Evolution Question?

Question

I was told this argument by those that believe in intelligent design. Scientists claim that life began from amino acids. Yet as of date no one has been able to create life from the ground up: Combining chemicals to make a cell. They say that argue then that the statement “life can emerge spontaneously” is without merit. Has anyone been able to create life from the ground up as of today (Please attach proof)? What type of damage would this bring to the evolutionary arguement if they have not, and the creationist arguement if they have?

Answer 1

Another question that is basically saying, "I don't understand it, my bible is against is, so it must be false. Science is wrong."

One side has proof... one side has the bible. I'll go with proof every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Answer 2

Using just the elements from the primitive environment that geologist think existed on earth about three billion years ago scientists have been able to create 13 of the 20 amino acids and all four of the DNA base pairs using only an electrical charge.

It's true that this has never resulted in in vitro creation of life. But this does go a fair way in establishing an environment in which the potential for abiogenesis existed. There is definitely an element of chance to the reacions needed to spark life.

So in order to truly test if abiogenesis could occur, we would need a few things that are not necessarily practical: 1) precise knowledge of the composition of the environment at the time abiogenesis is hypothesized to occur; 2) a test bed the size of the earth.

Regarding any potential for damage to evolutionary theory. There is none. Evolutionary theory is well established in the biological community and it has been experimentally confirmed (and to a certain extent, observed). Of course it is possible that evolution could be displaced as the explanation for biological diversity, but that would be because evolution was falsified, not abiogenesis.

Answer 3

You are correct in stating that scientists have not built life "from the ground up", but let me give you a little more information about the advances in this field.

As far back as the 1950's, scientists discovered that they could produce amino acids in a lab.

In the early 60's it was shown that the foundations of DNA could be produced in lab conditions.

A few years back (2003) scientists constructed an "artificial" strand of DNA, and introduced it into a virus, after which the virus became "reanimated" and started multiplying. Okay, so a virus isn't all that impressive to most people, but research into this area is growing.

It is only a matter of time.

Of course, once this has happened, there will still be people (like xenos) that will say "That only happened because God willed it."

Answer 4

There have been experiments in which the hypothesized conditions of early earth were replicated and amino acids did form spontaneously. However, I will entertain the notion that those experiments did not occur. That hypothesis is the best that science can give us based on what we know from experimentation. Just because details aren't demonstrated doesn't mean that we should make a leap and assume a designer. It just doesn't make sense to make such an assumption. The theory makes logical sense and much of it is demonstrable. The resisters are the same types of people who believed in a flat earth and that the earth was the center of the universe. They are saying unless you can show us we want you to accept this far fetched explanation that has absolutely no evidence, no deductive quality whatsoever and accept it as truth. It's enough to make your blood boil. Please don't accept their claims. But this is all irrelevant since spontaneous amino acid construction was demonstrated in the lab. Please study the science and learn for yourself. You don't even have to give up god, just ignorance.

Answer 5

No, as of yet life in an intelligent form has not yet spawned from soup. We have been able to get amino acids that react and perform primitive life functions but we are not yet able to create life in a beaker. This has no implications for evolution, there are other planets in the universe but we are not yet able to reach them. It just means that more needs to be learned.
If we are in fact intelligently designed, why are there so many mistakes? Why are our bodies so inefficient? Why are our pelvises not turned all the way upright, they are still half turned in a position for walking on all fours; turned a little further and our lower backs would not be so weak, our legs and hips would be stronger etc. We have so much extra DNA and vestigial parts that are unnecessary, why? Why add the extra and waste space and energy?

Answer 6

No one has yet created life from non-life. But there are no doubt millions upon millions of possible combinations, and scientists would have to test each and every one.
So I guess those ID people will have to be patient. But don't worry, the proof will come.
Just because we haven't figured it out YET doesn't make it untrue.

Answer 7

Scientists have been able to create amino acid from simple elements. There is a good chance that something more complex can be synthesized.

See:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g8wpg0027820m260/
http://www.icr.org/article/571/4/
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/69/4/809.pdf

Answer 8

Miller/Urey Experiment

Also: Something that's likely enough to happen somewhere on earth if you wait a few hundred thousand years isn't necessarily going to happen if you reproduce the same conditions in a single lab and then wait a few months.

Answer 9

We have not created stars. That does no invalidate astrophysics. If it takes a thousand years on bench tops, it would be absolutely definitive. If one hundred million year elapse without success, we have to rethink things if they haven't been rethought by then. Either way, failure to prove abiogenesis, does not invalidate evolution, since once life appeared, it clearly differentiated.

Answer 10

on this one he is right no one has... YET.

The "G-d of the gaps" theory is pretty weak.

If your going to state your faith on something just because it has not been discovered yet what are you going to do when it is.


Its said people would knock science to boost there faith. My belief in a creator comes from science it only supported as our knowledge of the Universe develops. Its sad that people would rather attack than embrace.