At what point in evolution does inorganic matter become living matter, please no spontaneous lightning bolts.?

Question

Evolution is ONLY a theory. It is not true imperical science, you can see microevolution in nature but never macroevolution. Nowhere can inorganic matter be turned into living matter, look up these terms when answering. Can someone logicially or factually debate this with me. Thanks

Answer 1

I really like the above answerer's point, it certainly is amazing how almost everything we are and everything we interact with is made of the same basic stuff, with some odd elements thrown it. Change the order of something here, replace an element with another and you have a completely different substance, but I digress. Along with Jason's explanation I'd like to point out that organisms like bacteria and plants turn inorganic matter into organic matter all the time, I realize your talking about the origin of life, but that statement taken as a whole, is false.

Evolution explains the speciation of organisms, it really isn't meant to cover the origin of life, which is actually called abiogenesis. Due to the subject matter they can be linked, and certainly we can look at abiogenesis with evolution in mind.

It has been shown that given the right chemicals and the right environment organic molecules can and will form spontaneously. (see Miller-Urey experiment among others) This doesn't and never will form a fully functional cell, it does however form the basics of a cell, namely nucleic acids and amino acids. So you have these organic molecules floating around (hence the term soup), and any chemist will tell you all chemical reactions will happen naturally given enough time. The leading hypothesis is that at some point, a few of these organic molecules lined up and formed a rudimentary RNA molecule. Once again I'd like to point out that this reaction is not an if, but a when, we have millions of years for it to actually happen in the correct formation, and the process of molecules lining up in this fashion, by themselves or through the aid of proteins like enzymes is fundamental to biology. So when does this matter actually become life, I would have to say the first time it replicates, unlike DNA, RNA is perfect for two functions important to biology, replication and catalyzing biochemical reactions like an enzyme. This is however a hypothesis and not a scientific theory, obviously we do not have the abiliity to travel back billions of years to witness the event, nor the ability to simulate millions of years of experiment to duplicate the process.

Which leads nicely to the next paragraph, the word Theory. It is so often misused and misunderstood I wonder how well basic science is being taught. In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, nor does it mean something is an absolute truth. Please visit the talkorigins link below (and peruse the site), it covers this much better than I could in a couple of sentences, but to actually argue the subject it is essential to understand.

Answer 2

I think that your question does not have an answer you would actually accept. It feels like you are trying someone to give you enough reasons to consider evolution.

Your answer starts here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Oparin

and ends as far as you decide it is answered, still consider the following points before jumping into it:

Apes and humans share 99% of it's genetic material, this is we are pretty much the same. Isn't this suspicious ? Maybe god run out of ideas ! and simply hacked with the genetic code a little and voila there we have apes with bigger brains and penises, and the same animal instincts !

We like to think that WE, Humans are so special, only humans go to heaven right ? But we e share the same animal behaviors, and instincts with other species, right ? . Oh sure conscience, well some humans lack conscience anyway.

Science is a trial error approach. We postulate a hypothesis and then we try to demonstrate its validity. It takes quite long but has worked so far.

Darwin theories, never meant to be perfect, it is just an idea, just as the model of the atom required good effort to be something reasonable, yet no perfect. It always takes time and more knowledge to make theories better, pretending to believe blindly in a theory is just the same as sticking to a paragraph in the Bible or any book or article and making this the path to follow in you life. If that is your case, PLEASE, STOP SURFING THE WEB, you may go really nuts !!!

In some sense, the only difference is that if you stick to the idea that creationism has everything solved, you basically assume that it is enough for you with that explanation, the bible will probably not evolve (I don't believe god is writing a second chapter, maybe some pretentious humans are). Science in the other hand keeps going, If you like you may find answers by testing hypothesis.

This works for me and I stick to the imperfect evolution, and let dogs and cats go to heaven, sometimes they are nicer than humans !!!

Answer 3

Well considering that living matter is simply a complex arrangement of inorganic matter, i.e. Humans are made up of cells; cells are made up of different organelles and other structures, (membrane, cytoplasm.) These are made up of proteins, polymers, and other complex molecules most of which are carbon based. These molecules are complex arrangements of elements, which in turn are made of electrons, neutrons, and protons. So the question is not at what point in evolution does inorganic matter become living matter, it is what defines living matter.
As much as you would like to believe that humans are more than just a giant blob of subatomic particles, and that we have some kind of Divine providence, that makes us second only to God in the universe, we aren't made of anything different than the rocks and dirt, or planets and suns, or even... yes... monkeys.
We are a giant blob of subatomic particles.
BUT!! This doesn't say that we aren't amazing creations. The fact that we can look at ourselves and realize that we are made of the same subatomic particles as everything else in the universe, and that the complex arrangement of those subatomic particles gives rise to the very intelligence that allows us that view, is astonishing. But it doesn't require a creator. It is simply nature. It is the universe we exist in.
Seeing that your human body consists of subatomic inorganic elements, are you going to argue that you are not alive?
Evolution is only a theory, but it is the best one out there. It accurately explains what we know, and can predict conclusions, which is what a sound scientific theory does. It is supported by physical evidence, and unlike intelligent design, can be tested and is open to modification.
Intelligent design is an argument of absence. In the absence of answers, God is your explanation? Why not a flying spaghetti monster?

Answer 4

Good job blowhard. (smiling4ever222) You've just stated, in too many words, that there is no proof that life just "happened" without God.
Excuse me for stating the obvious, but, there is no proof that there is a God either.
So... when you want to support the existance of this god that you worship, please don't tear down opposing theories that everyone knows don't have all the answers. Just say, "Evolution does not have all the answers. I believe in God, and that God created the world. I can't prove it. I just have faith that it is so."
I think that this way we can all avoid the stupid and pointless arguements we've seen 100 times. And maybe, we might just learn to respect each other, instead of losing respect for each other by watching the people we already disagree with, use evidence that was never solid in the first place, and thus, lose more respect for these people as they try in vain to prove something that they cannot prove.
Hopefully that made some sense. : 9

Answer 5

Evolution only deals with living things (heredity & metabolism) or viruses (heredity).

You aren't really interested in the answer to this question, why are you wasting everyones time pretending to be open minded?

The answer is very long and technical, frankly you'd need to be an undergrad in chemistry to puzzle it out. As you clearly don't understand the distinction between a scientific theory and the way the average person uses the word theory, I doubt you could manage it.

Answer 6

i dont tink it was spontaneos i think it happened over time, look at viruses they are not technicall alive but they do exhibit some signs of life, also how life started is not a part of evolution. evolution deals with what happened afterwards. the first life could have been created by life then evolved after that. gravity is only a theory too, and evolution is empirical fact. i would love to debate this more with you. my yahoo id is thomaslalonde2000 add me if you want to have an intelligent discussion

Answer 7

Lightning bolts aren't spontaneous. It takes a negative and positive charge to create one. Also, there is nowhere in the Bible that says God didn't use Evolution. The ONLY difference is that he did create adam and eve special, with knowledge of themselves.

Answer 8

If "Life is too complex to have arisen by "chance""
and "Life was created by God", ergo, God must be more complicated than life.

God therefore cannot have been created by chance.

The Great Fig Newton must have designed God.

All hail the Great Fig Newton, praise be unto Her!

Answer 9

Inorganic matter has never become living matter. Organic matter on the other hand may have, remember oxygen, carbon and elements like that ARE organic matter.........

Answer 10

It doesn't. there is no clear delineation of what is living and what is not. the argument goes on whether viruses are living or not and that just one example.