Origin of life, evolutionists, explain please?

Question

(A) Passing a spark through a mixture of gasses forms simple amino acids but -

(B) they are only the very simplest of 'building blocks' used in the formation of larger organic molecules.

(C) they must be caught in a cold trap to prevent the spark from destroying them

(D) a reducing (non oxygen) atmosphere is necessary.

(E) any amino acids forming would have been destroyed by the ultra-violet rays of the Sun. These conditions would not have occurred in nature.

(F) Even allowing millions of years, there has still been insufficient time or material in the whole universe for very complex organic molecules to have formed BY CHANCE.

When are you going to start realising evolution is a lie?

Answer 1

Why did you say all that and then ask about evolution? Nothing you said had a thing to do with evolution.

"Blah origins of life blah blah abiogenesis blah blah blah! Evolution?" -- basically what you said.

Answer 2

A) True - Miller/Urey experiment (but they should have left out the water because there wouldn't have been any in that primitive atmosphere, or at least very little): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

B) So what if they are only the simplest of building blocks used in the formation of larger molecules? How do you think larger molecules get formed in the first place?

C) This is a false assumption because if it were true then the sparks would have destroyed ALL of them and we wouldn't be having this debate.

D) False. The UV rays of the sun could have been blocked by clouds or if the amino acids had fallen into caves or deep waters. You are making a false assumption here.

E) You are putting your own belief system ahead of the evidence. As we are here and there are complex organic molecules that have been formed by chance, you are incorrect.

When are YOU going to start realizing that evolution is a FACT? Evolution is REAL - get over it.

Answer 3

Amino Acids can be formed in the presence of both oxygen and ultraviolet light, the stability of the structure will still remain intact. Amino acids have been repeatedly created in lab condition emulating what is understood of environment and geography at the time.

From amino acids it isn't a great leap to a simple single celled prokaryote. A prokaryotic cell lack any membrane bound organelles and is little more than a lump of genetic information. (ie a combination of amino acids). Prokaryotes area almost always unicellular.

This brings us to endosymbiosis (generally when one cell engulf another) Since unicellular organism are highly adaptive, you will have had the occurrence of endosymbiants acting as organelles. Through the processes of Mitosis this variant was carried on. This also explains why certain organelles will have variable genetic information. Geno-typing today is almost exclusively done using nuclear DNA. Mitochondrial DNA is different and can be used even to differentiate between identical twins.

It has also been shows that certain cells will mimic the behavior of those close to them. As an example stem cells when combined with cardiac tissue will begin to mimic the structure and function, allowing them to to become and reproduce as cardiac tissue. Neat stuff.

This pretty much shows us that in the earlier stages of evolution it is fully feasible that cells began combining and working together towards a similar goal giving our first effective multicellular organisms.

There are countless single and multicellular organism which are recognized as life forms to this date.

Answer 4

You're evidence ignores the existence of oceans. Any water deeper that 10 meters is sufficient to attenuate UV and is the cold trap you mentioned. The oxygen rich atmospere we have now is a function of photosynthesis which occured after life began. Your "millions of years" should be "hundreds of millions of years", and "chance" is an exageration, because once one complex molecule has catalytic activity, all the rules of randomness change.

Your points A and B are true and are support of abiogenesis. C and D refute nothing. E is false. F is an assertion contary to the evidence -- there is life on Earth.

Answer 5

b-many types of simple molecules are capable of self-replicating, and growing more complex over time

c-there are other ways amino acids could have formed

d-early earth was low in oxygen becuase plants hadnt yet come about

e-life could have very well started deep under the ocean

f-i doubt it given the principles of evolution

even if evolution is a lie, i dont care because religion is a bigger one

Answer 6

First it is billions of years not millions. We can see things billions of light years away so that light took billions of years to get here.

Second you are right, we don't have all the answers, but you have to explain the fossil record that has life starting simple and getting more complex over a long period of time. Evolution happened somehow. You can argue details or how it happened all day and that is fine. But any valid theory HAS to match the fossils. Creationism DOES NOT.

Answer 7

When are you going to start to realize that there's proof of evolution, there's no proof of your god?

suspendor, please don't be an idiot. I most definately can answer but...

1. I'm at work and shouldn't be on here anyway.

2. You wouldn't understand anything I said.

3. It would require alot of typing and teaching you (and the other fundies) the basics of science that you should have learned in high school. You aren't going to find your answer in 1000 letters or less on any message board.

Answer 8

So there is nowhere on earth that lacks O2 and ultraviolet light?
How about volcanic vents at the bottom of the ocean?
These conditions have and continue to exist in nature.
Try researching real science. Christian Science is a fraud.

Answer 9

In as much as I was not around to see how everything came into being (and neither were you),I say, "I don't know ..... YET!" To assume that some god, my less than intellectual ancestors made up, instantaneously farted the universe into being, is absurd

Answer 10

i'm no longer an evolutionist, yet i'm a biologist. for this reason i'm going to take a stab at it. First, the great bang has no longer something in any appreciate with the commencing place of existence in the international different than the universe would not be right here in any different case. 2d, on the 2d there is not any longer adequate techniques to make certain precisely how existence began, and it ought to in no way be totally desperate. inspite of the very undeniable fact that, the potential of evolution by using organic determination would not rely on how existence started. the technique describes how existence variations. it particularly is such as mechanics in physics. In Newtonian mechanics, the rigidity on an unrestrained merchandise equals its mass circumstances its acceleration (F = ma). This regulation works ok for all mechanical computations, in spite of the undeniable fact that it would not describe the place a mass starts, purely the way it variations speed. actual regulations describe the approaches of substitute, no longer the actual places of each and every of the plenty whilst they started. in case you like greater techniques on the initiating of existence, verify the region decrease than.

Answer 11

The Truth is plainly explained in Genesis 1:7. Why some
people can't grasp this, is beyon me.