If life spontaneously occurred millions of years ago why is everything in a constant state of decay or death?
Why is there no current spontaneous life formation now?
How is this explained in the theory of evolution?
Please, facts only. No conjecture or theory.
2007-11-08
06:21:31
·
11 answers
·
asked by
Molly
6
in
Society & Culture
➔ Religion & Spirituality
Then what is your explanation of the origin of life?
2007-11-08
06:31:37 ·
update #1
What I'm trying to understan is where you are coming from about the origin of life, not species, but life itself.
2007-11-08
06:57:26 ·
update #2
Joseph M.
I would e-mail you, but you have it blocked. You e-mail me.
click on my avatar
2007-11-08
07:00:18 ·
update #3
If you REALLY want to understand this and are sincere, I will explain it to you. Just write to me. (You must understand that most believers I encounter on here are really not sincere about trying to understand these things).
-If life spontaneously occurred millions of years ago why is everything in a constant state of decay or death?
These two are not incompatible so it's difficult to understand what you mean. Things are born, they live and they die.
-Why is there no current spontaneous life formation now?
The conditions are rare. For all we know, they may be forming right now (e.g. in ocean vents, on other planets). Free Oxygen destroys most things now (there was none in the early atmosphere).
How is this explained in the theory of evolution?
-As others have pointed out, this is NOT explained by the theory of evolution. It lies in an area of science known as abiogenesis.
-Then what is your explanation of the origin of life?
It is not well understood HOW this happened, but there is very good evidence THAT this happened. There are many competing scientific ideas about the formation of early life. Realize that there were a lot of intermediates between organic molecules and the first cells.
2007-11-08 06:32:12
·
answer #1
·
answered by skeptic 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Evolution is a useful framework for evaluating evolvalble processes (like life). But evolution does not (by itself) address the original "bootstrapping" of life.
I think your question is really pretty good, even if it's presented somewhat awkwardly. The term you're looking for is called "abiogenesis" which is useful to google if you're interested. This is one of the main areas of scientific investigation right now. There are surprising insights that are being developed, but so far there are no reports of recognized abiogenisis occurring at the present time. (The most talked-about approaches are called "RNA world" and "metabolism first"). But in this, there is only conjecture -- at the moment. But remember, at one time there was only conjecture about how the earth orbited the sun (when the prevailing idea was the other way around. Evidence was accumulated to support the earth-around-the-sun hypothesis, and now no sensible person believes in the Aristotelian epicycles. So, give the researchers time! Science is hard work.
Some researchers point out that abiogenesis may have occurred more than once on earth, but once one form of information/metabolism was more viable that that particular form colonized the earth, at the exclusion of all competitors. The evidence for this is the fact that all organisms on earth, from bacteria and plants to dinosaurs and humans-- ALL organisms use the same DNA/RNA/protein matrix. All life on this planet is related (and not just figuratively)!
As for the nature of decay and death, this "feature" of life seems utterly necessary in order to facilitate evolution. Death is another way of saying "selection." And death is certainly a "fact," isn't it?
2007-11-08 14:42:25
·
answer #2
·
answered by kwxilvr 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
(1) I haven't personally noticed that "everything in a constant state of decay or death." We could just as easily look at birth, cures, etc and conclude the opposite.
(2) Evolution is biology, abiogenesis is more chemistry. There are a few theories of abiogenesis, and most of them don't leave much to chance.
(3) Conditions today are different from conditions in the past in two important ways: First, there was little or no molecular oxygen in the atmosphere or oceans when life first appeared. Free oxygen is reactive and would likely have interfered with the formation of complex organic molecules. More importantly, there was no life around before life appeared. The life that is around today would scavenge and eat any complex molecules before they could turn into anything approaching new life.
2007-11-08 14:30:50
·
answer #3
·
answered by Eleventy 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
because currently there is life everywhere it possibly can be. Even in thermal springs or vents on the ocean floor.
Any newly evolving life form would get immediately eaten or pushed out by existing life forms. The existing life forms had millenia to adapt to the conditions they live in. How would a new, still imperfect lifeform which just came into existance stand a chance?
It's like expecting a newborn baby beat a heavy weight world champion in a fight. It just doesn't happen.
2007-11-08 14:27:27
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Theory of Evolution never claims to be a Theory of the Origin of Life: it is a Theory of Evolution. Things evolve over time: there's the theory in a nutshell. Get it. Please. It can easily co-exist with a Theory of a Fellow who Sits in the Clouds and Poofs Things into Existence.
Please read the Theory before attacking it.
2007-11-08 14:25:55
·
answer #5
·
answered by Blackacre 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
There is no evolutionary explanation for the origin of life. Evolution cannot occur unless there is already life present that is capable of reproduction.
2007-11-08 14:25:19
·
answer #6
·
answered by Rev. Still Monkeys 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Mainly because once the one celled animals came into existance they tended to eat anything else that was trying to come into existance, hence, no more "spontaneous" life emerging, only existing life forms evolving. Makes perfect sense doesn't it?
2007-11-08 14:26:38
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I think that Gen 1,1ff explains it all.
It's clear that we can either follow an all-wise God who created the Universe or a poor guy Darwin.
2007-11-09 03:19:29
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
It would be a lot easier if you bought a book on the subject, there are many out there. 'The Blind Watchmaker' by Richard Dawkins is an excellent example, and not too difficult to read.
2007-11-08 14:26:13
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
this not a conjecture or theory
if you dont believe in the bible your confused
because in the bible it says in the beginning god created heaven and earth
if your sencre and want the truth please email me back
2007-11-08 14:31:27
·
answer #10
·
answered by Joseph M 1
·
0⤊
0⤋