Why do people cling to the ridiculous notion that life evolved on earth?

Question

If you have the nerve, go to the link and read the article below. Then tell me why you still cling to the impossibility of life evolving from primordial soup? Soup? I think I'll go make some, or maybe if I wait long enough it will just appear on the kitchen table!

http://www.icr.org/article/493/

Most mutations are neutral? Mutations are detrimental and mutations occur in living organisms, mater does not mutate. Where is the impetus, the starter for life to start? Where in nature has any living thing just started up on it's own? And don't tell me in some bacteria, the ones used for observation already exist. Man can not create life and it does not and never has created it's self.

Yes we are evolving in the sense that we change in small ways within our kind but creatures do not transition from one kind of animal to another. You are correct, we will be what we will be. Never anything else.

Answer 1

Oddly enough it proves otherwise. If the odds are that small for one planet, then divide it by the billions of stars in the universe, then it becomes a very real possibility. Thanks.

Answer 2

I stopped reading when I came to the first straw-man argument. It didn't take long:

"Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them. Nevertheless, the evolutionist insists that each complex organism in the world today has arisen by a long string of gradually accumulated good mutations preserved by natural selection. "

Most mutations are neutral. I do not need to read any further, as this is the same useless drivel that has been posted and reposted a zillion times from those who either can't read or aren't willing to.

Edit: Yes, most mutations are neutral. Please take the time to verify from a *scientific* source. BTW, why do you start out talking about evolution and then rant about abiogenesis to make your point. You're just getting more convoluted and belligerent while failing to make sense, all the while butchering the English language.

To Lynchburg...your source is a creationist blog titled Neutral Mutations Prove Harmful, then goes on to say that "some genetic mutations....can be harmful." Wow, that's solid. I didn't take the time to look at the persons other blog linking Hitler to Darwin. Guess I'll stay in the dark. If I had to read the same creationist junk science every single time the same crap is regurgitated, I'd have no time left to learn anything.

BTW, what predictions does Creationism make? We need to test this "theory".

Answer 3

somehow you seem to think that "life evolved on earth" and "life evolved [on earth?] from primordial soup" are the same thing.

those probability arguments often make the basic mistake of counting the probability of ONE favorable outcome, but ignoring the issue of how many favorable outcomes there are. it is like saying because the odds of a full house are so tiny, no one can ever win a hand of poker. also no one actually knows which scenario is correct, so calculating the odds is beside the point.

the facts are that at one time, the earth had not been formed yet. once it was formed, life appeared soon after ("soon" meaning a few hundred million years, depending on which evidence and arguments you credit). either life formed in situ by natural processes, or outside intervention of some kind (pansperima, special creation, or whatever) was required. it is feasible to test the first possibility. the others, not so much. that is why scientists focus on it. you might notice that i said that life "appeared", not that it evolved. evolution (change in the genotype and phenotype of existing life) and abiogenesis (formation of life from non-living precursor systems) are different things both theoretically and empirically.

Answer 4

I think it is because of a kind of academic apathy, issuing from an undue overconfidence in current scientific knowledge. For many, evolution is the lens through which they see everything, and it is normally very hard work for someone to evaluate their own lens objectively. For example, assuming the "neutral mutation" theory has gone unnoticed by creationists would be a mistake. See http://creationuk.blogspot.com/2007/01/neutral-mutations-prove-harmful.html for an example of an articulate creationist response to this supposed problem. In fact, as the article notes, the neutral mutation theory was created as an escape hatch for the adverse pressure building on the original theory due to serious problems with a progression rate too slow to account for higher vertebrates. That is science of course. Today's darling theory is tomorrow's forgotten star. That is why it is always a mistake to "stop reading," as someone put it, because scientific knowledge must be held with the humility of knowing that we cannot be sure our theories will last very long at all. We are only human.

Answer 5

One of the first things you learn in statistics is that you can make the numbers work in any favor of the argument you want... so now that the basis of your argument has been discredited, let me tell you a little something.
We are still evolving, for example, our mouths are changing shape and getting smaller, that is why the wisdom teeth now have to be pulled and some people, like me, don't even get them in, they are not necessary and therefor are evolving to nonexistence. The true basis of evolution, is that in every living thing, there are spontaneous mutations that occur during the developmental stage, what many confuse is that they are not always bad. When they are bad, obviously they inhibit on the quality of ones life and successfulness to reproduce and are therefor eventually weeded out, but when it's a positive mutation it is more successful in longevity and reproductive success and genes can pass on and the chances and number of this feature increases and eventually becomes the norm. Keep in mind, this is an almost inconceivable amount of time that passes for evolution to happen.

Answer 6

Let's take it sentence by sentence:

"According to the most-widely accepted theory of evolution today, the sole mechanism for producing evolution is that of random mutation combined with natural selection."
Not exactly true. First of all, sexual reproduction is instant gratification, in evolutionary terms. Each offspring is QUITE different, genetically, from either of its parents. And that's just one generation! Other than that, the peppered moth is a good example of nature selecting from preexisting genes, allowing less popular ones to become the norm, without requiring mutation. This is quite a common phenomenon, and indeed a major player in speciation (what you would call "macroevolution"). When a group of organisms breaks away from the main population and relocates to a different environment, some genes will prove beneficial in the new context while other genes, once advantageous, will prove to be less helpful and will consequently be present in fewer offspring. Voila: variation without mutation. Darwin's finches are a good illustration of this principle. I just read an article in NY Times that deals with salmon, bred in captivity, having less reproductive success when reintroduced into the world. This shows that captive breeding allows less successful genes to flourish, only to be snuffed out when placed in harm's way, so to speak.

"Mutations are random changes in genetic systems."
Ok, I agree with that.

"Natural selection is considered by evolutionists to be a sort of sieve, which retains the "good" mutations and allows the others to pass away."
That's fine.

"Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them."
Not necessarily true. What about systems in equilibrium, where a slight perturbation from the equilibrium point will only result in the system coming back to equilibrium? Ultimately, system's of this type wouldn't change at all given a slight perturbation. But in biological terms, yes, many random mutations are detrimental. However, you have to scale your thinking if you want to talk about evolution. You have to think in geological time, billions of years, versus an organisms generation time which, for simple bacteria (which are quite complex organisms, absolutely speaking), can be several minutes! There is ample time, then, for simple trial and error to hone the genome of a species.

"Nevertheless, the evolutionist insists that each complex organism in the world today has arisen by a long string of gradually accumulated good mutations preserved by natural selection."
That's correct in that the genes themselves were established via random mutation, but it ignores what I've already said about selection without mutation. Although when you're talking about REALLY simple organisms, ones you might not even be inclined to call "living", a single mutation may make a big difference. We're talking about DNA, here, and it's not very complex. A gene is nothing more than a linear sequence of 4, count them, 4 nucleobases that can be arranged, rearranged, replaced, whatever, that's the foundation for ALL life. The accidental replacement of one of these for another on a strand of DNA is an example of a "mutation". A mutated gene might do nothing more than slightly increase the concavity of a primordial eye socket, but if it helps the organism survive and reproduce, it's paid it's dues and will make it through to future generations.

"No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial (that is, adding useful genetic information to an existing genetic code), and therefore, retained by the selection process."
I'm skeptical of the veracity of this assertion. But really, to set up an experiment with the INTENT of observing a beneficial mutation is logistically impossible. You would first have to isolate a large (statistically significant) population of organisms, sequence ALL of their genomes, perhaps put them in a mildly different habitat to put some evolutionary pressure on them, let them breed, sequence the genomes of all the offspring, compare with with their individual parents, label the ones in which a mutation has appeared, let this new generation of organisms breed, and compare the reproductive success of each "mutant" to that of the mutation-free organisms. If one mutant had more offspring than the average non-mutant, there you go, a beneficial mutation. But it's not that cut and dry. What if the mutation did nothing and the better reproductive success was mere chance? It's a problem of correlation versus causation, and still insignificant, because it's one population and one generation. Perhaps plants would make better subjects.

That's enough of this. I'll thumb through their little proof there at the bottom, but don't call me surprised if I'm unimpressed.

Answer 7

It's a biased Creationist site with false information. Evolution is not what that article says. "Natural selection is considered by evolutionists to be a sort of sieve, which retains the "good" mutations and allows the others to pass away." This simply is not true. The changes and mutations are perfectly random...meaning no rhyme or reason. If they work they work, and if they don't work, natural selection will weed them out. We are not evolving up or down. We are simply evolving. It is you Creationist who keep imposing your "DESIGN" on everything. There is no design or designer and there is no progression to a super-human. We will be what we will be. There is no way to predict where evolution will take us.

@>}----}----

AD

Answer 8

I don't think life evolved ONLY on the earth, however it did evolve on the earth.

There are evidences of DNA particles in space. DNA is the earliest form of life.

By the way, the ridges and cavities seen on the surface of Venus does make us wonder whether some primitive life exists there.

The Universe is huge and the more we know about it, the more amazed we are!

Answer 9

When you limit your undersanding of evolution to the origins you miss the point... evolution goes on all the time.. the proof of it is in the living species of animals and insects and plants.. especially insects and plants where the first, the links and the offspring all co exist... There is a great deal about this beautiful planet and nature that we don't understand and we remain ignorant of it mainly due to religious influences on the earth who would deny any and all proof that challenges the limited understanding that religions impose on us... Nature isn't afraid of the truth...why do you.. Every time you claim BLIND faith... you choose to remain blind... "Let those who have eyes see... let those who have ears hear" even your bible challenges you to open your eyes and ears

Answer 10

You could be better off waiting for your soup to appear on your kitchen table.

Answer 11

Evolution and the big bang theory relies mainly on coincidence. Praise the LORD.