Evolution Hole #1 - Origin of Life

by shadow 90 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Anders Andersen

  The process of the life starting event should somehow be still present and functioning in present day life

  Unless of course the circumstances on earth (like composition of the atmosphere) have changed so much that those original processes do not function anymore.

  And would your position change when we do find or replicate these processes? Or would you then claim that they are not representative and/or created by intelligent life?

  And please, for the honest creationists out there: for your own sake try to really study and understand how evolution works and what evidence there is supporting it, without instantly rejecting everything you don't like as the Borg taught you to do.

  If you base you knowledge on WT/creationist explanations of evolution, you're being robbed of real knowledge.

  The fact that there is life proves that somehow life has always been, or life started, whether we understand how, or not.

  Evolution has taken place with either life created by God (the official view of >90% of all Christian churches), or with life that was the result of unguided chemical processes.

  Saying evolution didn't happen because we don't know how life started is like saying childbirth is not an existing process because we don't know how conception works and how the baby gets in there in the first place.

  We are in New York. All evidence shows we walked there from L.A.

  We don't remember why we left L.A, exactly what the circumstances were when we left, and whether we travelled the first miles by train, bus, car or foot.

  Does that invalidate all evidence for the rest if the journey?

  Does it mean that we must have been teleported to New York by aliens because we don't know how the journey started?

  Please, for your own sake, study the facts. It doesn't mean that you need to reject God as the creator of life.

  The only reasons to reject evolution I know is either not understanding the process of evolution and the enormous amount of evidence supporting it (as was the case with me), or being mentally blind because of precious beliefs.

  BTW simple question, closely related to the evolution/creation discussion but much easier to answer: since when do humans exist on earth? Why? What evidence can you present to support your answer?
• 

  prologos

  Ander Andersen: And would your position change when we do find or replicate these processes? Or would you then claim that they are not representative and/or created by intelligent life?

  Yes, we eagerly await a replication of the start of the single life starting event. The re-creation of the starting conditions, the presence of the near magic catalysts. Trying ever since Louis Pasteur, Harold Urey,- not with inorganic materials either. and: yes , while applauding the success, the thought might just occur, hey, this was not a random event at all, it was work done well, in a laboratory, from the word "labor" = work. it works, because it is work

  PS. Am I wrong to remember reading, that the idea of multiverses was introduced in part, because the odds of life combining purely by random events could not have happened in this universe, it's short time of 13.8 billion years?
• 

  konceptual99

  If you base you knowledge on WT/creationist explanations of evolution, you're being robbed of real knowledge.

  Exactly.
  The biggest red flag on all of this is that the WTS does not produce anything that provides decent rebuttals of basic arguments for evolution. They simply appeal to emotion - "what do you think? Could something as amazing as the navigation abilities of this bird come about by chance?"
  The two most recent brochures that looked specifically at Creation did exactly the same thing, just wrapped it up with pseudo scientific language and pretty pictures to enhance the complexity of things like RNA and DNA.
  What I wanted to see for years, and am still waiting for, is some kind of side by side deconstruction of things like the e-coli experiment showing why this must be wrong scientifically. It will never happen. The WTS likes to roll out Witness scientists who make statements like "I see complex things all the time and I can't accept it happened by chance" but never seem to be able to contribute an article that really blows some doubt into a particular line of evidence.
  The other thing is of course that the WTS does actually accept evolution to a point as it's the only way of even beginning to give some credence to the idea that the diversity of life we see now all came about in the past 4000 years from the small subset of creatures and plants Noah was able to put on the Ark.
  
  
  
• 

  konceptual99

  Yes, we eagerly await a replication of the start of the single life starting event. The re-creation of the starting conditions, the presence of the near magic catalysts. Trying ever since Louis Pasteur, Uri, not with inorganic materials either. and: yes , while applauding the success, the thought might just occur, hey, this was not a random event at all, it was work done well, in a laboratory, from the word "labor" = work. it works, because it is work.

  Were science to be able to replicate this event and demonstrate that given the right conditions how it could happen I would have to respect the right to say that God still made it happen.

  It is a fallacy, however, to suggest that simply because the conditions had to be manufactured in a lab that it means the same conditions in nature had to be manufactured by a third party. It's a replication of conditions that could occur through the complex interaction of chemical, biological and physical processes.

  Using the etymology of the word for laboratory implies no significance whatsoever.
• 

  prologos

  "----interaction of chemical, biological--" It could hardly be biological, because "bio" was still in the future, when all the fortuitous circumstances came together. No doubt if we could observe it now, it would look quite natural, because it is. Words do matter. I am referring to the Einstein conversations about Wirklichkeit, The Reality that has it's root in Werken, work. I am not a theist, but the existence we live in calls for more than random fluctuations as their origin, IMO
• 

  Anders Andersen

  A complex result can be produced by very few and simple processes.

  Are snowflakes geometries complex and do they look designed? Yes.

  Are their geometries formed by a simple process? Yes .

  Are they all designed? No.

  But still, all the analogies and word games in the world change nothing about the incredible huge mountains of evidence for evolution, there for those who just care to be honest enough to look.

  And while I really tried to find any evidence for creation in order to not have my easy life turned upside down, I found none.

  Please show me evidence of creation other than 'it's all very complicated, so God must have done it'

  And when that evidence is presented, we can compare it to the evidence for evolution.
• 

  Ruby456

  okay I am finally up to spec with you guys via this excellent book - i can only handle entry level science mind you

  http://www.springer.com/life+sciences/journal/11084

  BBB - biological Big Bang - worth investigating.
• 

  konceptual99

  "----interaction of chemical, biological--" It could hardly be biological, because "bio" was still in the future, when all the fortuitous circumstances came together.

  Fair point.

  Words do matter. I am referring to the Einstein conversations about Wirklichkeit, The Reality that has it's root in Werken, work. I am not a theist, but the existence we live in calls for more than random fluctuations as their origin, IMO

  I agree that words do matter. It's how much they matter. Much of the initial comment on this thread is about the semantics and contextual relevance of evolution, the origin of life and abiogenesis. I still stand by my point that the etymology of the word "laboratory" has no relevance as to whether or not the "spark" of life was initiated by a third party or through a combination of purely naturalistic events.

  TBH I've not read up on Einstein and Wirklichkeit. A little bit of googling has thrown some context on this and it is interesting. Thanks - I will look at it a little more. My only comment on it right now is that it would appear to take the conversation into a potentially more philosophical direction. That is interesting however for me the most critical question to resolve is the fundamental reality that life is here now so was it always in existence and if not, did it require a third party to initiate it and, by extension, to manage it's progression in some way?
• 

  cofty

  One of the obstacles to understanding abiogenesis is the idea that life is a "thing". It isn't, there is no "elan vital", no ghost in the machine. Life is a process. It is a local and temporary interruption of entropy.
• 

  Anders Andersen

  Cofty, I agree.

  We don't even know where exactly we should place the border between 'life' and 'not life'.

  There is no clear boundary chemical processes without any of the characteristics of life, and chemical processes displaying all (or most) characteristics of life.

  • Are viruses life, or not?
  • Are prions life, or not?
  • Are viroids life, or not?

  Are viroids really too complicated to come to existence from mere chemical reactions?

  Nature doesn't conform to the labels humans invent.

  And those not understanding evolution often think of life as mammals and other animals (I know I did).

  Learning about mere collections of molecules having characteristics of being alive (such as the 3 examples mentioned above) sure made an impression on me...