The Origin of Life

This is a comment by Whiteman0o0 (David). I deleted it from my main page to place it here. 

——————————————–

[[[I have a quick question, really more of a chain of thought that I have been mulling over for a few months and I hope one of the “rational thinkers” here can explain it to me since me being a xian has apparently made me devoid of all rational thought process. Trace the evolutionary tree back, finally you get to the one celled organisms, where did they come from? Protiens, but where did the protiens come from? amino acids, But where did the amino acids come from? The basic question I am asserting here is where did the first life come from? Abiogenesis?, Aliens?, Chuck Norris? someone please give me an answer with your “rational” thought process.

P.S. In case you havent read other posts on this site, I am a Xian and I believe that modern science does not refute God’s existence but rather supports it. I also believe that God created the earth, and still works in it today. !)avid]]]

————————————————-

I love Whiteman0o0’s question as it is one of the most challenging questions for those who don’t believe in the biblical explanation of how life began. Personally, I think the Chuck Norris option is the most plausible. Kidding, of course, but the reality is this question of how life began is one of the main motivating factor for a large number of the gods mankind has created over the years. Gods help us explain the unexplainable. As our knowledge of our world and our universe expands, we as a species need rely less and less on superstition to illuminate these mysteries. Nevertheless, there are still a great many mysteries left unexplained. Whiteman0o0 believes that science will eventually prove the reality of the Christian god, while I believe it has already proven just the opposite. As for the origin of life; I truly don’t believe any current explanation has it right. But let’s face it, the ALIEN explanation is FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR more believable than ANY explanation supplied by ANY religion, especially Christianity. 

I hope others will do their best to answer Whiteman0o0’s excellent query.

Advertisements

23 Responses to “The Origin of Life”

  1. The question of where life came from. The simple answer is: we don’t know. But that dose not mean god did it. A lack of knowledge on how of why something happens doesn’t mean some supernatural force is behind it.

    There are several hypothesise on the origins of life with varying levels of evidence supporting them but none proven. But God isn’t the only explanation and isn’t the most probable ether.

    My suggestion to him: look it up. Theres plenty of information on abiogenesis out there all you have to do is look it up.

  2. It’s only a matter of time before we discover how life came about, but that won’t satisfy die-hard believers. Even if scientists manage to explain every process by which the universe came into being – and this may never be possible – the ‘comfort blanket’ of religion will still be needed by those who are unable to accept responsibility for their lives without the absolution that their gods provide.

    Faith has little to do with genuine scientific endeavor – and the existence or otherwise of supernatural beings can never be proven by science. The invention of ‘the supernatural’ ensures this by allowing the religious to claim that there is always something beyond and above the realm that science operates in. God is always, conveniently, Alpha and Omega.

  3. Lone wolf: As a matter of fact I have looked into abiogenesis many times before and after i posted this comment, however each time that I have looked at it I have found a common flaw. There is NO empirical scientific evidence in support of the spontanious gneration of life, Miller tried to prove it could work but he failed rather miserably.

    Juke: You state that Faith has little to do with genuine scientific endeavor. Let me say a little something here. Faith has to do with a belief in something uncertain, I.E. Belief in evolution, qualifies as Faith, considering as how evolution has yet to be proven beyond a theory, Belief in God, qualifies as Faith, considering as how you cant really prove or deny his existence to any substantiated extent. So all in all Fait has everything to do with a genuine scientific endeavor.

    !)avid

  4. Lone Wolf Says:

    Life would not form spontaneously, it would form through chemical reactions that would take a long time. There is evidence that life formed, it exists. How did it come to be? There are abiogenesis hypothesies out there.

    Faith has nothing to do with science, faith is the opposite to how science works. is belief in something with out or despite evidence. For people who truly have faith, evidence dose not matter.

    A scientific theory can not go beyond a scientific theory, ts not a guess or even an educated guess and can not be a fact. A scientific theory is a heavily tested explanation for a grue pf related observation.

  5. Lone Wolf: The thing that I have a problem with is the chemical reactions that would be needed to form life. I can look at a lone amino acid and know that it will not change in its lifespan to become a protien, I can jumble up the 20 or so amino acids required to make a protien in a jar and it is still (in my knowledge) impossible for them to form a protien in the right sequence.

    And I have been snowballing on a lot of ideas lately as I have been doing research to prepare myself for college and the undoubtedly intelligent proffesors that I will encounter. And I have a thought.

    DNA, contain a large portion of the genetic information required to create an organism. However, when the first organism was created there was no genetic information to be used. In case that didnt make too much sense, allow me to rephrase. The DNA did not have a specified genetic code to go by, therefore it would not have had the required information to form anything. Combine this with the fact that a single DNA contains about as much information as 100,000 complete encyclopedia brittanica’s I find it very hard, and incredibly improbable that any DNA was formed and just happend to stumble across the right genetic sequence and the correct information.

    If you would adress that thought train and straighten out and incorrect thoughts in it I would be very grateful. Thx. !)avid

  6. Im beggining to think that noone is going to post on this blog:( it makes me sad inside :'(. !)avid

  7. Lone Wolf Says:

    Forgot about this one.

    Well they came together some how, I’m sure you will find some hypothesise on how it came together.
    It is my understanding that DNA came together before life and that life started with DNA.

    One thing to remember, our understanding of abiogenises is in its infant stage right now. Our knowledge of it is limited so we don’t really have the answers yet.
    Criticising agonises for not being able to explain how it all happened is not a real criticism. Thats like criticising Newtons law of gravity in Newtons time by saying he can’t explain how gravity works (not the best analogy but I’m going with it). And our currant lack of understanding in no way implies that an external creator made it.

  8. Wolf: I may have come across as criticizing but i was merely stating that, I do not believe Abiogenesis to be plausible. Now if new scientific evidence were to come out on behalf of this quasi-theory, and showed that life could truly come from nothing, then I would seriously consider the evidence and make my decision based on the research?

    And whilst there are a few theories on how gravity works, One of which involves the mass of the universe distorting the space it is in and the planets and such are merely traveling the closest thing to a straight line that they can in warped space.

    I still miss how DNA could have come about before life started, I just dont see how all the information that needed for the DNA could have come about from nothing, It does not make any sense to me at all.

    While I agree that the lack of evidence does not imply an external creator, The external creator theory does indeed make the best sense to me, and most corresponds with reality.
    !)avid

  9. Lone Wolf Says:

    It didn’t just come from nothing, it came about through chemical reactions over (probably) millions of years.
    Life didn’t spontaneously appear and it didn’t come from nothing.

    Life started with a self replication molecules, DNA and RNA can do that.

    We know enough about chemistry to know that life can come about through chemical reactions. We just don’t know of the chemical reaction that can create life and how probable they are.

    Saying God did it doesn’t answer the question of where life came from. That just leads to the question “where did god come from”

  10. Wolf: I keep seeing DNA and RNA coming up in conversations, however I still miss how they could have obtained the required genetic information to create an amoeba.

    As far as where did God come from it is my view that God has always existed, He created life,and time, and such.

    !)avid

    p.s. While I always enjoy chatting with wolf I really would like to hear some of the other peoples ideas on this topic, as I am trying to get several angles on this question. thx. !)avid

  11. Lone Wolf Says:

    We’ve gone to the edge and beyond my currant knowledge on the subject. I have to start doing some research on the subject of the origin of the cell.

  12. I look forward to hearing your arguments after this Wolf, I always enjoy a good debate with you. I will be doing more research as well. !)avid

  13. Lone Wolf Says:

    First: I was was partly wrong about the RNA and DNA coming first. That is one hypothesis. That hypothesis is called “RNA world hypothesis” In this hypothesis, RNA came first. In the hypothesis the first primitive cell membrane could form from proteinoids which can form something called “micro sphere” something sum what similar to “membrane-enclosed compartments”
    Well thats one hypotheses, well some of it, I do still need to do some more reading though.

  14. Okay, In the RNA hypothesis, RNA are used as catalysts to form some things that a protien is used for now. Now lets say that the RNA was somehow created and genetic information was somehow pulled out of nothingness, and that is somehow managed to survive in an early earth environment, and that it somehow bonded in the correct formations to for the catalyst in the sequence, and that it somehow managed to progress until it became DNA, and even more genetic information was pulled out of nothing to be used for the creation of things. It still doesnt seem at all likely to me that it could happen.

    The RNA would have to have the genetic information planted in them somehow, and would also have to be able to bond correctly with other RNA to form anything, and all of this pulled together is just impossible.
    !)avid

  15. First of all, when talking about evolution, origin of life, origins of the universe, never use the phase “out of nothing” cause nothing in science says something came out of nothing.
    Your dismissing the hypothesis with out examining it, look up information on it your self. It is possible that this is how life began. Yes its a hypotheses but scientists don’t just make hypothesise up off the top of there heads. There has to be some validity to hypothesise for scientists to take them seriously. Yes this hypothesis could be partly or fully wrong but every successful theory (theory being a throughly tested explanation for an observation or group of related observations (for those who may read this and not know)) is built on many failed hypothesise.
    This has information on the hypothesis (as well as some others) and explains it far better than I could (I would have used it before but having never into the various abiogenesus hypothesise I didn’t know how valid it was.)

  16. Wolf…. what science books are you reading? Big Bang, Abiogenesis… seems like both of those come out of nothing… anyways. I have looked up information on the RNA world hypothesis, however I still dont find it logically possible for the reasons that I have stated above. !)avid

  17. Nothing in science says something came out of nothing. The Big Bang theory is not a theory of the origins of the universe, its a theory of the development of the universe. Abiogenises is not something out of nothing, its chemical reactions producing complex organic molecules that came together to form the first living organisms, thats not something from nothing.

    Your post says that you have not reviewed it, all you did was say “some how” a bunch of times none of which are valid criticisms, thats just dismissal with out giving it a chance. There are plenty of valid criticism of the RNA first hypothesis (it is an unproven hypothesis) none of which involve the word “some how”

  18. Mmk when did the big bang become not a theory of origins? It is the point of the beggining of the universe, and the begginning of most things scientific.. how is that not origins?

    And Abiogenesis is indeed something from nothing. It is life from non-life, a living functioning biological self sustaining thing, from a pile of goop.

    The somehows were a sarcastic reference to the impossibility of all of those things happening, and it was a hypothetical scenario. Sorry I sometimes forget that people cant hear the sarcasm in my head.

    !)avid

  19. If you look at the ecosystem you will see that any animal, human and insert and other plays a role in the existence of life, this means that we are interdepend on each other. This is a clear indication that we were create by someone whom his brains is beyond our level of thinking. But one simple test that I did to get an idea where came from is trees, where are trees coming from is another debate on its own, if you take corn and mill it to be powder form and add it into container with little bit water to it and leave it for 10 days at evironmment temparature of 25-30 degree celcius, Wala!!!!!!! worn will be present. I think the answers lie with old ladies the TREES.

  20. The big band theory has never been a theory of the origens of the universe.

    Abiogensses is not something from nothing and it snot imposaable (imporobable maybe but we do not have enough information on it conclusivly make know how probable it is), there were the right chimials present in the early earth adn we know from expirimint that complex organic molicules can form (one expirimint even prodused adinien). We know its posable but the preses that could lead to that and how probable it is not known. We know it can happon If its how life formed? We don’t know. How probable it is? We don’t know.

    Jack: Evolution explains biodiversity and interdependent of species. I don;t know what you mean in the second half of your reply. What do you mean by “worn”? Do you mean worm?

  21. MMk Im assuming that the experiment that you are reffering to is the Miller/Urey experiment. I have an entire blog post devoted to that particular experiment if you would like to read it http://whiteman0o0.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/millerurey-experiment-fact-or-fraud/

    Now, I miss how the big bang is not a theory of origins, take an object and give it infinite density and it will be nothingness, something that would be infinitely dense would have collapsed upon itself in its density and been rendered into nothing.

    And Evolution in general does not explain bio diversity, Micro evolution does, while Macro evolution explains little to nothing. !)avid

  22. doubtingthomas426 Says:

    Whiteman0o0, Lone Wolf, your arguments have been spinning in this circular pattern for so long they are beginning to create their own gravitational pull. Actually, that’s a poor analogy, for if this were the case, at least then the two of you would be coming closer together. It doesn’t appear either side is influencing the other so let’s move on. I could use your impressive arguing abilities on a few of my other posts, namely these:

    https://doubtingthomas426.wordpress.com/2008/01/06/does-a-soul-have-nerve-endings/

    https://doubtingthomas426.wordpress.com/2008/01/16/the-fallacy-of-the-flood-noah%e2%80%99s-ark/

    https://doubtingthomas426.wordpress.com/2008/01/30/what-happened-to-thou-shalt-not-kill/

    https://doubtingthomas426.wordpress.com/2008/01/19/save-yourself-from-religion/

    https://doubtingthomas426.wordpress.com/2007/12/09/so-many-gods-so-little-thyme/

    https://doubtingthomas426.wordpress.com/2007/12/09/why-do-all-the-dogs-follow-the-old-testament/

    https://doubtingthomas426.wordpress.com/2007/12/09/hey-god-care-to-shoot-the-breeze/

    https://doubtingthomas426.wordpress.com/2007/12/09/0g-trans-fat/

    Thanks,
    DoubtingThomas

  23. ron hayter Says:

    this question used to puzzle me too.
    but..

    scientists have been able to create new life. an organism that is man made. It doesn’t exist naturally. This proves that theres no ‘spark of life’ with the right combonations of atoms you can have life.

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: