Atheists can’t explain origin of life

Xela777 Says:

I’m a high schooler, so I haven’t really met the hierarchy of evolutionists, but every atheist (not that their necessarily the same) I’ve met, including my dad, hasn’t been able to even make an explanation of how the “first reproductive cells” started asexual reproduction and then evolved into sexual reproduction. It would require two voluntary cells, one to somehow know how to play the female role, the other the male, and get that complex reaction to work.
So, anyone?

—–

From me: Thanks for the new thread, Xela777!

91 Responses to Atheists can’t explain origin of life

  1. Damian says:

    Hi Xela777,
    As many Christians (or theists) will tell you, you don’t have to be an atheist to believe that evolution by natural selection is the best explanation for how life develops on our planet.

    I say this just to set straight the implication that evolutionist = atheist in your question.

    For a brief answer to your question, take a look here.

    There are some good ‘explanations’ for why sexual reproduction evolved and for how this might have occured but I’m not sure if anyone really has strong enough evidence to say one way or another. The same goes with questions like how did life start in the first place. This is how science works though. There are still a ton of ‘gaps’ in our understanding of the various intricacies of how life evolved and is evolving but the evidence for the fact that evolution happens and is the process by which living things change is overwhelming.

    It’s a common creationist tactic to find the many gaps in our knowledge and think that this counts as proof against the fact of evolution and the theory of the mechanism of natural selection but this is disingenuous. If you can imagine a court trial where 1000 strong bits of evidence point to the accused being the murderer then this creationist tactic is the equivalent of the defence objecting to the charge because the prosecution isn’t able to confidently state what colour underwear the accused was wearing on the night of the crime.

    If someone thinks they have evidence for a better explanation for how life develops then the best thing they can do is present their evidence and compare rival theories. And they should also try to get a really good understanding of exactly what it is that the theory of evolution by natural selection claims so that any criticism they make of it is not misguided.

    I hope this helps.

  2. Johnny B says:

    I’m a Darwin Evolutionist. Every step in the 4.6 billion years of evolution has been scientifically proven, although, some say there are minor gaps. Religion has been around around 2,000 years, however there is no scientific evidence to substantiate it. The bible is certainly non-scientific, and if taken literally, isn’t even good fiction. Basically, I see religion as having come from the fear of the unknown.
    Now, we are smarter.

    • Anonymous says:

      Some form of religion has been “around around” for at least 60,000 years Johnny B. You aren’t smarter.

    • What if your wrong? says:

      Life was engineered by humanity, not us, it was made by someone far greater, not aliens, a last desperate hope to survive they took their DNA and scuplted it into what we are now, with the possiblitiy of evolution.

      Is this possible? I believe so! A dying extraterrestrial race constructed a better more enhanced immunity, possibly blocking our brains for one to find the key! Its in our DNA. The way home, how to get there, you dont have to believe but who ever reads this, my email is guardedace@hotmail.com reply with your theory, or warrant.

      • Anonymous says:

        Where did the extraterrestrial race come from?

        • Anonymous says:

          I believe he is talking about the Sumerian tablets that speak of these “annunaki” extraterrestrials that came to Earth from nibiru and they were trying to make a slave race to mine gold because they needed it to fix their planets magnet field or atmosphere or something along those lines. There’s history on these “aliens” all over the world and I believe they aren’t physical they are spiritual the Sumerians thought they were Gods but they were being decieved they were actually angels that’s why throughout history it’s about MANY gods and most are very similar the Sumerians the Egyptians the Greeks all the early religions that everything else branched off of they all worshipe these angels and the only different religion was Christianity that believe in one God and it even says in the book of genesis about the sons of god ( angels)defiling themselves with the women of men and they bore these giants or strong men and then you see the same thing in Egypt and especially Greek where they say that the “Gods” would have it with the women and the sons where “demigods” but like I said before they weren’t Gods they were angels. And Christianity is simply looking at the bigger picture that there is ONE true god and the rest worshiped these fallen angels. So all the other religions weren’t just made up but rather they all had the same Gods (except Christianity) and their gods were actually real but they weren’t gods but rather angels and Christianity is seeing the bigger picture and I can’t emphasize that more because atheists think all religion is just made up because of fear and of the unknown and whatever and I’m not saying there aren’t religions like that but the major earliest religions were all the same with different branches. Anyway there is so much things people try to hide from you and keep the truth from you. The bankers that own the government and the government itself holds a lot of luciferians and satanic people that try to deceive you in lucifers name because lucifers goal is sent out by them. I know it’s hard to believe because you are unable to see but actually the other day my family friends and my sister went to a hotel an they all saw a demon they confirmed it with each other and they could feel its presence and then my sister goes to sleep paralysis just like all those alien abduction stories she speaks of beings holding her down and she said she could see demons by next to them was a very very tall and she kept emphasizing his hugeness and brightness being that was fighting them off and at the same time one of my family Friends was praying and my sister said she could hear it all and she could even see even tho her eyes were closed and she saw a demon behind another family friend and at that time the friend said she could feel a strong energy behind her and then she ALSO fell into an awake sleep paralysis ( “what a coincidence”) and she could feel the demon grab her leg and yeah I find it super reliable because first I know them all very well they all confirmed seeing the same demon same area there was a “coincidence” that two of them fell into sleep paralysis and they felt a strong energy present. There’s another case of this but I’ll just leave you with that. Message me (javig319@yahoo.com) If you want to know more i love spreading out the truth to people that don’t know.

    • Ahmed says:

      Why humans are far superior & intelligent than any other a living animals in this world, why we the human have to develop and make things like cars, cloths, iPhones etc., to suit our lifestyle, the reason is the human have duty to fulfil physically and spiritually as a Muslim I don’t believe in evolution of human or animals, the only change that has happened or will happen is the geographic location, political systems and the way we conduct our life in regard to social aspect.

      We the today’s human or billion years ago human share the same main characteristics of eating, drinking, laughing, crying, defecating and many more attributes, the only different between modern human and previous human is currently we possess modern technology that will be superseded in the future but we as human we will still have the same attributes of the first human on this earth Adam and Eve who were sent by almighty God.

  3. Damian says:

    For the record, I don’t agree with Johnny B’s statement that “every step in the 4.6 billion years of evolution has been scientifically proven”. In my opinion this is a silly thing to say and belies a lack of understanding of the scientific method, the meaning of the word “proven” and the actual depth of our knowledge of the world.

    This does not weaken the theory of evolution by natural selection however. It is no understatement to say that no other explanation even comes close.

    (Sorry A3, we’re messing up your ‘Start a new thread’ area. Feel free to delete my comments if you want to turn Xela777’s question into a new topic as I have saved a copy of my original reply and can post it again if need be.)

  4. augustine says:

    Nobody knows exactly how life first developed or what the first evolutionary steps are – atheists don’t know, scientists don’t know, and theists (wether scientists or not) don’t know. This is not some sort of ‘weakness’ for anyone, it’s simple honesty.

    It’s pretty disturbing that Ray Comfort’s ridiculous ‘sexual reproduction’ argument is becoming so widespread. I knew it would happen, but I was still holding out some measure of hope that it would be seen for the irrelevant nonsense that it is.

    • Anonymous says:

      No it is not nonsense. What he is trying to say is is it really possible that no conscious thought was put into something so complex that you may not even understand because you probably haven’t looked into how weirdly complex that is? Two organisms would have had to form at the same time having different sexual organs yet being complementary to each other in a certain way to be able to reproduce and if those millions of years of evolution didn’t get it right the first time then they would have died out and taken another million years to form another male and female organism at the same time again hopefully getting it right his time even though no evolution was involved because their genes weren’t able to learn from the first organisms and this all happened by chance in the first place…… Very unlikely. Unless you can prove that first spontaneous generation could happen and that it would be probable that the female and male could generate spontaneously at the same time same place different sexual organs yet complementary to each other and able to work to reproduce and not have any defects to the offspring then sure I’ll buy it but since spontaneous generation ha been disproven multiple times and the other stuf can’t be proven I’ll stick with my logical reasoning and not rely of faith.

      • Anonymous says:

        Oops I meant ” if those millions of years of chance” because the primordial soup isn’t evolution that is impossible chance. It’s the best idea to lead retards astray from them knowing that the force that created the universe was and is conscious. It’s not some crazy idea like some of you atheists get lead to believe by the media like dumb sheep it’s a logical answer for everything WAY more logical than thinking the impossible anyway.

  5. makarios says:

    “Nobody knows exactly how life first developed”

    That’s not true! Richard Dawkins knows. “Once the vital ingredient – some kind of genetic molecule – is in place, true Darwinian natural selection can follow.”

    It’s just some kind of genetic molecule that holds more information that the Encyclopaedia Britanica. Sure it had to be in place in the very first cell but that’s minor. Just believe. Keep the faith kid.

  6. Damian says:

    Hi Makarios,
    Are you able to provide me with a reference to where Dawkins made that comment? I’d like to read it in context.

    I suspect that his use of the word “genetic molecule” is not to describe the massively complex structures our modern DNA are but, rather, a simplistic and very primitive early replicator.

    If this is the case then what he is saying is that once you have a replicator (i.e. a “genetic molecule”) then natural selection inevitably occurs (so long as there are occasional mutations in replication and competition for resources of course).

    If you are interested in research on abiogenesis and self-replicating chemicals I would be happy to provide you with links to studies and other literature.

  7. Damian says:

    Here is an extract from Dawkins’ 1976 The Selfish Gene which should settle the question of whether he believes that he “knows exactly how life first developed”:

    The account of the origin of life that I shall give is necessarily speculative; by definition, nobody was around to see what happened.

    (from Chapter 2 – The Replicators)

    Knowing exactly what happened an having an idea for what could have happened are quite different things.

    So, given his past commentary on abiogenesis, I’d be fairly surprised if he was suddenly going around telling people he knew exactly what happened and that the first genetic molecule held more information than the Encyclopaedia Britannica. I’d think it more likely that people are using deception to deliberately misrepresent what he was saying. Now why would they do that?

    As an aside, there seem to be only one group of people who claim to know exactly what happened at the origins of life and they get this ‘knowledge’ by way of divine revelation and scorn any good evidence that might happen to contradict it.

  8. Damian says:

    I’m heading off for a week so, if you respond but get no reply, please don’t feel that I’ve abandoned you or this topic. A3 is bound to know more than me about this particular area if you are genuinely interested.

  9. Johnny B says:

    One of the best web sites on Evolution is on http://www.pbs/wgbh/change/deeptime/. This, along Darwin’s theory of Evolution is enough to convince me.

    I think if all the money that has been on churchs and mosqus and temples, had been spent on education,
    Sciene and medicine and education there would be wars.

  10. The Atheist says:

    augustine & makarios

    Welcome to the blog! augustine, I agree – but I’d also like to add that as we do more research, we know more and more about how life began. I read a book some time back that I’d recommend to anyone interested in some of the research being done in abiogenesis. The book is Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life’s Origins by Robert Hazen. It’s surprising how much we actually do know about how life began, even if we don’t know it all. I also saw an article a few weeks back about artificial life being created in the lab – more evidence of our growing understanding of life.

    makarios, I hope you’re still around to discuss your objections to Dawkins’ theories about evolution (which, I’m sure you understand, is not the same thing as abiogenesis – which is what you are responding to), and about your objections to various theories about “exactly how life first developed”.

    By the way, when you say “Just believe. Keep the faith kid”, are you implying that ‘just believing’ and ‘having faith’ isn’t sufficient for defending one’s claims?

    Damian,

    A3 is bound to know more than me about this particular area

    Don’t sell yourself short!! You know plenty, and much more than most. I learn from you all the time.

    And thanks for the quote from Dawkins that adds some missing context to makarios’ quote – I’ve been meaning to read The Selfish Gene for quite some time but haven’t gotten around to it yet.

    I have my own indictment to add to yours about that same ilk who “know” by “revelation” how life began: the vast majority of those people that quote various scientists, like Dawkins for example, out of context haven’t actually read the books / articles that they quote from. They haven’t even read the paragraph in which the quote is found. They have no idea what the scientist they are quoting from actually claims. :))

    Johnny B, Long time no see! That was a dead link – could you repost (if the article is still around)? Also, did you mean to say “there would be no wars?” ;) Welcome back!

  11. Johnny B says:

    On my previous reply I didn’t get the full web site of one of the best web sites on Evolution. It’s a PBS Nova program: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/change/deeptime/index.html

    I don’t see how any thinking person could dispute this subject.

  12. The Atheist says:

    Johnny B

    I found it! (your links were missing the /evolution/ part) Here is the link:

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/deeptime/index.html

    This is a really nice presentation – Great find!

  13. Xela777 says:

    Well dang, this got a lot of comments. By the way, I heard Richard Dawkins say that NOBODY knew the origin of life for sure, (Makarios), from the movie “Expelled”, which I didn’t like by the way, it was certainly too biased.

    But back to my question…
    I still don’t understand how genders can form. The link only reminded me that simple cells don’t need sexes. How are the sexes made? If environmental changes influence evolution, how are two similar cells effected in two opposite ways?

    Right, not all evolutionist are atheists, no offense to anybody.

    And in a intellectual jab at Johnny B’s claim that all the 4.6 billion years of evolution has been proved, what of the Cambrian period? That certainly isn’t minor. To you evolutionist, that’s the turning point, if I understand it right. What I’ve heard of the Cambrian is it doesn’t help evolution at all, because so many species “evolved” in a very short amount of time. And how come the horseshoe crab is still around? Maybe I should’ve started a new post….

    And also, I think his “evolution is older than religion” deal is a false comparison, and that I believe, or can believe, that religion has been around for possibly TRILLIONS, of years, it is not confined by what most Christians will tell you. The only record the mainstream Christian has of how “old” the earth is is by those family records, starting from Adam. Course, people seem to not question at all how long Adam went without Eve, and how long Eve went without sinning.
    Cheese’n’rice, that was a long post. Any responses?

  14. Bible Prophecy says:

    EVOLUTION: FACT OR FICTION?

    Charles Darwin hereby speaks for himself:

    “I may here also confess that as a little boy
    I was much given to inventing deliberate falsehoods,
    and this was always done for the sake of causing excitement.”

    Reference(s): The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882. With original omissions restored. Edited by Nora Barlow. Page 23.

    See,
    http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F1497&pageseq=1

    “I love fools’ experiments.
    I am always making them .”

    Reference(s): John Bartlett (1820–1905).
    Familiar Quotations, 10th ed. 1919.

    See, http://www.bartleby.com/100/450.5.html

  15. The Atheist says:

    Xela777,

    If environmental changes influence evolution, how are two similar cells effected in two opposite ways?

    The reason is that if the two cells are not genetically identical, then one cell may posses a trait that is more beneficial in one type of environment then in another type. So if the environment changes, the change in the environment may benefit one of the cells more than the other.

    I believe, or can believe, that religion has been around for possibly TRILLIONS,

    Could how you could be coerced into believing that religion has been around for trillions of years?

  16. 4Fundamentals says:

    You know what they say: if you don’t know where you’ve been, you won’t know where you’re headed. The atheist has no basis for finding personal significance in the present or future, since s/he has already written off the past as a tremendous accident. Hence, the atheist is just a piece of paper being blown about by the wind, with no sense of direction or purpose. Its ultimate destination, of course, will simply be to plop down in the middle of the landfill and be tossed into the incinerator, where it will spend eternity scorched in the fire.

    God’s peace to you; I am praying for your future, that you might find purpose and meanging in your otherwise bleak existence.

    Love,
    Tony P.

  17. The Atheist says:

    4Fundamentals

    Hello, and welcome to the blog!

    Let me see if I understand you correctly: you’re not saying that you have any reason to believe that God really exists, but rather you are simply saying that your belief, however baseless it might happen to be, is a more comfortable belief for you?

    You bring to mind a quote by George Bernard Shaw: “The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.”

    Skol!

  18. Xela777 says:

    Coerced?
    We don’t know how long Adam went without sinning, it may have been a trillion years, it could’ve been two days. If his relationship with God lasted perfectly for a trillion years, then religion would have been around for a trillion years.
    The point I try to make with this is that any “reliable” carbon dating you use to say that the earth is older than the mainstream Christianity says, doesn’t work on me.

    That wasn’t where I was going with the cells.

    If we have two cells that are somewhat similar, how do the surroundings drive one cell towards feminism and one towards masculinity? Shouldn’t they both be influenced in the same way?

  19. Damian says:

    Xela777, there are some excellent videos available on YouTube that do a great job of explaining how sex evolved as well as a follow on.

    There are a whole bunch of other videos here that should answer many creationist questions.

    Also, there is another excellent series here that covers similar topics.

    (Also, carbon dating is only accurate for ages up to around 60,000 years so is not used to determine the age of the earth or the universe)

  20. Damian says:

    Hi Xela777, I’ve posted a comment with a bunch of links in it but it must have attracted the attention of A3’s spam filters. Keep an eye on this space for when he allows it through.

  21. The Atheist says:

    Sorry, Damian Your comment was indeed trapped by the spam filter. Excellent links, by the way.

  22. The Atheist says:

    I just came across another excellent video about abiogenesis by cdk007 (the same guy that did the sexual reproduction video).

  23. xela777 says:

    Thanks for the vid Damian, but I wasn’t going with the irreducible complexity, at least I don’t think I was.

    What possible mutation or mutations cause a lizard/mammal to decide to keep the eggs in her body? Then we have to randomly also made a system to have contact between fetus and mother. (chemicals)

  24. Richard says:

    Everyone that believes in evolution, is dumb. it’s rediculous how evolutionist are so ignorant…

    • Xela777 says:

      Well, see, now you just turned the rest of us into guys who just say things without backing it up. We need to back things up here, otherwise there’s nothing constructive.

  25. The answer to your question is found in the Sept 2009 issue of Scientific American, “The origin of life on earth”

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=origin-of-life-on-earth

    A thumb nail is provided:.

    “Researchers have found a way that the genetic molecule RNA could have formed from chemicals present on the early earth.

    Other studies have supported the hypothesis that primitive cells containing molecules
    similar to RNA could assemble spontaneously, reproduce and evolve, giving rise to all life.

    Scientists are now aiming at creating fully self-replicating artificial organisms in the lab­oratory—essentially giving life a second start to understand how it could have started the first time.”

    David VanLandinghasm
    TheHumanistView.com

    • Xela777 says:

      This article tells me nothing of how asexuals go to sexuals.

      The thumb nail provided? Is this supposed to constitute as evidence? It just claims that they did it, it tells me in no way how.

  26. You will have to read the article. I haven’t the time or interest in explaining it to someone who has no intention of exerting some effort in learning something new.

    • Xela777 says:

      Yes, I obviously have no desire to exert any effort to learn anything new, which is why I just log onto this place every day when something’s up to ask questions and seek answers.

      All it tells me is what you posted above, and I have to pay for the rest. I’m in high school, and have no source of income.

      No.

    • Xela777 says:

      Then why the hell is this forum even here? Libraries are not nearly equipped enough to tell me what I am asking. They cover the topic of evolution, explain what it is and offer all this evidence FOR it, but no explanation of any of the holes I see. If they did, it just wouldn’t be a good evolution book, suggesting it could be wrong in any way.

      If all you’re going to tell me is to pay for a service or go to a library, why are you here?

  27. Durzal says:

    As far as I know, cells(as organisms) do not reproduce sexually they reproduce asexually through cell division and mitosis.
    I would imagine that a change from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction would have come about in more complex organism.
    Plants would be a good example of this, plants that reproduce sexually don’t always play solely a male/female role as many have both the male/female parts and hence do not need one organism to “somehow know how to play” the male/female role.

    Its possible that a previously asexual organism mutated so that when in contact with other organisms of its kind it could sample(maybe through eating it) and use their code as well as its own to produce a genetically more diverse offspring that could reproduced in that same sexual way, this possibility would not need organisms to mass mutate in the same manner.

    However..
    The problem with this question is, that you have asked how the very first organisms might have changed from asexual to sexual reproduction and that’s sort of like asking what a roasted trilobite might have tasted like.
    (Build me a time machine and I’ll tell you)

    I more reasonable and sensible question to ask would be:- Are there any modern examples of an organism changing from asexual to sexual reproduction and how do they do it.

    and the answer is yes..many
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis
    this link list many organisms that can change how they reproduce and go back and forth between asexual and sexual reproduction.

    How and why exactly aphids (for example) switch between asexual and sexual reproduction isn’t something I know (or care to know) but if your interested, do some research.

    • Xela777 says:

      I know of current examples. I just don’t see how such a change could come about. I see no drive for that change, (the gene doesn’t help you survive until it REALLY COUNTS, e.g. , the species needs genetic diversity in case of disease) and I don’t see how it could function when it’s only part way developed. Why would the asexual ability go away?

      I found a video that described that not all organisms need “all” the parts of reproduction that we have, but this shows me how everything survives NOW. I want to know how they survive or even work in transition.

      • Durzal says:

        If(like in my example)an organism mutated so it could sample and use another organisms code in reproduction, the offspring would be more genetically diverse and less prone to diseases and therefore more likely to survive,
        Survivability IS the drive.

        Again, you dont seem to understand evolution, there is no transition where an organism has to get by with a half formed useless appendage or system, evolution is very small useful changes over a great deal of time.

        My example organism wouldn’t include a complete change from asexual to sexual reproduction it would involve a small change like the ability to use anothers code but the organism would still reproduce asexually aswell, much like aphids.
        The ability to reproduce asexually could indeed die out, given enough time, as we all know within species there is variation and if sexual reproduction was a more sucessful trait those that where more inclined to it would flourish and survive over those with an asexual tendancy and thus the ability could fade out.

      • Xela777 says:

        “Again, you dont seem to understand evolution, there is no transition where an organism has to get by with a half formed useless appendage or system, evolution is very small useful changes over a great deal of time.”

        So birds never had to have dealt with half legs half wings? The idea of change implies a conversion, and at any point of the conversion, it’s some of the beginning and some of the product. Like baking a cake. Some of it’s liquid dough, and some of it is bread, and this keeps going till it’s all bread. (Unless you leave it in there, then it catches on fire.)

        It seems rather unrealistic to me for multiple mutations that are good to begin to work together for reproductive purposes? Do you have a list of what our mutations working together could be?

      • Durzal says:

        Yes, birds did have something that was half way between leg and wing
        but they didn’t have, to have “dealt” with this as it wasn’t a problem to be deal with,
        it was a USEFUL appendage that helped in their survivability(if it wasn’t, that trait would have died out), small changes in perhaps size and shape that where beneficial continued to shape this appendage into a modern day wing.

        Evolution doesn’t suggest a mutation that does half a transformation, its small complete changes, and all these small changes add up to larger changes over a great deal of time.

        Mutations don’t have to work together, if a mutation happens and if it is beneficial it will flourish in the organisms and become apart of future generations of this organism……… then many years later other mutations can affect this new organism in the same way, and over millions of years this can change the organism.

        The fact that you are asking for a list of mutations that are working in us that give us the ability to reproduce, just goes to show how woefully ill informed you are about the most basic concepts of evolution.

        I’m not surprised you find evolution unrealistic as you clearly don’t understand it.

        Before anyone can explain to you the more complex topics of evolution you need to understand the basic’s, so a library isnt a terrible idea.

  28. How Could it be? says:

    Before evolution can even be talked about, evolutionists have to explain how life comes out of nothing. Darwin even said this was the biggest problem with his theory. It’s funny how evolution is looked at as fact today but yet the most important part is left out-the begining. It shows how stupid society has become. Evolution and intelligent design are at the exact same stage, intelligent design doesn’t have a designer, and evolution doesn’t have a begining. You can take all the chemicals in the world and stir them around for as long as you like and you’ll never get life out of them.

    • Durzal says:

      This is like saying we cant talk about gravity until the general theory of relativity is proven.
      (should I put my blindfold on)

      Evolution is a fact in so much as it has been seen to occur, the theory of evolution explains the processes by which evolution occurs.

      There are many credible theories to explain how the first replicating molecules started their replication but even without these theories it would still be complete idiocy to ignore the fact of evolution and the huge array of evidence that supports the theory of evolution.

      Intelligent Design says: The universe is here and its so very complex so it must have been created by an intelligent designer (or God)
      This is just an assumption, as its not based on any evidence or credible reasoning, using this reasoning you can explain just about anything
      example
      planes keep going missing over the Bermuda triangle so aliens must be abducting them.
      (this is fine because like with ID I need no evidence with which to validate my claims)

      Evolution and Intelligent Design are not even in the same league.

      The Miller–Urey experiment proves that chemicals under the right conditions will react to create amino acids(the building blocks of life) how these amino acids formed into the first replicating organisms is highly theoretical but is entirely plausible …perhaps you should do some research.

      • Xela777 says:

        We have done our research. This is our conclusion. Maybe you could tell us what this wonderful evidence is. You forwarding us to a library isn’t a very compelling argument. I don’t even think that would pass as a paper in class. We (in general) are not here to be told to do research. In fact, what we are doing now (being here on a forum) is research. As of late though, this has been becoming a faulty source. All these books are telling me to read books…

        Gravity to Evolution? Apples to Oranges. The idea that the same rules apply is a logic fallacy. Gravity (we think) falls under the direct principles of mathematics, Evolution only indirectly so.

        The Fact of Evolution is limited to finches. (and a few other animals) You seem to extend it even farther, and say it is proven. But it can only be proven with an explanation. (or can you prove it with something else?) The Theory of Evolution seeks (I hope, otherwise it’s shot) to prove how long term evolution happens.

        But, I will admit, 2,000,000,000 A’s, U’s, G’s, and C’s all grouping up together for a 5000 character chain that makes a genetic code at random in a vast ocean is very plausible.

        How Could It Be?’s logic is sound, but I think he needs to go further. Yes, I have no proof of how God could get here, and evo’s have no proof of how the Big Bang got there. But this acting as an attack for either side is nonsense, the reason this can be an attack is something cannot come from nothing. But, then again, the only other option is something always existing, which conflicts with our heads too, eh?

        The odds for either to spontaneously come to be are there, (though I believe God is always there, He is of a way from which there does not need to be a beginning) I say the odds of heads or tails. You could go deeper in, and say the Big Bang has to make a die roll for every quark, and a die roll for every part of God, but I think 50/50 helps us quicken the argument. Here they’re in the same league.

        They both have to have a slack of 50/50 chance, but then evolution hailing as an innate random theory invites more die rolls. God being intelligent turns the die on whatever face He wants. This is how I go farther.

        Or do you have a certain book in mind Durzal?

      • Durzal says:

        The reason I’ve told you to do research or to read up on evolution is because you continue to ask nonsensical questions that show quite clearly you have little understanding of the topic.
        I cant explain complex issues to someone who doesn’t understand the basics.

        “Evolution is limited to finches(and a few other animals)”
        are you seriously suggesting that finches(and a few others) can evolve but no other organism on earth can.
        So finches can change over time but all over birds cannot? why would finches be special? If you can accept evolution in finches why not elsewhere in the animal kingdom? Do you see how absurd it is to suggest that finches alone are evolving?

        Your 2,000,000,000 A’s,U’s,G’s,C’s do not suddenly form together all at the same time, they form up through simple chemical reactions over a long period of time.(again a lack of understanding of the topic)

        Evolution has nothing to do with the big bang, however the big bang, that being that the universe is expanding from a singular hot and dense state has be proven(as we have discussed before)

        No scientist or atheist worth his salt would say that anything came from nothing and saying that something has always existed is basically saying that it came to exist by no means (basically the same)

        I wouldn’t roll dice on this issue, evolution has been seen to happen and has massive evidence to support the theory.
        while..
        There is no evidence to support a deity of any kind…so why bother rolling

        There is no one book that will educate you fully on the theory of evolution, I know you want to understand how processes occur, like how complex organs form (not just be told they do) but you first need to understand the basics principles and this you can learn from books the internet and documentaries.
        (like I did)

      • Durzal says:

        Also my point on gravity was that just because the general theory of relativity is a theory we do not ignore the fact that gravity happens.
        And
        Its the same for the theory of evolution just because its a theory we don’t ignore the fact that evolution happens.

      • Xela777 says:

        Then explain the basics to me.

        I never said it was just finches, I said finches and a few more. Few as in number or as in relative to the number of animal species? Relative.

        No, you have 2,000,000,000 A’s, T’s (or U’s, depends on what you think came first) G’s, and C’s in a given area. The virus (virus mind you, which is not capable of replicating alone) needs 5000 base pairs, or 10,000 of those letters. You say the first organism was less complex, I say this is a virus, I’m going to stick with 5000 base pairs. And if you’re just going to start with the instructions to copy, I think that leaves little room for mutation, one “mistake” and the program no longer works. Organisms also require little “machines” to do the copying, were these perfect mechanisms also floating in the water? And happen to form together?

        You have not proven that the universe expands from a hot dense mass, you have noticed there is a hot dense mass, this does not mean “yeah Big Bang”. There are many things we have observed and proclaim must’ve come from one certain way, and then a bystander comes up and tells you what he saw happen, which took less time than what you just hypothesized. Observing an end result doesn’t tell you exactly what the reaction was. You see hot stew, you say stove, I tell you I warmed it up in the microwave.

        If no atheist worth his salt would say either, what would he say? I haven’t thought of another option… nothing coming from nothing maybe?

        Show us your mass evidence. Make a whole thread on it. I’m here to learn what you all say.

        Again, tell me the basics then.

        The Theory of gravity is comparable to the Theory of Evolution, because they both have the word theory? So, as the saying goes, apples and oranges, the incomparable is now comparable because I say apple fruit to orange fruit?
        Ethnic cleansing to body cleansing?
        Russia, ( in Texas), and Russia?
        Pork barrels, and barrels full of pork?
        Does a same word mean similar thing?

      • Durzal says:

        Its not my job to explain and teach you all the time consuming basics of every topic we may or may not discuss on this blog.
        (that’s your job)
        If you can concede you don’t understand
        the basics of evolution why do you post arguing against things with which you don’t understand.

        So some organisms can evolve but not others? Again, dude, this is absurd!!

        Evolution is a process that affects all organisms by the same set of rules if a strong beak is a good trait it gets passed on and bad traits die out, why would good traits not be passed on and bad traits not die out in other organisms?

        Your giving the first replicating virus’s a complexity I don’t believe they had, i can understand you using examples of modern virus’s as we have no early virus’s with which to examine but modern examples are far to complex to get a good idea of how the first replicating molecules began.
        Early virus’s would have been little more than a complex molecule that could have interacted(chemically) with host cells(amino acids) and used their machinery to replicate, at this point evolution could take over.
        Here is an example RNA molecule.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viroids

        I like your analogy of the soup and i quite agree that people just saying the big bang happened is unwise, that’s why i always explain what i mean by the big bang.
        We have had this talk before and you conceded then that all the galaxies were moving away from each other based on my being able to link an encyclopedia stating it.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
        some quotes
        “the Universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past”
        and
        “is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation”

        The Big Bang and Evolution in no way disprove the existence of God, so why do you continue to argue against stuff that is proven or that is supported by such solid foundations of evidence.

        The other option is “we don’t know” there is nothing wrong with this as the alternative is just assuming something without any evidence with which to make an educated guess.

        Evidence here
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
        The problem is you’ll think the encyclopedia is lying to you because you simply don’t want to believe it.
        (i can’t help with that)

        Again not my job.

        Both theories are comparably in that both are theories that explain a known fact.

      • Xela777 says:

        I’m here because I want to see how it makes sense. No, either being right does not disprove God.

      • Durzal says:

        Well you haven’t addressed any of the points I made, this doesn’t surprise me.

        I very much doubt you really want to see how these things make sense.
        I think you feel that somehow evolution is against your faith and so you will find anyway, no matter how stupid or baseless(like i don’t understand it) to question solid evidence.

  29. makarios says:

    The Miller–Urey experiment proves that chemicals under the right conditions will react to create amino acids(the building blocks of life) how these amino acids formed into the first replicating organisms”

    How old are you that you haven’t heard about THAT fraud?

  30. makarios says:

    Miller & Oparin created life out of primordial earth’s ammonia, methane and hydrogen?

    They said that these elements were what made up primordial earth. They did this because they knew that if they took the elements that actually made up primordial earth, their experiment would never work.

    • Durzal says:

      Ahh gotcha, so you believe that these scientists and all the other scientists that conducted future experiments of this nature were all apart of an elaborate conspiracy to somehow ruin you day.

      I’d give this paranoia some credibility if somehow this experiment and its data concerning an early earth atmosphere hasn’t been under the scientific communities scrutiny since it was undertaken.(as well as the scrutiny of all subsequent experiments)

      I guess you could think that the whole scientific community is involved in this conspiracy but then I’d probably just right you off as a nutcase.

      • Xela777 says:

        Well, no, he’s partially right.

        The first chemicals they used worked.

        But then those darn prehistoric atmospheric guys took hydrogen out, and tossed a few more in.

        The scientist retried with these new chemicals, but it didn’t work. But why publicize that? The few anti-evolutionists who happen to learn this will just look like nuts.

        No conspiracy there, just science’s politics.

      • Xela777 says:

        Btw, nice blog makarios. The one at least linked to this website.

        Rofl Durzal, yes, this whole Jesus thing is a 2000 ( 4000 if you want to go back the Yahweh Jews) year old conspiracy, all to just make your life miserable.

        People do not have to work together for lies to work on a general populace. Nobody needs to whisper to each other lies to make evolution or Jesus work. If they did, humans mess up, and one would seem faulty.

        Anyway, where’d this conspiracy card come from for either side?

      • Durzal says:

        I don’t deny there was a Jesus of Nazareth as the historical records confirm this.
        The difference is that religions don’t have any evidence with which to falsify or lie about.(its faith, not evidence)

        Suggesting that these two scientists falsified their data is stupid as their finding would be under the scrutiny of the entire global scientific community and still are.

        Besides Xela you have already agreed that “and viola you guys made amino acids! No one disputes that.”
        Why have you suddenly changed your mind !!

      • Xela777 says:

        I am still in agreement. What I have said about those amino experiments have not yet conflicted. In “my” post “Attacking Amino Acids Again”, I start it with assumption that the original hydrogen experiment is still sound. I then later state that the experiment has been found faulty anyway, what the point of the post was was to ask you guys or find the “scientific magic” for amino acids too link by themselves.

        The faulty (current theoretical earth) experiment yielded no amino acids.

        The first one (wrong atmosphere) did.

      • Durzal says:

        Well I’ve explain that the “scientific magic” that makes amino acids link is just simple chemistry and that amino acids linking into chains called peptides is perfectly understood and laid out in any textbook on the subject.
        (so I think we can move on from there)

        Please link me something about this current experiment that yielded no amino acids(the latest one I’ve heard of was in 2005 and it was successful)
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment#Earth.27s_early_atmosphere

      • Xela777 says:

        You haven’t explained anything. This above post explains nothing.

        What is this “simple” chemistry? Yes, I know the chains called peptides, the 4 amino acids are linked by phosphate bonds, on and on and on, yes, I know all this!

        This article even states that there is controversy. One part it says you need low hydrogen to get the random job done, and the next paragraph says people estimate it was 40% hydrogen. You’re looking at the side that says it’s fine.

        http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/51/65/
        Oh, but one of the head of staff is a minister… ok, well, how about-

        -http://newsrelease.uwaterloo.ca/news.php?id=4348-
        (this never tells me HOW they disproved it. It only tells me they did. This is why I like Christian articles better, they bother to explain things to me)

        This is intended to support your cause. But please, can someone tell me what temperature and the sun’s energy has to do with keeping hydrogen? Does Mars keep more atmosphere when it’s warmer? No! This is a gravity problem, not temperature! (Unless you can show me otherwise)
        Pure hydrogen does not stay on Earth, we cannot find it untainted by another element.

        They then go on to say that the non-escaping hydrogen would be replaced (because this hydrogen doesn’t escape anyway… just covering our bases) quickly by all the volcanic eruptions.

        Here’s what volcanoes produce:
        http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php
        No hydrogen. Just bonds with hydrogen in it. You need pure hydrogen.

        Tell me the hydrogen solution. Then we can go on with this experiment being correct, and you can tell me how life randomly programs a program that copies itself with no cell mechanisms.

      • Durzal says:

        You wanted to know how amino acids link by themselves and I’ve explained that the process that links amino acids into strings called peptides is simply chemical bonding.
        I don’t know why you have a problem with this concept as amino acids linking into peptides isn’t something that is generally contested by the Christian faith as it can be seen happening in the laboratory.

        With regards to hydrogen and me “looking at the side that says its fine”
        This is stupid, as in both scenarios of “Originally it was thought” and “More recent results” both provide a scenario in which amino acid formation is possible. The experiment that are done in this area have clearly found that given the right conditions amino acid formation is entirely possible.

        You made out that there was a current experiment that had not produced any amino acids, I asked for a link and you have provided me with a fundamentalist Christian website that doesn’t say anything about a current experiment but instead tries to find holes in every single part of the original urey-miller experiment.
        He says that the experiment had no oxygen or nitrogen which are main elements in our current atmosphere ignoring of course that its believed that an early earth environment would have very low levels of nitrogen and oxygen, he then goes on about the electrical charges used, being far greater than those seen today ignoring of coarse that its believe that huge electrical storms would have raged on an earlier earth environment.

        I can’t imagine what was going through your head when you decided to post this website.
        I’m sure you realise that this Christian chemist has a vested interest in interpreting and presenting the data in a flawed manner as he undoubtedly believes this experiment would in someway be against his religious beliefs.

        If you truly want to understand issues and topics of this nature your best off getting your information from unbiased sources such as encyclopaedias and scientific papers.

        Christian websites do not explain evolution better, they simply try and interpret it in a way that makes no sense because they feel its somehow against their faith.

        No! this is a gravity problem, not temperature!
        Again this is another example of you not understanding something and therefore claiming it cant possibly be.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_escape#Thermal_escape_mechanisms
        Temperature does affect hydrogen escape!
        The stupidest thing is that you are arguing that the encyclopaedia is lying or somehow misrepresenting the truth.
        Encyclopaedias do not state opinions or their interpretation on issues just factual information ..that’s what an encyclopaedia is.

        If you’d bother reading and taking in what the encyclopaedia I linked you actually said they did experiments using hydrogen sulphide (H2C) that produced amino acid. (so you don’t need pure hydrogen)
        Hydrogen Sulphide (H2C), if you want to check up is on your links list of volcanic gases.(what a shock)

        It amazes me that someone who wasn’t born into a heavily christian faith could be so desperate to ignore evidence and to be so stubborn as to believe that the encyclopaedias of the world are printing lies and at the same time be so willing to accept ideas that are based on absolutely no evidence.

        Out of interest, can I ask what it was that turned you to religion to begin with, was it perhaps a traumatic experience? I know your father is an atheist, is your mother an atheist too?

        I’ve dealt with the first replicating organisms on a post above but its awaiting moderation (and has been for two days now)so look out for it, as I don’t want to be arguing the same points on two different threads.

      • Xela777 says:

        My mother is I think too religious, and my father an atheist.

        You aren’t explaining anything. You’re just repeating what they say.

        Hydrogen Sulphide isn’t Hydrogen. It’s Hydrogen Sulphide. I read my articles.

        I was quite aware it was a Christian website, didn’t you look at my disclaimer?

        Now why is that Christian websites don’t work? Then they’re biased. This makes it unreliable.

        I can then use the same logic to say that evolution websites are biased, and are wrong. This is getting nowhere. Do you have an explanation for how any of this occurs? How does temperature help hydrogen (or hinder) leaving the atmosphere?

        Peptides bond when something tells them too.

      • Durzal says:

        When you say I’m not explaining anything I guess its because you now want a further explanation of how amino acids form into peptides through chemical bonding. Try this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_bond
        Are you now doubting that chemicals react and bond?

        I’m repeating what “they”
        (the encyclopaedia) are saying because they provide a perfectly good explanation of these things.
        If they say it happens through chemical bonding, then it does, they may not explain how chemical bonding works as this is another topic but all you have to do is research this next topic.
        (This can be done without me linking for you, you do know that?)

        When I don’t understand something I don’t go on websites arguing against it and refusing to believe it, until someone goes and does some research for me.
        (why then, do you do this?)

        “No Hydrogen, Just Hydrogen with bonds in it. You need pure Hydrogen”

        You where saying that you needed pure Hydrogen for one of these experiments to work….and you were wrong.. you don’t need pure Hydrogen just hydrogen sulfide with comes from volcanic gases.
        Why are you so determined to think the scientific community and the encyclopaedia are lying to you.

        If you knew it was a fundamentalist Christian website why would you post it to support your desperate belief that the worlds scientists are misleading you.

        Evolution Websites? Do you mean the encyclopaedia I was linking?

        There is a hell of a difference in credibility between an encyclopaedia and some fundamentalist Christian website….are you really interested in suggesting otherwise?

        Yet again, You don’t understand how temperature affects atoms and particles so all the scientists who say its so must be lying or just making things up.>.<

        Temperature or heat affects the way atoms and compounds behave, like ice warmed increases the activity and velocity of the H2O compound and it behaves as a liquid(water) this heated further increases the compounds movement velocity and makes a gas.
        Hydrogen atoms at a higher temperature have greater movement and velocity which helps it escape the atmosphere.
        http://www.mansfieldct.org/schools/mms/staff/hand/atomsheat.htm

      • Xela777 says:

        Ah, escape velocity. That explains it.

        I was told it was pure hydrogen. Funny how your sources are always right.

        Other than this, this isn’t going anywhere.

  31. How can it be? says:

    Yes, the theory of evolution explains how evolution occurs but it doesn’t answer the key questions to how life began. We haven’t witnessed evolution taking place in front of us. Fintchs beaks growing and a genic mutation in fruit flies is not significant enough to prove we came from tiny bacteria or a virus. Durzal, would you not agree that things that appear to have a design have a designer. Lets say DNA and regonizable patterns throughout nature. And do you have fossial evedince to prove that there every was a bird that had something between a leg and wing, or are you just filling in the holes that evolution has? Or I guess you could take the punctuated approach and say it all happens rapidly and thats why there is no fossial evidence, but that theory has way to many holes to be considered at the moment.

    • Durzal says:

      I agree that evolution in fruit flies and the changing of the size and shape of finches in no way validate the entire theory of evolution but we can’t ignore that evolution does happen.

      Evolution can be seen happening right in front of us, virus’s and bacteria mutate and become different strains everyday, the bird flu virus mutated and now can infect a whole new species(us)..that’s evolution.

      If you want to see huge jumps in evolution you would have to start trusting genetics, fossil records and homology.

      Yes I would agree that complex designs need to have some sort of process for their design and that, according to the evidence we have is evolution.
      Why would we consider a process(or God) for life’s design without a shred of evidence to support the idea.
      (btw, with regards to DNA design its more chemistry than evolution, to start with at least)

      Here’s a good example,
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx
      This chap has three clawed fingers on his arms with feathers on that may have been used to glide or provide balance when running, its unclear if he would have been capable of any sort of flapping flight as his feather configuration would be wrong.

      I do believe that evolution happens in huge leaps as survival of the fittest does its biggest works when species are fighting for their survival.

      • How can it be? says:

        Obviously evolution happens, I’m not denying that. I am denying that it explains how we all came to be. Look at computers for example, we designed them to take in information and become smarter, thats evolution and intelligent design together. Why couldn’t that happen with us?

      • Durzal says:

        Ohh, in that case, we don’t have much of an argument as I don’t in anyway deny the possibility of a God, though I see no evidence to support the idea.

        Its entirely possible that evolution was guided by an outside source, some would suggest aliens and some would suggest a supreme being.
        Science however doesn’t give these ideas any credibility as evolution theoretically doesn’t need any help and can be seen happening without it, so why would we indulge such an idea?

      • How can it be? says:

        We may not beable to prove there is a designer with science, but we also can’t prove evolution is true with sceince ether. But we see evolution exists and we can see that there are things in this universe that appear to have been designed. Resulting in a tie with both of them at the present moment. Just cause science can’t prove there is a designer doesn’t meant there isn’t one, and just cause science can’t prove that life began in the oceans doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. If you assume that one of the other is true then they will work. It’s the question of how it all began that needs to be answered. But neather theory should be present as fact like evolution is today. If you are going to teach one you need to teach both.

      • Durzal says:

        “but we also can’t prove evolution is true with science”
        and
        “But we see evolution exists”

        These statements are contradictory, evolution has been observed happening and proven with scientific methods like genetics.(thats why its presented as a fact…because it is)

        Yes, there are many complex things in this universe that appear to (and have been) designed.
        Example, finch beaks were designed and sculpted through a complex evolutionary process.

        This shows that complexity doesn’t need an intelligence behind it as complexity has been seen to occur though purely natural processes.

        Evolution happens, this we know, and the theory has huge amount of evidence supporting it.
        Intelligent Design has absolutely no evidence to support it, as there isn’t any complexity in the universe that cant be explained through natural processes.

        Why then would we teach them as equally valid,….when there not?

      • How can it be? says:

        When I said we can’t prove evolution I meant as a way to explain the begining not evolution in genral. You saying evolution is a designer is a contradictory statment, because evolution bases its self on random happening. According to the evolution theory we all are the products of randoming things coming together in the universe.

        They are equally valid arguments they both have no answer to the begining and untill one gets it they will always be equal. But Evolution has many big holes in it. For example DNA- DNA can only be produced with the help of at least 20 different kinds of proteins. But these proteins can only be produced at the direction of DNA. They require each other to be made. So that brings up the old question of what came first the chicken or the egg?

        When I said evolution exists today I meant micro-evolution, science cannot prove that one species has the ability to turn in to another. Which is another be point of evolution to explain it all.

      • Xela777 says:

        So, How Can It Be, I’m assuming your are a Deist who believes in evolution?

      • Durzal says:

        I do not and never have said, that evolution does anything randomly.

        Evolution makes changes in species by a process of selectively breeding traits and mutations that are advantageous to the organism.
        This is not random..I don’t know where you get these ideas about evolution.

        “things randomly coming together in the universe”
        This is absurd!!
        First off the theory of evolution has nothing to do with anything outside our planet, it starts theoretically with the first replicating cells that are believe to have formed by early molecules bonding chemically with host cells(amino acids) and using their machinery to replicate themselves along with the host cell.(early virus)
        Its also not “random” as I have explained above.

        Science does have answers to how evolution started. (check above)

        Granted, these answer are not facts, but they are perfectly plausible theories that are inline with all scientific disciplines and are widely accepted among scientists.

        The DNA your talking about is modern DNA that has millions of years of evolution behind it and hence has many complex processes involved that would not be present in mere complex molecules that are theorised to have started the first replicating cells.

        Again this down to you not really understanding the more complex explanations of evolution, before you ask these sort of questions ask yourself
        “if evolution was really as nonsensical as I think it is, why would the worlds scientists and top intellects believe it” and perhaps this will lead you to do some research on the subject before arguing against something with which(forgive me) you clearly don’t understand.

        The idea of common ancestry (for example) man evolving from a common ancestor as chimpanzees is not strictly a scientific fact but its on the same tier as the idea that the earth revolves around the sun.
        (literally, advances in genetics have taken this to the point that nobody in the field doubts it anymore)

        I don’t know why your so determined to argue against stuff that is so well supported by evidence as science and religion are not mutually exclusive.

      • DNA says:

        What your saying is DNA almost devolved. If in the begining it could create its self with out the proteins then that to me would seem like a more effecient way to work then how it does now, where it needs the proteins to create its self.

      • Durzal says:

        Early DNA (if it can be called that)
        was mere complex molecules which were created through simple chemistry, it didn’t replicate itself at this time and only managed to replicate by bonding with (host) protein cells and replicating using the proteins existing machinery for replication.

    • How can it be? says:

      I’m still a kid looking for answers man. Right now intelligent design looks the best to me, whether its a God or not I’m still deciding. Why would God make something that can’t improve its self to its envoriemnt? When I say I beleive in micro-evolution I mean very small things. Like a cats fur growing thicker then it has before to cope with an extra cold winter. Little things like that can be seen in everyday life. I think life has the ablitily to adapt to a changing envoriment, but I don’t think full changes in species is possable. And thats another problem with evolution is we haven’t witnessed any genitic mutations that benefit a species. Intelligent design looks like the best theory to me so far.

      • Durzal says:

        Lots of little changes add up to large changes over time, this is apart of evolutionary theory but can’t be seen in real time as it happens over huge time spans.

        We have seen beneficial genetic mutations
        example
        Bird Flu started in birds but mutated and now can infect humans this is a beneficial mutation(for the virus) as it enabled it to infect and spread in a whole new species.
        We see these mutations in virus’s as they replicate themselves so fast.
        To see similar beneficial mutations in larger animals would take hundreds of thousands of years of direct observation of select test groups.
        Natural variation and survival of the fittest, which are factors that are just as important can be seen occurring in animals as we speak.

      • Xela777 says:

        Durzal, it keeps the same name. Its species hasn’t changed.

      • Durzal says:

        I didn’t say it was a new species just an example of an beneficial mutation.

        Influenza A virus subtype H5N1, also known as “bird flu”, A(H5N1) or simply H5N1, is a subtype of the Influenza A virus which can cause illness in humans and many other animal species.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_A_virus_subtype_H5N1

        It wouldn’t be classified as a new species but its definitely a new strain.

  32. How can it be? says:

    Oh and how can you compare gravity to evolution? Gravity affects us everyday there is no doupting its there even though we can’t explain it. I don’t walk down the street everyday and see fish crawling out of ponds sprouting legs.

    • Durzal says:

      The comparison I made between the two theories was that there are both theories that explain a known fact.
      Gravity happens, we can see its affects.
      Evolution happens, we can see it happening.

      Even Xela has agreed that evolution happens (though he suggests that only the finches and a few other organisms can do it >.<)

      Fish crawling out of ponds and breathing is a bad example as fish would most likely have developed air breathing lungs from swim bladders whilst they where still in the water for times when their habitual waters were stagnant.
      (as well as it happening over millions of years and not just as you walk past)
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish

      I understand that you will find some areas of evolution unlikely and this (like he fish) will be down to a lack of understanding of certain areas of evolutionary theory.
      Try not to write evolution off due to not understanding how things happen, as there are very good reasons its so widely accepted in the scientific community.

      • What if your wrong? says:

        THIS IS GONNA BE SLOPPY…
        200 years ago mankind didnt have what is appears to be a filter of somesort attached to your stomach… we dont need it. but now we have one… just so we can digest the chemicals properly in our body, we have pinky fingers they evolved on to us but we dont need them. we have some organs that we dont need that are just extra because our body has becoume indapt to the conditions around them.

  33. Logic says:

    Amino acids coming together randomly and forming regonizable patterns in nature just isn’t logically possiable. No matter how many times you throw a can of paint in the air and watch it come down its never going to form anything but splatter marks. Logic alones rules out evolution as a way for the beginging.

  34. Durzal says:

    So Amino Acids don’t form up into chains called peptides which get bigger to become polypeptides (which are proteins)this doesn’t happen, no?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid#Standard_amino_acids

    Logic based on a lack of understanding will never provide you with sensible answers.

  35. Raye says:

    Hei everybody, Happy April Fool’s Day!!

    “Do you believe in life after death?” the boss asked one of his employees.
    “Yes, Sir,” the new recruit replied.
    “Well, then, that makes everything just fine,” the boss went on. “After you left early yesterday to go to your grandmother’s funeral, she stopped in to see you.”

    Happy April Fool’s Day!

  36. Damn Sky Pixie says:

    so ya

  37. Wolves says:

    Hi guys. I’m actually using this site as research for a practical apologetics course (the study of defending the Christian faith). Just wanted to say that I’m still confused. I’m hearing that atheists don’t know where the original spark of life came from and that the theory of evolution has many gaps. Also, I’m seeing that theists are being accused of illogical reasoning in saying that a divine being started life. It seems to me that the theists have an answer to the question of where original life comes from and atheists don’t. Also, isn’t it more illogical to put your faith into a theory that is flawed, and it is obviously flawed to be unable to explain where life came from. Isn’t that what the evolutionary theory is supposed to explain when it all comes down to it? How can you say it has ‘gaps’ and still bet your eternal soul on an incomplete thesis! I’d like to hear a response to my argument please!!!

  38. The Atheist says:

    Hi, Wolves and welcome! I would be interested to know more about the apologetics course you are taking.

    This is a REALLY old thread and I’m not sure how many of the contributors are still around. You might consider starting a new discussion. In the mean time, while I can’t speak for the others here, I’m happy to share some of my views that relate to your question:

    I think there are gaps in scientific knowledge, including gaps in the fossil record. However I think the gaps in the record are often mischaracterized, and people draw wrong conclusions based on the mischaracterizations. For example, opponents of evolution often cite “missing links” as a flaw in evolutionary theory, when in fact the fossil record is remarkably complete in terms of having plenty of closely related specimens that demonstrate evolutionary lineage.

    Science has made good headway on understanding the origins of life. For example, many of the basic components of life like RNA can spontaneously form in the laboratory when replicating what Earth’s conditions must have been when life first appeared.

    Having an answer to a questions isn’t always better than admitting that we don’t have an answer. It can be worse since accepting a wrong answer prevents you from continuing the search for the right answer. I wish I could remember the reference for this (if you know the reference, please share it!) – there was a debate between an atheist and a Christian some years ago. The Christian opened by asking the atheist to explain why he accepted the theory of evolution. The atheist responded by saying ‘because I have faith that it is true’, then got up to walk out. The Christian incensed, said to the atheist ‘that’s not a good enough reason!’ Of course the atheist returned and easily dominated the debate since the Christian just admitted that faith was not sufficient reason to accept a claim. Deep down, we all know that claims should not be accepted unless they are substantiated.

    When science fails to answer a question, it is because hypotheses that attempt to answer the question have not been adequately substantiated. Like any hypothesis, the hypothesis of divine intervention isn’t acceptable unless it can be substantiated.

    Now we depart a bit from the original question. You seem to be equating discussions about evolution with discussions about the origin of life. Those are two very different things. While evolution is very well substantiated, the mechanics of the origin of life are much less understood. Evolution is not the field of science that is concerned with discovering the origin of life as you suggest. Evolution is the science of how organisms evolve into other organisms. Abiogenesis is the formation of life from non-life. In this light, have a look at the last part of your original question and let me know how it changes your question.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: