Where Did Life Come From?

Question

Life can't evolve from non-life. And evolution is based on life evolving from one thing into another. So, look at this website..

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/p_tree.shtml

.. and if you still believe in the theory/GUESS of evolution, then prove how the very first life form got here when life can't evolve from non-life. If you try, then it shows you didn't read the materal on the link.

Answer 1

Amazing how many people still believe in evolution, when it is merely voodoo science..

People, there is no proof of evolution, there never was proof of evolution, and all those lab tests were GUESSES because nobody has any samples of what actually existed in the beginning. To conduct a test to prove something, you must have a sample to compare your test result with.

There's NO sample.

DUH!

Darwin has truely made monkeys out of you evolutionists.

And life can't evolve from non-life, that is a proven fact.

How was it proven? By the fact that science CAN'T do it.

DUH again!

Your ignorance of facts shows you lack the intelligence to discuss this issue rationally.

You belief is based on faith, evolution is your religion.

Don't bother replying, you are wrong.

Answer 2

What has evolution to do with the question of where life came from? Answer: nothing! You're link says "Those who believe in the theory of evolution say that the first life came into existence [...] as a result of billions of years of accidental, random atomic collisions." That's utter nonsense! The theory of evolution doesn't even touch upon the question of how life originated. It is a theory about how life evolved (as you also say yourself). How it originated (and why) is an entirely different question, so most christians, for example, see no problem in believing God created the world, and the evolution just describes how God's creation evolved over time.

Answer 3

That site is completely bullshit. It states, and I quote, that scientists cannot prove that amino acids , the building blocks of life, can evolve from "nonlife" (abiotic material). False. The Miller -urey experiment in the 1950s, an extremely famous scientific milestone taught even in Middle school, demonstrated how electric power, abundant in tumultous early earth, together with ammonia, methane, water, and hydrogen, which were all present on early earth, can create 13 out of the 21 amino acids. After years of work, scientists actually created every single amino acid existing out of only nonliving matter. Jean oro did groundbreaking work on the matter.

Evolutionists are blind and dumb not to accept scientific evidence.

By the way, a scientific theory is an very highly accepted idea, completely different from the normal meaning of the word "theory" in common speech. A theory, as opposed to a hypothesis or guess, can only be called as such when major evidence has been found.

"...the God of the Bible. This fact, unlike the theory of evolution, is not in conflict with the scientific evidence."

You know why the bible is not in conflict with scientific evidence? Because the bible has no scientific basis. What scientific evidence proves the theory of creation? There is no Miller Urey experiment equivalent in creationism. On the other hand, the theory of evolution is supported by fossil records millions of samples deep, showing how early life was entirely primitive and became more specialized as time went on. How come there are no early fossils of rabbits or humans, if creationism is in the right? How come there are no early fossils of flowering plants, tracheophytes, before the development of the vascular system of plants?

Another statement on that website says that scientists have been trying for 100 years to find evidence of biogenesis and have not succeeded, and that this means the theory of evolution is obviously flawed. What is there to say that if someone can't be shown in 100 years, it's automatically untrue? In mathematics, the Catalan theorem was conjectured by the mathematician Eugène Charles Catalan in 1844 and finally proven in 2002 by Preda Mihăilescu. That's over 100 years of work.

Answer 4

"Scientists and universities all around the world have been trying for over 100 years to prove that evolution is the mechanism that created life, yet no scientific evidence has been found."

This is a ridiculous statement taken from your link. The origin of life is a question of chemistry rather than evolution. Evolution is a change in the frequencies of genes in a population from one generation to the next and makes no assumptions about the origin of life.

Here are some currnet hypotheses on the origin of life:

Plausible pre-biotic conditions result in the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Urey-Miller experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.

Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can spontaneously form lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane.

The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis).

Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity result in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. Thus the first ribosome is born, and protein synthesis becomes more prevalent.

Proteins outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer. Nucleic acids are restricted to predominantly genomic use.

Answer 5

Evolution does not try and predict how life started..ok.
Saying only god created life because you can't get something form nothing begs the question of where god came from?
There are some good theories on the origin of life, how it got started, but evolution isn't one of them. Evolution is the theory of how we got from a single cell 3 billion years ago or so to where we are today.

Answer 6

One word: abiogenesis.

Plenty of experiments have been conducted, showing that the conditions prevailing on the primordial earth would give rise to a host of self-replicating molecules with the capacity to mutate. That's a fine start on "life".

It should also be noted that evolution is a combination of mutation and selection. Mutation is random, but selection is decidedly non-random. Creationists like to give analogies on how life is so improbable that abiogenesis is like rolling a billion dice and having all of them come up as sixes. That's a misleading argument. When you combine mutation with selection and count sixes as a favorable result, a more suitable analogy would be rolling a billion dice, keeping the sixes, rerolling anything that's not a six. If you do this, it doesn't take many generations for you to have 99.99% of your dice showing a 6.

Many steps from abiogenesis to modern-day lifeforms are still unproven. However, considering that many steps have been shown to be correct, and considering the lack of evidence in favor of the creationist hypothesis, I'll take abiogenesis as the likelier hypothesis.

Answer 7

Life didn't evolve from non life.. in that you are right...

Life evolved from the life of God, who breathed his very life and image into us.

So, I don't have to read the link.

As far as evolution... who is to say that God didn't create evolution?

Take care

Answer 8

Are you still banging away about this? That brain cell isn't going to last forever, you know.

Bring on The Question Man, someone you can rely on to give you the answer you want...

(It's because it's the same person, everyone! Don't say I said!)

Answer 9

What difference does it make? We're here now. The future is ahead. Have we nothing better to do than try to validate irrelevant stone age philosophies?

Do something useful. Make someones (even if it's your own) life better.

Answer 10

it didn't come from anywhere
somebody wrote down in the Bible that god created every thing
but they dont show any evidence or offer any proof that god created every thing