created the world. Scientifically speaking, evolution has always been in session, as long as there are living things present...

Evolution takes millions of years to be observed in most cases, and billions to reach modern levels.

suffice to say:"when did this tv show start?"...."At the beginning of this episode"

1-when did life(evolution) start.

2-why only a handful of generations for fruit flys?do you have the same solid evidence of an ancestor of ours not having opposable thumbs that you require from creationists?

 

[Ceridwen018]

suffice to say:"when did this tv show start?"...."At the beginning of this episode"

If you think a television show is a respectable parallel to evolution, I think we've just found the key to your misunderstanding.

1-when did life(evolution) start.

After the Big Bang.

2-why only a handful of generations for fruit flys?do you have the same solid evidence of an ancestor of ours not having opposable thumbs that you require from creationists?

I was talking about macroevolution, which takes millions of years to observe. I never would have guessed that you would debate microevolution, which is a particularly solid theory.

 

[HelpMe]

when was the big bang?and if you finally give an answer, why didn't you just do so in the first place?

i wasn't opposing micro evolution, why is the difference so severe?why has the human populace grown 3x(?+/-) in size over the last century?

 

[meogi]

why has the human populace grown 3x(?+/-) in size over the last century?

Technology. What do you think?

 

[Ceridwen018]

when was the big bang?and if you finally give an answer, why didn't you just do so in the first place?

HelpMe, you could do some outside reasearch, you know. Admitting that you are completely illiterate on the subject of evolution and abiogenesis does not do anything to strengthen your argument against it.

That aside, the big bang happened billion and billions of years ago, possibly even trillions. Until we know exactly how chemicals interacted with each other, etc., we will only be able to come up with a presumed ballpark idea.

 

[painted wolf]

why has the human population grown so quick? Well doctors wash their hands now before cutting you open! That was a big step. Refridgerataion of food and the joy of plasitc to keep germs off it was another.

The average life span of a human being has gone from 35-50 years old to 70-80 years in large parts of the world. Infant mortality is almost non-existant in the USA and other high tec nations, as are the chances of surviving such killers as heart attack, stroke and cancer. Infants born so premature that they don't have fully develped lungs can now survive to grow into healthy adults and have thier own children. I could keep going but you get the idea.
This is the joy of Science.

here is some nice info rangeing from basic questions to Advanced questions dealing with acutual mathmatical equasions. It should help you in your wanting to know more about the big bang. Its from a nice site called 'ask the astronomer'.
http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/acosmbb.html

hope this helps you.

wa:do

 

[Yerda]

I was talking about macroevolution, which takes millions of years to observe. I never would have guessed that you would debate microevolution, which is a particularly solid theory.

Why is micro-evolution so easy to accept and macr so difficult? I ask this out of curiosity and not condescendence.