What Proof Does Evolution Offer For Natural Beginning Of Life (creation, genesis)

[HelpMe]

Originally Posted by kbc_1963

when did evolution begin?

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

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

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by kbc_1963

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]

Originally Posted by truthseekingsoul

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]

Originally Posted by kbc_1963

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by LISA63

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]

Originally Posted by LISA63

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 ...