Do evolutionists realize?

Question

In the 1860's, there was a common belief that some more "basic" animals could simply form out different substances. Maggots could form in rotting meat, worms formed from dirt, certain toads could form in mud. The belief was called "Spontaneous Generation" and was used to explain a lot of things science didn't understand yet.

Darwin applied this same silly superstitious belief to answering one of the most important questions ever asked...How did life begin on Earth? He said that in a pool of some unknown "primordial soup" the correct conditions existed for the spontaneous formation of life.

Here's the best part....you believe it! Why???

You can prove that all the ingredients exist, but that's about it. The correct conditions for them to mix into something resembling life have never existed. Besides, even a virus is far too complex to form spontaneously from random parts. Mathematically speaking, the primordial soup theory is impossible (and still just plain silly).

Answer 1

You are confusing two important concepts. Evolution is one of them and Darwin never seriously addressed the issue of the actual origin of life. Abiogenesis is a separate branch of biology that deals with "primordial soup." You might be interested to read of the Miller-Urey experiment which clearly demonstrates that the amino acids which form the basis of life can be spontaneously created from the gases of earth's primitive atmosphere.

It's painfully obvious that you are only as educated as you imagine you must be to refute abiogenesis and evolution, thus supporting your own religious prejudices. This is NOT the way to discover Truth. "A little knowledge" always results in erroneous conclusions. You have much study ahead of you, if you're ever to glimpse the truth.

Answer 2

Here we go again. Evolution is only about what happens to existing life. It has absolutely nothing to do with the origins of life. That is a different field of research. Research on the origins of life is not suggesting that maggots are produced by rotting meat or mice come from cheese. It is a different sort of idea than "spontaneous generation".

As for spontaneous generation, the author of Genesis 1 assumed it was true, which is why he has God give the command but it is the earth that brings forth life. So if you are determined to press the issue, you'll find that Genesis 1 if taken literally takes a worse hit from science than scientific research on the origins of life does.

Answer 3

Spontaneous generation and primordial soup had nothing to do with Darwin. That was someone else altogether.
The thing about science is that it's in a constant state of flux. Things change as new facts are known and old hypotheses are discarded. Science is about the finding of fact through trial and error. Pity that religion isn't the same way.

Answer 4

First,it doesn't matter if GOD himself "poofed" the first organism into existance,it has no relevance to EVOLUTION,which explains the diversity of life,doesn't explain how it started,doesn't attempt to. That is a field called "ABIOGENESIS". Please,everyone,quit parrotting your pastor or the creationist website,do some research. How in God's name(yes,I went there)do you expect to disprove ANYTHING until you at least know what it is?It is unbelievable,you have no more a clue than Hovind,who states drivel such as "The big bang,otherwise known as evolution" The Start of life is NOT evolution. Why are you all so afraid of it? It makes you look so damn stupid when you come on attacking a theory,and in your question,make it evident you don't even know what you "don't believe". Lastly,we don't know the conditions or how life actually began.Now we are discussing ABIOGENESIS,not evolution.

Answer 5

It's obvious that you know nothing about what Darwin wrote. Have you read The Origin of Species? If not, how can you talk with any authority on the subject? Oh, and the guy above me should take a deep breath and calm down. Oh, and "survival of the fittest" does not mean only the strong survive. It means those organisms most adapted to their environment will survive.

Answer 6

You are mistaking Lamarkian evolution for actual science. You further compound your error by claiming that the ToE says anything at all about the formation of life. Darwin said nothing whatsoever about a primordial soup. His theory was purely about how already-existing life changed over time from simpler creatures to more complex ones.

Lamarkian "evolution" did not contribute to Darwin's ideas. The man started out from scratch and then (unlike Creationists) actually went out and gathered evidence to test his hypothisis. As opposed to your armchair assumptions.

Answer 7

Did you know that the building blocks of life - amino acids - form naturally in interstellar dust clouds?
It's not unusual for religious folks to dismiss the possibility of life arising spontaneously as a result of natural chemical processes, but we do know that amino acids, the building blocks of proteins in living organisms, are formed as a by-product of chemical processes that take place naturally in interstellar clouds of gas and dust. It is in the nature of atoms and molecules to bind together into more complex molecules in the presence of a source of energy - In this case, UV radiation. If amino acids can form spontaneously, by common chemistry, then why not more complex organic molecules? Why not, by chance, a self-replicating molecule? Why not, ultimately, life? Even if the chance occurrence of a self-replicating molecule is a very low probability event, what does that matter in a universe of a billion trillion suns and billions of years for chemistry to have its effect? And one such event might be all that's needed to kick-start life.

Think about this though: What's the alternative? If life didn't start by an unthinking, undirected natural process then it had to be the result of an intentional act by an intelligent entity that *already exists* with absolutely no cause, no origin, no explanation, no history, no antecedents of any kind, and that possibility is infinitely more improbable than a particularly complex form of the chemistry that we already *know* exists.

Answer 8

If you think one person's hypothesis is the SOLE basis for us accepting the existence of a primordial sea, then you should hold your tongue--you only display your ignorance with statements like these.

Nothing becomes widely accepted in science until it has the crap beaten out of it with peer review. Scientists, all eager to prove each other wrong, will pick and pick at every piece, and if they find ONE problem, they'll reject it. Only the strongest, most solid evidence makes it through the gauntlet that is the peer review system. The existence of the primordial sea is one such concept.

Answer 9

Not only does evolution not attempt to explain the origin of life, but it has nothing to do with spontaneous generation. Also, current theory is far more advanced than what Darwin proposed.

Do you realize that you are an ignorant victim of propaganda, and that this question mocks you more than anyone else?

Please, visit a library and ask a librarian to help you research evolution.

Answer 10

Interesting that they have duplicated that primordial soup in the lab and protean and cells have developed from that. Add a few billion years and you could very easily have animals. You should have at least a little concept of what you are talking about when you open your mouth.