What Proof Does Evolution Offer For Natural Beginning Of Life

[painted wolf]

I don't think that the Fruit fly is the strongest.. it is certenly one piece of evidence. There are hundreds of pieces of evidence for evolution. Far more than for any other theory as to why we are here.

all living things are made up of about 20 major amino acids forming various protiens, out of hundreds. There are about 27,428 (as of October) odd protiens. Differnt organisms have different numbers of these. These are all variable combinations of those 20 amino acids.
(imagine what we could have done with all of them)
So at least that many protiens and amino acids have become involved with 'becoming life'.

Why would God create self replicating mutating strains of non-biological protiens and amino acids? Could it be that it is part of the natural progession of creation tword life?
Or did god just snap his fingers?

* answer to your side question* my people called themselves the Tsa-la-gi. Like most first nations peoples it can be translated as the 'first people' or the 'true people'. Most first nations felt that they were the only 'real' humans and that everyone elce were either mistakes or simply not 'human'.*

mr Spinkles- I realize that I am chasing my own tail on this one. Sadly the 'bite and shake' is part of my wolf nature.

 

[HelpMe]

the word i am searching for starts with an A, i'll let you know what it was when i find it.it's in one of my notebooks.but thanks.

your rhetorical questioning of the 'snapping fingers' statement adds nothing other than insite into your perspective, as does your holding the fruit fly experiment as valid.so thanks.

so you believe in bigbang theory right?but in a 'god' as well, so do you believe in creation at one point or another in history?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

HelpMe-- The questions "Did we evolve from chemicals, or did God make us?", "Did the big bang or God cause the universe?" and "Did the combination of an egg and a sperm cell make me or did God make me?" are all equally incoherent: they create what is known as a false dillemma. God could have snapped his fingers and the first cells suddenly materialized out of nowhere, or God could have set up nature so that the first cells would evolve naturally from organic molecules, or life could evolve naturally from chemicals even if there were no God.

mr Spinkles- I realize that I am chasing my own tail on this one. Sadly the 'bite and shake' is part of my wolf nature.

Don't shake too hard, or you'll wag the dog.

 

[painted wolf]

Helpme- what pray tell do you see about my perspective?
How do you think God did it? If you want an empirical proof of the origens of life then do please tell me your theory and give me your proof.
I believe in Creator and thus in 'creation' but not in the biblical sence. I am not a Christian.
I also believe that Creation is natural, not supernatural.

Honestly the fruit fly exparaments have nothing to do with this particular argument... the natural formation of life. I have shown that all the nessisary building blocks for life can be formed from inorganic compounds and thus that life is 'natural'. I do not put a religious spin on this, if you want to think that god did or that god did not do it, fine. I am secure enough in my own 'faith' in Creator that I can deal with scientific evidence of how Creation happined. :jiggy:

Don't shake too hard, or you'll wag the dog.

I shall do my best not to 'wag the wolf', but in the end I'm only 'human'

wa:do

 

[HelpMe]

I believe in Creator and thus in 'creation'...
I also believe that Creation is natural, not supernatural.

k

Honestly the fruit fly exparaments have nothing to do with this particular argument

actually, the ways life supposedly has evolved into what it is today is related to this argument.and i maintain that the fruitflys were still just fruitflys.

I have shown that all the nessisary building blocks for life can be formed from inorganic compounds and thus that life is 'natural'.

in your opinion, yes you have.

I do not put a religious spin on this, if you want to think that god did or that god did not do it, fine.

this as a matter of fact 'has nothing to do with this particular argument'.

are you more wolf than i?

God could have snapped his fingers and the first cells suddenly materialized out of nowhere, or God could have set up nature so that the first cells would evolve naturally from organic molecules, or life could evolve naturally from chemicals even if there were no God.

1-k
2-k
3-how did those chemicals get there, and if it was from some other physically visible substance, how did that get there?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

3-The chemicals came from the accretion disk around our sun as it formed from interstellar gas.
4-If you agree abiogenesis says nothing about the existence of god, why the anti-evolution agenda?
5-Where did god come from?

 

[HelpMe]

3-our sun was already formed then?
4-i believe it desereves to be looked at under scrutinty as much as creation is.
5-hab1:2,mic5:2,isa63:16,pr8:23,1ch16:36,ne9:5,ps41:13;93:2;106:48;90:2"Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art [yhwh]"

 

[painted wolf]

yup, the sun came first. This is proven by watching the formation of new solar systems all over the univerce. Planets form secondarilly to the star.

also the fruitfly exparaments never clamed to make anything other than fruitflys so yes, you are right, the fruitflys were still fruitflys... just new species of fruitflys. Here is a list of wild fruit fly species. http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/Diptera/tephriti/pests/adults/default.htm
and a nice site to help you learn about the wild fruit fly. http://www.ceris.purdue.edu/napis/pests/ffly/
some fun things we have done with the 'domestic' fruit fly: http://www.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/mutant_flies/


wa:do

 

[Mr Spinkles]

4-i believe it desereves to be looked at under scrutinty as much as creation is.

Well I found abiogenesis written about in a book, so it already passes the "as much scrutiny as creation" test. Anything else?

 

[HelpMe]

something being written about in a book is not the extent of scrutiny i was talking about.

 

[meogi]

4-i believe it desereves to be looked at under scrutinty as much as creation is.

You think it isn't?

 

[painted wolf]

science is all about scrutinty. The process of publishing in a Scientific jounal is pure scrutinty. Plus once you are published everyone who reads the article will scrutinize it and test it and if it is found wanting, expose its weakness. Where in ID do you get this extreme testing of the ideas that make up the theory?

wa:do

 

[HelpMe]

You think it isn't?

by the accepting members?most of the time, no i don't.just as you or anyone would say Id isn't by the believers.
there are not 'ideas' to be tested, it is a singular unobservable event.

 

[Yerda]

it is a singular unobservable event.

Is that abiogenesis, evolution, special creation, or something else you're referring to there.

 

[mahayana]

TSS,

When you ask a scientist about the natural beginnings of life, you will be referred to abiogenesis theories.

This field is related to evolution, but really more akin to organic chemistry.

It's a little regrettable that Darwin used the phrase "origin of the species," since the word origin implies the question of first life. The theory Darwin proposed came from the 18th and 19th century studies of taxonomy. We were collecting and cataloging dried plants and skeletons from around the world, looking for relationships in their forms (with plants this was done with flower parts and seeds, with animals numbers and arrangements of bones).

The idea, when you place the similar side by side, that one may have changed to another, occurred to several other scientists at the time. Darwin just gets credit for the theory that slight changes in form may have occurred over time, that some of the changed ones survived as present day species. He never took the leap that all life may have come from one cell, or about the origin of that cell.

Abiogenesis asks a fascinating question. It may be the Alchemy of our times. The implications for science and religion, were it demonstrated to be possible, would be huge. Fuel for the "life is common in our universe" crowd. But it would not, in itself, solve the mystery of why everything is.

 

[HelpMe]

all of the above?


simple answer:none.