There's a difference between spontaneous generation and abiogenesis.
What's the difference?
There's a difference between spontaneous generation and abiogenesis.
Agreed. But we have seen pseudolife arise. Computer viruses are at least as alive as biological viruses; they have no life on their own, but in an appropriate host can reproduce and even evolve.
Likewise, we have seen RNA molecules - nothing more than chemicals - that can reproduce themselves indefinitely in the correct environment. Is that life? It strains the definition, but it's surely close.
And there's the key - that word "virtually."
There are, by even conservative estimates, half a trillion planets in the galaxy. On each one there have been at _least_ billions of years to evolve life, for that one chance reaction to take place that created that first self-replicating molecule. With half a trillion planets, each with trillions of square meters of potentially reactive surface, each square meter with billions of years for that chance event to occur - just about every chance reaction that can happen, will happen.
Agreed. But what you may not realize is how very simple early life could be. A single molecule could have started it all.
What you call 'degradation' (increase in complex molecules due to atmospheric thickening, volcanic discharges, electrical discharges etc) is actually one of the things that made early life possible.
Why does the title of the thread have nothing to do with the OP?
1. Lets assume that life started spontaneously - this has nothing to do with evolution
2. Lets assume that Yaweh started life by fiat - this has nothing to do with evolution
3. Lets assume that Aliens implanted life on earth - this has nothing to do with evolution
How life first arose does not relate to evolution. Evolution cannot occur with out preexisting life by definition, so please try to understand that the concepts of abiogenesis and evolution are separate.
Scientists also refer to the broader definition of evolution as the gradual development of something, from a simple to a more complex form like the universe from a Big Bang, etc.
The instability of ‘building blocks’ in non-biotic environments is usually glossed over..
Evolve into what?
Evolutionary propaganda often understates the difficulty of a naturalistic origin of life. Production of traces of ‘building blocks’ is commonly equated with proving that they could have built up the required complicated molecules under natural conditions. The instability of ‘building blocks’ in non-biotic environments is usually glossed over.
“Agreed. But what you may not realize is how very simple early life could be. A single molecule could have started it all.”
More speculation. Where has any such thing been observed.
That paragraph is nothing more than speculation based on no evidence.
The narrow definition of evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
Scientists also refer to the broader definition of evolution as the gradual development of something, from a simple to a more complex form like the universe from a Big Bang, etc.
This is my first post on this thread. I have been deeply studying evolution and other subjects and now feel i am in a position to debate my points and learn from others. My posts will be mostly about evolution/biology.
ANYWHO...
today i was doing a bit of reading on a creationist blog(I am not a creationist and hold know theistic leanings).
But he brought up a very strange and seemingly pertinent point that i have since researched..
The jist of his argument was that cyanobacteria(and some others) are required for life to exist, the reason being that nitrogen(comprising some 78% of our atmosphere) is totally useless to plants in its normal state.
It must be converted by these cyanobacteria into usable compounds which the plants can then utilize for vital life processes.(Amazing in and of itself, )..
Now, DNA as well as RNA and amino acids, as we all know, are kind of important when it comes to....being alive! DNA adn amino acids incorporate nitrogen into its bases and the central molecule of amino acids is nitrogen.
it seems there may be a loop or snag if we try to look back(kind of chicken and egg i suppose)..
so since cyanobacteria fix nitrogen, and cyanobacteria have DNA.
how could life "get started" since any DNA need nitrogen in its amino acids and bases, yet, they cannot use nitrogen unless cyanobacteria(which wouldnt exist without the dna) performs its alchemy on it?
Is this a problem to an inorganic beginnig to life, or a problem in any way?
This is more of a general specualtion but my later posts will be on much more detail..
So your objection to the ToE is that it leads to interesting hypotheses and brings up questions for further research?
That it does not immediately answer all questions of fact and history in the field of biology?
Or what exactly do you mean by the "arrogant certainty" of "speculations"? The "veil" of public, open, diligent research?
Like what?
Honestly the theory just doesn't seem to have any hard discipline as does physics, chemistry. It's like archaeology.
Aaah not the bullshit, evolution can even be reduce to mathematical constructs and it has real application from infectious disease control to artificial intelligence. It is a process fundamental to many fields of science now, and is no more abstract then photosynthesis or rain fall.
I can't really grasp how anyone could not acknowledge the process of evolution.
Some religious sects require people to believe in creationism - thus they have a religious reason to not acknowledge it.
If you can handle the mathematics of modern evolutionary theory, or even a couple of the subsidiary arenas (ecological modeling, epidemiology, etc), I'll listen to your opinions about the "hard discipline".chiller said:Honestly the theory just doesn't seem to have any hard discipline as does physics, chemistry.