Why do Evolutionists believe a bunch of "smart molecules" just happen to get together one day...?

Question

and created the first simple strand of DNA with it's program for life and reproduction? And, BTW, where did those molecules come from, hmmm?

Ah! Good scientific answers! What a bunch of brainless, closed minded, liberal weenie geeks. And those are your good points.

Sorry about the weenie geek comment, but I said nothing about God. You jumped to conclusions and made worse remarks about my education and religion. I am well educated and I know more about evolution than religion. When I challenge the stock beliefs of the theory of evolution in order to open minds to new possibilities, I get flack from closed minded liberal psuedo-intellectual Darwin weenies (oops, sorry again). It's shameful that some suggest that I go back to school or do my research when you know nothing about me. I respect your opinions, but I respond to rudeness and arrogance with some of the same.

Answer 1

Exactly. It's practically a religion, don't you think?

Answer 2

First of all, 'Evolutionists' don't believe any such thing. The theory of evolution is concerned with how life changes (evolves) once it got started. Next, the scientists that study ABIOGENESIS (not evolution!) do not know exactly how it happened. That's why they are still studying it. However, they certainly don't believe that there are 'smart molecules'. The molecules they are looking at are the same type that are in every living thing and that are demosnstrably made in many abiotic (non-life) situations. The most likely scenario is that DNA was *not* the first reproducing molecule. The evidence we have right now points to the original self-replicator being RNA since it has many more catalytic activites.

As to where these molecules came from...well, the early earth had an atmosphere of mostly nitrogen, methane, ammonia, and water vapor. These molecules came from the cloud our solar system condensed from. Through the action of heat, drying, lightening, etc, we know that these compunds produce many of the basic compounds needed for life (amino acids, nucleic acids, etc).

Answer 3

Well the idea that you are contemplating is one many think of.

In fact the idea of some of the evolution is crazy.

Whales for example... are mammals well according to evolutionist fish became reptile reptile became mammal, simplified that is...

If you do a DNA research on a Whale its closest ancestry is a cow! Well at one point did cows mutate into whales? Do you understand how much changing in DNA it would take? Because the fact that a Whale is a mammal according to the theory he had to come after fish and after reptiles since he is a mammal.

Keep this in mind as well Darwin didn't set out to disprove the theory of a Creator, in fact in his book Origin of Species he used the word Creator with a capital "C" 6 times, his book was the Origin of Species and how Species originated not man in general or how did the world evolve. But in fact how much was onset by a creator and how much was development that a Creator did not make himself.

Check out http://www.coralridge.org/CRMresources.asp they have a good book and video you can get that actually provides recent research that is starting to prove this theory wrong... The new research tends to push the idea of Evolution wrong and that idea of a Creator is more possible.

Answer 4

Ah... another logical fallacy... a 'Red Herring'.

Evolutionists do not say any such thing. Evolution is a biological science that has only to do with providing an explanatory framework for the observed fact that the genetic makeup of populations of organisms varies, over time. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the origins of life.

Look up 'abiogenesis'.

Also, you give the impression that scientists believe that evolution has some sort of guiding inteligence, or intent behind it. That is a glaring falsehood.

Finally, you ask (I am interpreting, here) where complex organic molecules come from. Astronomic observations over the past decade have relealed huge clouds of organic molecules (the building blocks of life), millions of light years in size, in the vicinity of stellar nurseries. I all liklihood, these molecules you are asking about rained down on earth during all of the time (millions of years) it was in the process of being formed.

I am always astonished when the scientifically ignorant (that would be you) wave their ignorance around in public, as if it were cause to be proud. You should not be proud of your ignorance... you should be ashamed of it. Do something about it.

Answer 5

Go see if the answer is in your science book. (hint: not the bible)

Experiments have confirmed time and time again that the Earth's early oceans were filled with the chemicals of life, created by the actions of lightning, tides, storms, and volcanoes. You can do this yourself. Fill a glass vessel with water, ammonia, carbon dioxide, and methane, seal it off, and run an electric spark through it for a few weeks. The sides of the glass will be coated with a sludge composed of the most common amino acids found in your bodies, including the four basic acids that (with a phosphate sugar backbone) encode the DNA molecule.

Yes, it's true that none of these experiments have yielded a self-replicating molecule, the necessary first step along the road of evolution.

But take a look at the sheer scale of the Earth's oceans compared to our test vessel. We're not talking about a 12 inch beaker bubbling away for a few weeks, but the entire Earth's oceans, filled with amino acids, quintillions of chemical interactions every second for a billion years. When viewed at that scale, the question isn't how could a self replicating molecule happen by chance, but what could possibly prevent one from forming.

That self-replicator molecule was the foundation for RNA and then DNA. When you peer inside the nucleus of a living cell, you are peering at a tiny fragment of that long ago, amino acid rich ocean, which the self-replicator found so confortable.

That's what cell walls do, preserve a bit of the ancient ocean for that self-replicating molecule. Likewise, skin was what was needed to keep with our cells that ocean in which they grew. That's why your blood has the same chemical salts, in the exact same proportions, as sea water. The total concentration of salts in sea water is greater because the ocean becomes saltier over the ages, with the difference in concentrations between our blood and seawater a direct measure of just how long ago our distant ancestors left the ocean for the dry land.

And none of it needed any gods.

Answer 6

Why are evolutionists and creationists so antagonistic toward each other? You believe God is a supernatural entity. They don't believe in supernatural phenomena, but they agree with the Big Bang (a lot like, let there be light, or creating Gaia from Chaos.) You just attribute a supernatural spin to the same event. Who cares? Why are creationists so caught up in how the world began and how it will end? Couldn't you just concentrate on what's going on right now and how it will impact the near future? Hmmmm? All this postulating and posturing...it's so juvenile. Give it a rest.

Answer 7

Here is what happened:

When the Earth was first made, it's environment was very different. 99% of the water was gas and there was little oxygen. The air was made of chemicals that are toxic to humans. This environment has been replicated by scientists. When electricity is added to this environment, RNA nucleotides are formed. Therefore, it can be concluded that lightning would have provided enough energy to Earth's early environment to form the building blocks of RNA. The RNA molecules, after having the activation energy added (take a course in chemistry if you don't fully understand activation energy) were made from carbon- and nitrogen- based chemicals in the atmosphere.

If you want to research what I'm talking about, look up the Urey-Miller experiment.

Answer 8

Why do god bots believe that god is the only exception when it comes to being created?

Since you ask where molecules come from, the most logical answer is "I don't know" which is better than making up some dumb story about a sky daddy.

So, if you ask where molecules come from, you should be fair and question where god came from.

Answer 9

That is referring to abiogenesis, not evolution. And those molecules have been shown to form under conditions that were extremely likely to occur on ancient Earth. Certain molecular structures do not form by complete chaos. It is like saying every water molecule is a random occurence. That is just asinine. They are formed by covalent bonds because the atomic structure of the parts attract eachother. Lightning and thermodynamics are thought to be the main catalyst for many of these amino acids, or the precursors for life.

Answer 10

Well, Why do creationist beleive and invisable man just happened to create the world in seven days and make man and woman?

Oh, and BTW the world is more then 4 billion years old, why do you thing that it's only 6000?

There is plenty of scientific evidence that support Evolutionist. Maybe that's why?

Answer 11

Why can't people (you) rap their minds around the fact that maybe evolution was part of gods plan. Just accept it evolution as another theory about what happens during the long period of life on this earth and maybe you won't ask a stupid question next time.