Evolution Hole #1 - Origin of Life
I say the evidence points to the fact that life will not develop from inanimate matter.
Where is this evidence?
Also do you think your mocking and snarky comments strengthen your position? Because they don't and only makes you look foolish.
Consider the fact that your #1 objection to evolution is something that is unrelated to evolution. What does this tell you? Well it tell us that you barely understand what evolution is, so why not pick up a book and educate yourself about it? Perhaps then, even if you still disagree, you could at least focus on an objection that could be at least reasonable.
why would it be wrong to say that the origin of the first and only life is the first step in the evolutionary process?
Is it right to say that birth is part of puberty? Yes it's the first step to something that eventually goes through puberty. But to be fair, it's not the same is it?
Is it right to say that birth is part of puberty?. you said it. can there be birth without puberty somewhere along the line? puberty without birth? the same family of hormones?
shadow you are correct - evolution is to do with the origin of life. I don't know why our scientists here want to avoid saying so - shaking head in disbelief - any book on evolution will tell you so - any good book on evolution will tell you - unless in the US they avoid doing so in order not to annoy creationists? joke
edit: If there is some cultural misunderstanding then I do beg your pardon
Ruby - You are entitled to your own opinions but stop making up your own facts.
any book on evolution will tell you so
I've read dozens. Not one said so; all of them said otherwise.
What ones have you been reading?
evolution is to do with the origin of life
edit: evolution is to do with the origin of species
There, I fixed it for you.
@cofty just being devils advocate here but just as an example.
The following is from an excerpt from pbs.org. It's listed under "Evolution, How Did Life Begin". Saying a catalyst event is in no way relevant to evolution is a bit of an oxymoron to me. Without the starting point of amino acids, proteins, single cell orgs etc. there's no evolution to talk about. We wouldn't be here according to evolutionists. To me common sense says you need the catalyst event, as without it discussing evolution is a moot point.
Although I believe you can have a conversation about evolution without this start event, evolution requires a start event (whatever flavor you wish to believe) for it to be possible. That of course is unless you believe evolution has always existed! Problem there is evolutionists believe the earth is roughly 4 billion years old. If it had a start then so did evolution. What is the catalyst then?
In a nutshell, what is the process? How does life form?
The short answer is we don't really know how life originated on this planet. There have been a variety of experiments that tell us some possible roads, but we remain in substantial ignorance. That said, I think what we're looking for is some kind of molecule that is simple enough that it can be made by physical processes on the young Earth, yet complicated enough that it can take charge of making more of itself. That, I think, is the moment when we cross that great divide and start moving toward something that most people would recognize as living.
Saying a catalyst event is in no way relevant to evolution is a bit of an oxymoron to me
The fact that every species shares a common ancestor is not predicated on the answer to the question of abiogenesis.
Using it as an objection to evolution is a complete red herring.
The process of the life starting event should somehow be still present and functioning in present day life, evolutionary processes. comparable to the energy, background radiation, we can still trace back to the begining events.