Evolutionists, what is the best theory for the origin of life?

Question

I want to know what evolutionists believe to be the best answer they have for the evolution of life. How do they believe non-living materials became living?
Convince me your right.
I dare you.

Answer 1

The process of "non-living materials becoming living" is called abiogenesis, which is not formally part of evolution theory, but nevertheless is facilitated by key concepts in it. In formal evolution theory, mutations leads to changes which may or may not be adaptive, and natural selection weeds out the non-adaptive. In abiogenesis, the problem is slightly different, in that we don't have mutations, since that already presupposes life. Instead, we have self-organized complexity, which is a much studied field today. It's the phenomenon of spontaneous complexity arising from simpler systems, and it's observed all the time, in the field, laboratory, and through computer simulations. Most people are resistant to the idea because it seems counterintuittive. Everyday life seems to tell us that things always go from good to bad, from ripe to rotten, from order to disorder. Ask any mother. But in fact if one looks for them more closely, there are numerous instances of spontaneous order or complexity occuring even at this moment. For example, even after billions of years of churning and mixing of the earth's crust, still we are finding certain materials congregrating or even being refined naturally. How is that possible, that churning would actually SORT out things? But it does, and anyone with a jar full of sand, pepple, and gravel can easily find out by experiment, just by shaking it. Beautiful and complex snowflakes are created by the uncountable gazillons, and yet most people agree that God isn't personally crafting each one of them, natural laws are sufficient to explain how they've come about. Likewise, many studies have been made about the formation of early life on earth, such as the spontaneous formation of tiny organic bubbles by fatty lipids, which have already been shown to form quite readily on their own. These tiny lipid bubbles are the orign of our cellular membrane, and it doesn't take much speculation to see how other chemicals can be entrapped in these fatty bubbles and thus create tiny closed systems. And, like snowflakes, there would be uncountable gazillons of them, and with a lot of variations in what's inside them. It had taken billons of years before eukaryotes came into being, it will be a long and fascinating story exactly how they've come into being, and a lot of the chapters have already been worked out. Evolutionists read those chapters and see how well it dovetails with not only their own field of study, but a great many other branches of science, and that is why most of them believe that's how life came into being.

Answer 2

Evolution does not discuss how life started or else it would not be a science.
It discusses the ancestral relationships between different species and living things.
Clearly, one can not say non-living objects changed into living things.
yet, if people get out of their cocoon, they will see how evidences do support evolution.
this is because of the similarities between many species at different levels.
Evolution mainly depend on the notion of natural selection.
For example giraffes had once short necks, but few giraffes had a slightly longer necks. the latter had a better chance to survive because they can reach higher leaves thus these will live longer and bring more offsprings with longer necks. Through generations, more giraffes with higher and higher necks are born, until the population of giraffes became completely long-necked (They were naturally selected for survival).
Like giraffes, humans had once an ancestor with different body structure. However, gradually as a trait that is slightly fitter apperas due to a certain mutation, it will predominate in the course of evolution. The accumulation of such mutaions (Changes in traits) lead to humans as we know them today.
So, humans were not apes. They had a common ancestor with apes but each differentiated in a separate route due to different mutations. Therefore no monkey can change into a present human whatsoever.
The best prove for such trend is the embryonic similarities and the DNA compositions of related species. A human embryo can not be differentiated from an ape embryo as an eample.
Finally, evolution is not a threatening for human race superiority, it is a supporter for it because humans are the most advantageous creatures. THey are the fittest.

Answer 3

The theory of evolution doesn't make assumptions about what the origin of life was. The process of evolution begins after the first completely functional cell appeared on Earth. Anything that happened before that is speculation.

Answer 4

Most theories of evolution make no predictions or claims about how the first life began on Earth. Evolutionary theory is more interested with how life adapts to the changing enviroment and how some species survive while others go extinct.

Answer 5

evolution is not an accurate theory. it has many faults and major weaknesses. no proof is available. evolutionists claim they have proof from fossils but it is not sufficient - no intermediates between groups of living things. many people have used imaginative drawings and unsuccessful exp and false fossils to convince people that it is true. natural selection is true and is not the same as evolution. evolution does not answer the question of how life began or originated from.

Answer 6

There are no theories, only hypotheses. Nothing has sufficient evidence to be definitive. Abiogenesis is the strongest, since RNA possesses the intrinsic properties needed for a catalyst that produces self-similar properties. That is the best hypothesis and I dare you to refute it with facts.

Answer 7

It's obvious by your attitude that I couldn't convince you that the sky is blue, regardless of how many scientific proofs I cited.