Simple question about evolution...?

Question

I asked this question before but no would would discuss it with me:

How did life form from non-living matter and if this is the case how come no one has ever seen non-living matter turn into living matter?

Since there is no evidence (based on Louis Pasteur's and many others works) that living matter could come from non-living matter wouldn't this be a matter of faith that since life is here (on earth) it had to have come from non-living matter?

If so I thought science was not faith based, but rather used knowledge to draw conclusions?

With that being said why does science rule out all possibilities of a higher being creating life simply because it cannot be proven, but in the same breath turn around and say that life from non-living matter and/or Panspermia (the idea of aliens planting life on earth) is possible when it cannot be proven either?

Why are we so quick to rule out the thought of a higher power, but not so quick with any other hypothesis for the creation of life?

http://www.answers.com/topic/abiogenesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Couldn't people say the same thing about evolution in a since that yeah things change over time, but where is the beginning at? Evolution ceases to explain this, Is it me or is it when people cannot answer the question before them they get angry and try to critisize?
Why not just try an give an educated answer instead of trying to attack people =)

I am learning about abiogenesis, but when I look into it and there alternative hypothesis is panspermia... It makes me wonder why religion is criticized so much.

I'm not trying to mix the too... and i believe you are talking about the creation of prokaryotecells, which is basically bacteria cells not eukaryote cells and why is it that this can only be done in a science lab and not observed anywhere else in the world without some sort of help.

Answer 1

It's a dirty little secret, but science can not duplicate the creation of life, from non-life. Yes - it has been touted in textbooks that Miller-Urey in the 50's recreating our ancient atmosphere (from methane, ammonia, water and hydrogen) was able to created amino acids, and that these amino acids are the building blocks of life.

First it needs to be noted, that Miller assumed what the atmosphere was like (he assumed no oxygen, but the oldest rocks shows oxygen, when they were formed) and they also fail to mention that Miller cheated by using a trap door in his experiment (I did not know they had trap doors in “primordial soup”). The last and most important thing they fail to mention is that Miller created only left/right handed amino acids which can NEVER support life. It is erroneous to say that Miller experiment produced even the building blocks necessary for life. Miller failed and people that hold to abiogenesis need to see that their emperor does not have any clothes.

Colossians 1:16
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Answer 2

The conditions that formed the original life forms is not yet well understood. We do find evidence of extremely simple organisms (proto single cell) as the earliest fossils. Various research has shown that the components for like can be formed given the right conditions.

Contrast this with "faith" where the creation myth has very little, if any at all, resemblance to the evidence that we see around us. Add in the flood myth - totally impossible as there is not enough hydrogen present in this world to create the water needed, and the exodus - absolutely no collaborating evidence whatsoever; and you have a very shaky platform to build your faith on.

Consider this, scientists don't just "come up" with stuff, they spend years studying, testing, analyzing and completely immersed in what they are working on. When they reach a conclusion, they publish it and it is further scrutinized by others that are as equally dedicated. Even after this scientist will review previous work and will question its validity.

Answer 3

You're gonna find this one difficult as I think you are a religious person. I do not know how the world came to be nor will I ever know. This is fine with me and doesn't effect my everyday life. I won;t believe in god by default however. This is the thing religious people cannot understand, even if there isn't an answer to a question they will 'fill the gap in' by assuming 'god did it' Why not be content with 'I don't know' Insecurity I think personally. Evolution sounds the best theory at the moment but I haven't a clue how it all started. I cannot rule out a 'higher power' as this would be foolish, if there was one I am quite sure he/it would not be as these religions describe! It is laughable!! Loving god who won't help us out because he gave us free will and he is sticking to it! Come on..Everything about man's invention of god is so obvious. It is all based on getting more followers and pretending there is an afterlife. As if a supreme being would be bothered who followed him or believed in him or not, it really is a absurd notion for anyone possessing any common sense.

Answer 4

I wasn't there when it happened.

Pasteur no more proved life can't form from non-life than the Wright Brothers proved man cannot fly to the moon. He just showed it doesn't happen under the conditions he tested.

What you need to realize is that the universe is vast. Likely even infinite. Life only needed to start once among a vast number ( likely infinite ) number of planets, and here we are.

All estimates of the probability of abiogenesis are based on false assumptions. Until we know the process any calculations are completely impossible.

Abiogenesis is not faith based. We have evidence life originated. We just don't know exactly how. 5 billion years ago life did not exist on earth ( Earth was not here ). Now life does exist. Therefore we can conclude that life originated. It only remains to work out the details.

We have evidence life originated, we have none for gods.

Answer 5

Well, the "higher power" thing doesn't explain anything at all, of course.

Other than that, I think you have a pretty good point. However, notice that your point is not about evolution at all, but rather about abiogenesis.

Also notice that the fact that Pasteur didn't produce any evidence for "life from non-life" doesn't mean that there isn't any such evidence. The Miller-Urey experiments are pretty good evidence that such a thing might be possible, though they fall short of what we're really like.

Also you seem to think that the two possibilities are "proven" and "faith-based". You're missing almost all of the spectrum in between: evidence-based, which is where ALL of science falls. Science is by no means based on faith, even in areas like this. Scientists are routinely doing research to find out what happened, what is possible, what might still happen. Gazoo points to some more recent studies. In addition, many wide-ranging fields of science look into this - you may have read a week or two ago about astronomers' discovery of water molecules in interstellar gas clouds, and you've certainly seen regular reports about the chemistry of other planets and moons in our own solar system. Nothing faith-based about it: we're looking HARD for evidence.

Creationism, on the other hand, is utterly non-scientific. I'll bet that you can't point me to a single "creation scientist" working on the big, obvious problems of creationism. Instead, the creationists are all engaged in nothing more than producing convincing lies against evolutionary science.

Lying about someone else's theory is not "doing science". Since that is ALL that "creation scientists" do, there is no such thing as real "creation science", and creationism is 100% dead as an explanation for anything at all.

Answer 6

Evolution is an observed fact. It has been observed in the laboratory and in the field. In this it is no different to gravity or combustion, both of which are also observed facts.

There have been two major theories that have attempted to explain this observed fact. The first was fairly quickly found to be incorrect. The second major theory was jointly proposed by Alfred Russell Wallace and Charles Darwin in 1859. This involved inheritance of random mutations, and selection of any mutations by the external environment if they helped the organism reproduce. This theory has been attacked and modified by later discoveries but in the central ideas have always come up grinning.

The main stream of the theory of evolution and evolution itself is supported by literally tons of hard evidence in possibly millions of scientific papers published in all major languages in thousands of scientific journals over the past 140 years or more. The evidence is overwhelming.

Abiogenesis is informed speculation and is not necessary for evolution and is independent of it. There is no direct evidence for it so it remains an hypothesis. However some chemical evidence indicates there may be something in it. This is not proof of abiogenesis or even proof that the concept is viable. However such evidence as there is can lead to rational or informed speculation.

I am not a great reader of scientific literature but I suspect that there is very little research into abiogenesis. There may be no or little prospect of it producing anything useful. Most chemists, biochemists, biologists etc are engaged in industrial or medical research and even "pure" research in these fields is often vaguely linked to possible application.

Any material that does happen to appear to link to an hypothesis of abiogenesis will probably come out of discoveries made by the way. Such things as surface chemistry, polymers, spontaneous reactions by RNA or DNA or like molecules might be things that might relate to an hypothesis.

Panspermia is even more speculative than abiogenesis. In fact it only sets the appearance of life back another notch. It has been proposed by some scientists, two of whom were well outside their field of expertise which was astrophysics. I doubt that many take it very seriously. I'm sure the attitude is "who cares?". Since there is no evidence for it, it remains an hypothesis. When someone turns up a meteorite with the remains of absolutely non-terrestrial organisms in it, or even organisms that are still alive, then there will be evidence.

If the origin of life on this planet was one or just a few organisms, the only evolutionary factor would be its or their ability to reproduce. There would be no or next to no competition for resources and no pressure from predators.

This would be true whether the organisms arose by chance, by divine intervention, by spores drifting across space or by Blork Wodgit from the planet Spunge deliberately putting a few organisms in a puddle by the sea.

Pasteur did not prove that life cannot arise from sterilised material. All he proved was that air-borne organisms can colonise unprotected nutrients. There is no evidence that Pasteur's mixture, whatever it was, was suitable for the appearance of life and there is no evidence that he ran the experiment long enough.

The experiment means only that abiogenesis is not rapid in a 19th century guess at a suitable medium. A few million years more time though might have led to a different conclusion.

Abiogenesis does not rule out a divine entity just as evolution does not. All that evolution, geology, physics and astrophysics rule out is the version of events related in the Hebrew scriptures just as the versions of events in Egyptian, Nordic, Native American and other myths have been ruled out by observations and measurements.

It is possible but not necessary to believe that the Universe was created in just such a way as to make the appearance of life on multiple planets inevitable, and the appearance of intelligent life inevitable on one or possibly more.

Answer 7

That's not a question about evolution, that's abiogenesis, which I'm guessing you realise.

By the way Pasteur thing, he proved that microscopic life doesn't appear in sterile environments, continuing to disprove the idea of spontaneous generation which was ludicrous in the first place.

Miller's (et al) experiments in abiogenesis have shown that in the right solution amino acids form spontaneously. This is the first step in producing evidence of the possibility of abiogenesis. No other origin of life theory has this much evidence to back it up.

So yeah, I suggest you read up on things before you start jumping to conclusions.

Answer 8

Amino acids have been created in the laboratory using the same inorganic substances present in "primordial soup". Luois Pasteur's work was done in the late 18th century. We have progressed a long way since then. Remember, science advances, but dogma is set in concrete.

I have answered this same question many times. The link below takes you to a report on the progress of the experiment. So, contrary to your opinion, there is evidence that organic life can form from inorganic substances, and researchers are getting closer to doing it all the time. Of course, if the fundamentalist christians get the research banned or the funding cut, as they have in the US with stem cell research, then it will be more difficult (but not impossible) to prove them wrong, won't it? Another example of religion interfering with the advances that will better life for all humanity.

Answer 9

Life precursors can be created in a lab. Its not that hard. Its not that hard even to recreate the conditions that probably existed when life originated on earth, and see these precursors spontaneously form.

But remember, this reaction had to happen just once. It did so around 4,000,000,000 years ago. You are asking a lot to see direct records (though there are organisms alive in Australia that go back nearly that far).

Evolution is the process that took over from there, and it is not random but rapidly and highly selective. Even so it took aeons to give rise to higher organisms.

There is no evidence of any god in any of this.

Why would you invent what is not needed, not called for, complicates the explanation rather than simplifying it and leads to disastrous side effects (religious war etc).

Answer 10

Abiogenesis remains a hypothesis, meaning it is the working assumption for scientists researching how life began. If it were proven false, then another line of thought would be used to modify or replace abiogenesis as a hypothesis. If test results provide sufficient support for acceptance, then that is the point at which it would become a theory.

Please note the words hypothesis and theory.

Answer 11

If some people wouldn't discuss this with you, it was probably because they are tired of answering the same questions over and over again. But since I benefitted from those who had the patience to explain these things to me, I will try to do the same!

The first point to note is that evolution is about how life develops once it exists. The origin of life is a separate field of science. It should be noted that science by definition seeks to understand the natural processes at work in our universe. Since the conditions on the early earth were very different than today, and the evidence from that time is much more likely to have been affected by the passing of time and the elements, research on these questions is difficult. Nevertheless, there is an excellent recent book by J. W. Schopf entitled _Cradle of Life_ that discusses what scientists know at present and what is still uncertain regarding the origins of life, the oldest fossils of bacteria and other simple life forms, and so on.

I would also like to clarify your point about Pasteur. Pasteur was not addressing the question of whether, in ancient earth conditions very different from those today, natural processes could lead to the origin of life. Pasteur was addressing the notion of 'spontaneous generation', i.e. that life forms such as maggots appeared fully-formed in raw mean, mice in cheese, mold on bread, and so on. No scientist thinks that either today or in the past, living things arose in one giant leap like that. The author of Genesis, however, presumably accepted the idea of spontaneous generation and of the earth's generative power, since he has God command the earth to bring forth living things. So young-earth creationists, in drawing attention to Pasteur's work, have misunderstood it and its relationship to both the scientific study of origins and to the Bible.

Let me say again that scientists study natural processes. Is it possible that life on earth arose by some 'non-natural process'? Certainly. But the only way we will know is if scientists keep investigating the question using scientific methods. Even then, however, the fact that scientists don't explain something today doesn't mean they will not tomorrow. Religious believers have down the ages pointed to those things that were inexplicable as proof of God. If scientists had ever stopped when religion put up a 'do not cross' sign, then we would not understand the movement of planets, the nature of electricity, genetic defects, disease caused by germs, or any of the other wonderful things that science has helped us to understand. To use an analogy, you wouldn't tell a criminal investigator to stop looking for a "natural" explanation for a murder simply because there was little evidence and it was hard to identify a murderer, would you? In theory, you might be open to the possibility that "God simply wanted that person dead". In practice, we know nowadays that most events are much more mundane, and the appropriate thing for criminal investigators to do in such instances is to leave the file open. In the same way, scientists have some inkling of some of the processes that may have led to the origins of life. But it is an investigation that is still going on. The file is still open. The danger for religious believers is to say 'Science can never explain this', because that has been done before, and each time it has left religious believers feeling embarrassed and ashamed. Why would anyone who has the advantage of historical examples of this want to put religion in that position today? I could understand why OPPONENTS of religion might want to, but it often seems that it is the ADHERENTS themselves who are actively trying to discredit religious beliefs. I can't help wondering if young-earth creationist organizations aren't secretly run by people who hate Christianity and want to make it look bad!