• 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!

Why Is There No Fossilized Evidence For First Life?

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
Doesn't lack of hard evidence make any theory softer? And does being make softer often result in defaulting to being dogmatic, to compensate? Why is this current theory treated as dogma, while being soft on original claim evidence? This does not add up to the philosophy of science, but rather some form of political-religious dual standard.

On the other hand, even if we cannot show direct evidence, if a theory is sound enough, it should offer us a way to simulate this needed evidence in a lab. But that current theory fails there also, meaning the current theory has even deeper conceptual flaws.

This is not a question of Creationism verses Evolution, but a flawed Evolutionary theory that needs a major science update. Half baked theory needs to be placed in its proper perspective, or else the needed changes will be avoided by instituting a religious dogma that is not allowed to change.

Water has all the tricks needed to be central to a genuine model for life. The water and oil effect, alone, allows water to manhandle all large organic molecules, like DNA and protein, until they assume their needed water friendly shapes. Water is uniquely designed for the tasks of life. If we dehydrate bacteria all life ends. If add any other solvent it remain dead. If we add water life returns. We can take apart any cell, and as long as there is water, the organics pieces can be examined in their alive state. Take away water or add another solvent all bets are off.

Water can form four hydrogen bonds and each hydrogen bond is like a binary switch, that can move information. How do you think cells stay and act integrated? It is because the main leader; water, has its finger in every pie; folding and packing, and water can also self organize, thereby integrating all the pies that its fingers touch. If we take away water, not only does the integration of life stop, but also all the pies stop. Water offer a way to model life and evolution in one variable, that implies all the organic variables. Back box falls very short of a 3-D water model.
There is no current established theory for abiogenesis. There are several promising hypotheses at this point, but there's still work to be done to qualify any one of them as the established theory. Abiogenesis and evolution are two different things. One deals with the origins of life, for which there is no established theory, the other explains the observed diversity of life, and is an established theory.
 
Top