The Origin of Life on Earth According to the Theory of Evolution

[Dos Equis]

matter was never created, it has always been.

its obvious that something is eternal from deduction, however this could be flawed.

what i dont understand is why you would accept something without evidence. There is no evidence of a god on this planet, and everything that has been elucidated has a material, scientific explanation. The stuff we havent figured out yet more then likely does as all of history, science, and observation is on its side.

What is the "material, scientific explanation" for the origin of life on earth?  (The Cliff's Notes version  .

[Necrosis]

What is the "material, scientific explanation" for the origin of life on earth?  (The Cliff's Notes version  .

i gave it to you. There are many theories, its a very difficult topic to talk about for obvious reasons as replication is very difficult.

also, what is your theory? god did it, then left it for evolution to take over? why wait so, why such a big universe for just us?

[MCWAY]

matter was never created, it has always been.

its obvious that something is eternal from deduction, however this could be flawed.

what i dont understand is why you would accept something without evidence. There is no evidence of a god on this planet, and everything that has been elucidated has a material, scientific explanation. The stuff we havent figured out yet more then likely does as all of history, science, and observation is on its side.

What's the difference between you saying that "matter was never created; it has always been" and a Christian's belief that "God was never created; He has always been" or as the Bible describes, "From everlasting to everlasting, thou art God"?

[Decker]

What's the difference between you saying that "matter was never created; it has always been" and a Christian's belief that "God was never created; He has always been" or as the Bible describes, "From everlasting to everlasting, thou art God"?

The trappings of scientific inquiry--rational analysis/assumption/conclusions, mathematical proofs--make the difference.  The pretension to science--reason & math--in formulating hypotheses is all the difference.  The answer we get from science is "we don't know but we think X based on our understanding of physics, biology, chemistry and math."  The possiblity of arriving at a reasonable explanation through refinement of analysis exists even though the answer today is still a mystery.

That concession of truth is not found in creation mythologies b/c God created everything...period.

I notice you choose the JudaeoChristin quotes to illustrate your case.  Why not choose Egyptian mythology or Indian mythology or Norse mythology?  They have the same truth value.

Unless you believe differently.

[MCWAY]

The trappings of scientific inquiry--rational analysis/assumption/conclusions, mathematical proofs--make the difference.  The pretension to science--reason & math--in formulating hypotheses is all the difference.  The answer we get from science is "we don't know but we think X based on our understanding of physics, biology, chemistry and math."  The possiblity of arriving at a reasonable explanation through refinement of analysis exists even though the answer today is still a mystery.

That concession of truth is not found in creation mythologies b/c God created everything...period.

Says who? People don't stop being scientists or exploring and forming hypothesis, simply because they believe that God created life on this planet. That is yet another mischaracterization. And the point being made is that, no matter how you slice, people have the belief that something or Someone HAS ALWAYS EXISTED.

I notice you choose the JudaeoChristin quotes to illustrate your case.  Why not choose Egyptian mythology or Indian mythology or Norse mythology?  They have the same truth value.

Unless you believe differently.

That's because I know that quote from memory. Again, the point is that, regardless of which deity you do or don't worship, the belief that an entity (sentient or not) has always existed remains.

[Decker]

Says who? People don't stop being scientists or exploring and forming hypothesis, simply because they believe that God created life on this planet. That is yet another mischaracterization. And the point being made is that, no matter how you slice, people have the belief that something or Someone HAS ALWAYS EXISTED.

Who is mischaracterizing what?  I'm pointing out that science may one day be able to explain in a rational manner the mystery of life through scientific pretensions.  Maybe that discovery will be a power called god. 

Biblical explanations of creation are mythologies from beginning to end...you either believe them or you don't. 

Genesis is a story written to deal with the unknown origins of life.  Having a magical alien create life on earth is just as valid as Genesis.

That's because I know that quote from memory. Again, the point is that, regardless of which deity you do or don't worship, the belief that an entity (sentient or not) has always existed remains.

That's a belief all right. 

[Necrosis]

What's the difference between you saying that "matter was never created; it has always been" and a Christian's belief that "God was never created; He has always been" or as the Bible describes, "From everlasting to everlasting, thou art God"?

one is a scientific law that can be tested, and has never been falsified and has a multitude of supporting evidence. The other one is a flawed hypothesis which cannot be supported nor tested.

[Dos Equis]

i gave it to you. There are many theories, its a very difficult topic to talk about for obvious reasons as replication is very difficult.

also, what is your theory? god did it, then left it for evolution to take over? why wait so, why such a big universe for just us?

You did?  Where?

I don't have a theory.  I have a belief.  I believe God created the heavens and earth.  But that's not why I created this thread.  I wanted to hear from people like you. 

It seems as though folks like you, Decker, etc. cannot talk about the origins of life from a scientific standpoint without mentioning God, Christianity, religion, etc. in the next breath (in a negative light).  I'm asking specifically about non-ID/God/religion-related theories/beliefs about the origins of life on earth.

Decker said he has no idea and I respect that.  What is your theory and/or belief about the origins of life on earth?       

[Butterbean]

Is there a Cliff's Notes version?   

"'Autocatalytic set theory' is a theory about the origin of life (19). Autocatalytic set theory is an absolute simple model with absolutely non-trivial properties. It is a very useful model because it is implemented in a computer program (the model is executable). The idea behind the model is that life is a collection of molecules catalysing each others formation. (In §4 more about reductionism!). And further that every molecule (peptide, protein) has the capacity to catalyse some reaction. The model enables us to explore what happens when molecules in a prebiotic chemical mixture are catalysing each others formation. This is impossible without the help of a computer program. The model is without knowledge of which molecules need to be present in the mixture, and without knowledge which specific molecule is catalysing which reaction. An important assumption is that, if enough different molecules are present, molecules will catalyse the formation of other molecules by chance. Thereby becoming members of the set. In a collectively auto-catalytic set the molecules speed up the very reactions by which they themselves are formed. Now, if there are enough different molecules and assuming a fixed probability that any reaction in the mixture is catalysed by at least one molecule in the mixture, the model demonstrates that the mixture will suddenly transform into a collectively autocatalytic whole. In other words: there is a threshold. The formation of every member is catalysed by at least one other member. And so the set as a whole is stable.


Translated into 'real-life': assuming enough food and energy, high enough concentrations and a fixed probability for chance catalysis, the mixture of molecules can transform into a stable and self-sustaining set. In other words: will be alive!"







I see that usmoke believes that matter has always "been."  Do the other atheists here believe the same?

[Necrosis]

"'Autocatalytic set theory' is a theory about the origin of life (19). Autocatalytic set theory is an absolute simple model with absolutely non-trivial properties. It is a very useful model because it is implemented in a computer program (the model is executable). The idea behind the model is that life is a collection of molecules catalysing each others formation. (In §4 more about reductionism!). And further that every molecule (peptide, protein) has the capacity to catalyse some reaction. The model enables us to explore what happens when molecules in a prebiotic chemical mixture are catalysing each others formation. This is impossible without the help of a computer program. The model is without knowledge of which molecules need to be present in the mixture, and without knowledge which specific molecule is catalysing which reaction. An important assumption is that, if enough different molecules are present, molecules will catalyse the formation of other molecules by chance. Thereby becoming members of the set. In a collectively auto-catalytic set the molecules speed up the very reactions by which they themselves are formed. Now, if there are enough different molecules and assuming a fixed probability that any reaction in the mixture is catalysed by at least one molecule in the mixture, the model demonstrates that the mixture will suddenly transform into a collectively autocatalytic whole. In other words: there is a threshold. The formation of every member is catalysed by at least one other member. And so the set as a whole is stable.


Translated into 'real-life': assuming enough food and energy, high enough concentrations and a fixed probability for chance catalysis, the mixture of molecules can transform into a stable and self-sustaining set. In other words: will be alive!"







I see that usmoke believes that matter has always "been."  Do the other atheists here believe the same?

they would have to unless the think matter can be created, namely energy.

[Butterbean]

You think that's entertaining. Atheist lunacy gives me countless belly laughs, especially the "Jesus-myth" posse. Who else gets discombobulated about Something/Someone they don't believe to exist?

I find that interesting also.  I wonder if there are people who don't believe in Leprochauns that spend hours debating their inexistence.

[Dos Equis]

"'Autocatalytic set theory' is a theory about the origin of life (19). Autocatalytic set theory is an absolute simple model with absolutely non-trivial properties. It is a very useful model because it is implemented in a computer program (the model is executable). The idea behind the model is that life is a collection of molecules catalysing each others formation. (In §4 more about reductionism!). And further that every molecule (peptide, protein) has the capacity to catalyse some reaction. The model enables us to explore what happens when molecules in a prebiotic chemical mixture are catalysing each others formation. This is impossible without the help of a computer program. The model is without knowledge of which molecules need to be present in the mixture, and without knowledge which specific molecule is catalysing which reaction. An important assumption is that, if enough different molecules are present, molecules will catalyse the formation of other molecules by chance. Thereby becoming members of the set. In a collectively auto-catalytic set the molecules speed up the very reactions by which they themselves are formed. Now, if there are enough different molecules and assuming a fixed probability that any reaction in the mixture is catalysed by at least one molecule in the mixture, the model demonstrates that the mixture will suddenly transform into a collectively autocatalytic whole. In other words: there is a threshold. The formation of every member is catalysed by at least one other member. And so the set as a whole is stable.


Translated into 'real-life': assuming enough food and energy, high enough concentrations and a fixed probability for chance catalysis, the mixture of molecules can transform into a stable and self-sustaining set. In other words: will be alive!"







I see that usmoke believes that matter has always "been."  Do the other atheists here believe the same?

Thanks Stella.     "Autocatalytic set theory" is based on a computer program?  Doesn't sound very scientific to me.   

[Necrosis]

Thanks Stella.     "Autocatalytic set theory" is based on a computer program?  Doesn't sound very scientific to me.   

it is based on the foundations of complexity/chaos theory. It is based on mathematics and computer models with high predictive capacity and internal/external validity.

you see this universe is self organizing, using autocatalytic sets and bootstrapping to propel itself to further complexity which is inevitable.

all bullshit aside, evolution is highly supported and has yet to be falsified, give me an example of its falsification, namely an animal that does not suit a nested hierarchy?

beleiving that evolution is wrong shows less support for a god that uses this creation method imo. It is pervasive in all of science, medicine could not operate without its theoretical backing.

also the title of your thread should be changed as the ignorance you present(no offense) is apparent within the first few words, as evolution does not involve origins.

Mcway, if we dont know how life started you stated that we would, or scientists would have to adopt a view that makes them uncomfortable. Dont you see how close minded this is? why do we have only one option? and if you want that option to be god, which god of the thousands that have existed?

give me some axioms for god creating the universe.

[buffdnet]

give me some axioms for god creating the universe.

axiom. A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as
true without proof as the basis for argument.

faith

[OTHstrong]

one is a scientific law that can be tested, and has never been falsified and has a multitude of supporting evidence. The other one is a flawed hypothesis which cannot be supported nor tested.

Nothing in the evolutionary theory can be tested because according to what you call science takes millions upon millions of years. You can't explain where matter came from, you can't explain where the light originates, you can't explain how we have all these elements that can't interchange, you can't explain how life originated, you can't explain cosmic evolution. No macro- evolution has ever been observed, this is a fact. Since you can't explain steller, chemical, or organic evolution and the changing of one species to another has never been seen what supporting evidence are you referring to. This nothing but a theory that at first glance looks good on paper, nothing more.

[Necrosis]

Nothing in the evolutionary theory can be tested because according to what you call science takes millions upon millions of years. You can't explain where matter came from, you can't explain where the light originates, you can't explain cosmic evolution. No macro- evolution has ever been observed, this is a fact, you can't explain how life originated, you can't explain cosmic evolution. No macro- evolution has ever been observed, this is a fact. Since you can't explain steller, chemical, or organic evolution and the changing of one species to another has never been seen what supporting evidence are you referring to. This nothing but a theory that at first glance looks good on paper, nothing more.

no, he was talking about the second law of thermodynamics which is quite objective and repeatable. as for your post.
"
"You can't explain where matter came from, "

no where, it was neither created nor destroyed it is eternal.

"you can't explain cosmic evolution. No macro- evolution has ever been observed, this is a fact"

what is cosmic evolution? macro is micro, of course it hasnt been observed it takes billions of years, no one witnessed star formation, the big bang etc.. we have multiple mathematical models, and other predictive laws and ideas which elucidate these aspects.

"you can't explain where the light originates"

light? electromagnetic radiation? sure it is matter.

"you can't explain how we have all these elements that can't interchange"

sure they can, its well documented, are you referring to decay? chemical reactions, acid-bases, salts?

"This nothing but a theory that at first glance looks good on paper, nothing more.'

honest question now, you didnt go to university did you? seriuosly? what do you know of any science? do you know that there are literally millions of papers supporting evolution. Do you know how many people would love to topple evolution and become the most famous scientist in history perhaps? when you say nothing more what are your specific criticisms of evolutionary theory?

a theory comprises facts so it is a theory of facts, a descriptive with explanatory power.

[Necrosis]

axiom. A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as
true without proof as the basis for argument.

faith

please re read the definition as you clearly do not understand it.

[Necrosis]

what are you guys so hoped up on what we dont know, ever hear of god of the gaps? more and more gaps are closing. your why questions are useless as they add no information, how is much better.

just because science doesnt have all the answers doesnt make your god any more likely.

[tonymctones]

Nothing in the evolutionary theory can be tested because according to what you call science takes millions upon millions of years. You can't explain where matter came from, you can't explain where the light originates, you can't explain how we have all these elements that can't interchange, you can't explain how life originated, you can't explain cosmic evolution. No macro- evolution has ever been observed, this is a fact. Since you can't explain steller, chemical, or organic evolution and the changing of one species to another has never been seen what supporting evidence are you referring to. This nothing but a theory that at first glance looks good on paper, nothing more.

what scientific finding having to do with biology/evolution doesnt fall into line with evolution? What information of any kind do you have that contradicts evolution? The concept of evolution is a sound concept, what you might be having trouble with is the idea that we evolved from a primate like ancestor. Which by the way has no bearing on religion or believing in God, Darwin and Mendell were both clergy.

[OTHstrong]

no, he was talking about the second law of thermodynamics which is quite objective and repeatable. as for your post.
"
"You can't explain where matter came from, "

no where, it was neither created nor destroyed it is eternal.

"you can't explain cosmic evolution. No macro- evolution has ever been observed, this is a fact"

what is cosmic evolution? macro is micro, of course it hasnt been observed it takes billions of years, no one witnessed star formation, the big bang etc.. we have multiple mathematical models, and other predictive laws and ideas which elucidate these aspects.

"you can't explain where the light originates"

light? electromagnetic radiation? sure it is matter.

"you can't explain how we have all these elements that can't interchange"

sure they can, its well documented, are you referring to decay? chemical reactions, acid-bases, salts?

"This nothing but a theory that at first glance looks good on paper, nothing more.'

honest question now, you didnt go to university did you? seriuosly? what do you know of any science? do you know that there are literally millions of papers supporting evolution. Do you know how many people would love to topple evolution and become the most famous scientist in history perhaps? when you say nothing more what are your specific criticisms of evolutionary theory?

a theory comprises facts so it is a theory of facts, a descriptive with explanatory power.

Macro is not micro, no matter how many times micro evolution occurs it will never equal one macro. By elements I mean Elements on the periopdic table. Regardless of how many univerusity students are interested in evolution it is far from a fact.

[tonymctones]

Macro is not micro, no matter how many times micro evolution occurs it will never equal one macro. By elements I mean Elements on the periopdic table. Regardless of how many univerusity students are interested in evolution it is far from a fact.

how do you figure this?

[OTHstrong]

what scientific finding having to do with biology/evolution doesnt fall into line with evolution? What information of any kind do you have that contradicts evolution? The concept of evolution is a sound concept, what you might be having trouble with is the idea that we evolved from a primate like ancestor. Which by the way has no bearing on religion or believing in God, Darwin and Mendell were both clergy.

No actually I have problem with whole theory. When it hides behind billions of years ago I guess anything is possible without an explanation All kinds of information condradict evolution. The human population doesn't fit, the rotation of the earth slowing down, the moon gradully pulling itself away from the earth the sun losing energy at a rapid paste, planets that rotate in different directions. Meteors craters not being evenly distributed on other heavenly bodies, tropical atmosphere underneath the glaciers. Of course all kinds of false assumption in dating methods, hence their severly flawed. But its not the condratictions I have a problem with its simply the lack of evidance, pardon my spelling.

[OTHstrong]

how do you figure this?

Because we know and have observed one dog change into a variation of itself but its still a dog, there are limitations to micro evolution thats why its called micr-evolution, a change with limitations. Never has a dog ever changed into a cat, this type of thinking assumes there is no limits and this simply isn't true nor has it ever been observed. No such a thing as macro evolution, monkeys are monkey and humans are humans, this is why scientest have been caught putting the bones of the 2 species together and calling it the missing link. Shame on them. Why are the 2 similer, probably because they have a common designer.

[tonymctones]

Because we know and have observed one dog change into a variation of itself but its still a dog, there are limitations to micro evolution thats why its called micr-evolution, a change with limitations. Never has a dog ever changed into a cat, this type of thinking assumes there is no limits and this simply isn't true nor has it ever been observed. No such a thing as macro evolution, monkeys are monkey and humans are humans, this is why scientest have been caught putting the bones of the 2 species together and calling it the missing link. Shame on them. Why are the 2 similer, probably because they have a common designer.

then why is it that we dont see normal human remains from billions of yrs ago? why is it that none of the species of animals living today have fossils that are represented in the fossil record from billions of yrs ago? If monkeys have always been monkeys and humans always humans then we would see the same fossil remains that are present in mondern day monkeys and humans present billions of years ago.
 
Just b/c we have never observed it doesnt mean that it hasnt occured

have you ever studied evolution onetime? i mean in college?

[OTHstrong]

then why is it that we dont see normal human remains from billions of yrs ago? why is it that none of the species of animals living today have fossils that are represented in the fossil record from the billions of yrs ago? If monkeys have always been monkeys and humans always humans then we would see the same fossil remains that are present in mondern day monkeys and apes present billions of years ago.
 
Just b/c we have never observed it doesnt mean that it hasnt occured

Are you religious onetime?

Because there is no billions of years. Do the math.....6 500 000 000 as in 6.5 billion people today 300 years ago there were less then a billion living on earth an some would estimate 150 million 2 000 years ago, does it sound like the earth is even 10 000 years olds? We also have found human remains in the 10-12 foot range, but still humans, we know humans don't grow that tall today, but different atmosphere as in more oxygen mean a slightly different variation within the same species, but always the same species.