Creation vs. Evolution

[lamont]

How about both.. when you thing about it creaters will always be the strongest survies and they pass on their genes ect

but the question is how do you go from nothing to life...

thats the real question i mean at 1 time the planet wasnt here if the big bang theory is correct.. that something is created from nothing but the thing is if nothing creates something then something has to exest for it to be created.. if you look at the world as being made up of atoms the atoms dont just magicly apear meaning there has to be something to create it..

i think the big bang theory has some merit but creation also has some merit as you cant just make something apear out of nothing .. think of it this way how did earth start.. it was just a flying mass that built up as gravity attarts things and it happend to be spining around the sun.. so with that already existing how did life start if the big bang was correct then in fact there was no sun there was nothing in the beging but there has to be something in order for something to be created let alone life..

there more i think about it the more confused it make my self life evoles i dont doubt that but it doesnt just apear out of no were it has to come from something and the planet it self at one time would had to been nothing and over a long long time it got built up like they say the stars are always dying and beening recreated how about like and other planets.. as well as being destoryed so there must of been something to start it all..

First of all, the big bang theory is correct. About 14 billion years ago the universe was much more dense and much hotter and at around 3,000 degrees K. The cosmic microwave background radiation is the red shifted photons from the big bang. Just like when you look at the Andromeda galaxy you are looking back a million years in time (Andromeda is a million light years away), and the Hubble [Ultra] Deep Field photos are of light nearly 13 billion years old, the CMBR is light that left the big bang 14 billion years ago. We can literally 'see' the big bang with radio telescopes.

Keep in mind that the big bang theory does not go back to zero time, infinite density and infinite temperature. It can be extrapolated back that far, but it doesn't suggest if the universe came into existance out of nothing, or what was there, or if the universe was birthed from a parent universe in a multiverse, or if god said 'let there be light'. It is most concerned with the time period when the universe was around 3000K and a little bit earlier when big bang nucleosynthesis was occuring and which can observe the results of. Scientists are trying to push the big bang theory back further, but they're very far away from the planck temperature at this point.

The formation of the Sun and Planets is also fairly well understood in terms of the Jeans Instability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeans_Instability). That at least gets you to the formation of the Sun. The exact dynamics of how protoplanetary disks evolve into planetary systems is a little less understood a whole lot more complicated, but we can still observe other systems in the process of being formed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T_Tauri_star).

As for life, it is an emergent property of self-assembling molecules. The chemistry of DNA and RNA are all reasonably well understood and there's nothing magic which has ever been detected in the chemistry. Life does not come out of nowhere. It comes out of the chemistry of DNA, and the double helix. The novelty of that molecule is its ability to act as a carrier of information because the ACTG base pairs define an alphabet which is an emergent property of the underlying chemistry. It does not come "out of nowhere" though. And there is no tie to the evolutionary force of DNA and the big bang. I'll readily concede that science has no opinion on the moment of creation of the universe (although individual scientists probably do have opinions), but there's no logical connection from there to DNA and life.

 

[Soggy]

All naysayers against evolution really need to go to amazon.com and order The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. If you still think it's all a lie, great, but at least you can say you took the time to understand the theory rather than being an uninformed zealot.

 

[Thalassamania]

Besides the,"where did all come from?" BS works on both sides, who's god's daddy anyway?

 

[Warthaug]

but the question is how do you go from nothing to life...

Lamont & SeanQ beat me to a good answer, but the points they make are very important, and worth repeating:

1) Where life came from has no bearing on evolutionary theory what-so-ever. Evolution deals with, only with, and strictly with, how LIFE changes. How life cam about is an entirely different area of science called "abiogenesis". Life could have evolved from simple chemicals, been carried here on a comet, put here by aliens, made by god, or could have been formed when FSM dipped his noodly appendage into a cup of starbucks coffee - it doesn't matter. Evolution only deals with what happens once that life is present.

2) In regards to abiogenesis, the origin of life is simply a product of chemistry. Organic molecules form spontaneously; giving rise naturally to monomers of things like DNA nucleosides, RNA nucleosides and amino acids. These molecules polymerize (form into chains) spontaneously. Chains of these molecules have catalytic ability, including some which have the abilitiy to self-replicate. When those facts are taken into account life isn't that surprising - we're simply the end-product of how certain chemicals behave.

And before you jump to the inevitable "the probability of forming <insert favorite organism/gene here> spontaneously is 1:1trilliontrilliontrilliontrilliontrilliontrilliontrilliontrillion... let me point out that spontaneous generation of life is the religious view, not the scientific one. Abiogenesis theories predict the following process:

Formation of monomers -> formation of polymers -> formation of self-polymerizing polymers -> formation of self-polymerizing polymer complexes -> metacycles -> protobionts -> simple cells.

Of that pathway the first 4 have been reproduced in the lab; we know they'll occur with nothing more then a bit of water, some RNA, and if your in a rush, some clay to act as a catalyst. The probability of those occurring in the early earth is simply 1. After that we have to rely on computer models, but once again those models suggest that the complex->metacycle and metacycle->protobiont steps are probable.

thats the real question i mean at 1 time the planet wasnt here if the big bang theory is correct.. that something is created from nothing but the thing is if nothing creates something then something has to exest for it to be created.. if you look at the world as being made up of atoms the atoms dont just magicly apear meaning there has to be something to create it..

You need to read up on the big bang theory, as it doesn't make any of the claims you say it does. The big bang predicts that all matter in the universe is a product of the expansion of a singularity. So matter didn't come from no where, it came from energy. E=mc² and all that.

think of it this way how did earth start

Accretion of material in a protoplanetary disk, kind like what's happening here:

http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~jewitt/Origins-proplyds.html

Bryan

 

[Soggy]

And before you jump to the inevitable "the probability of forming <insert favorite organism/gene here> spontaneously is 1:1trilliontrilliontrilliontrilliontrilliontrilliontrilliontrillion... let me point out that spontaneous generation of life is the religious view, not the scientific one. Abiogenesis theories predict the following process:

Formation of monomers -> formation of polymers -> formation of self-polymerizing polymers -> formation of self-polymerizing polymer complexes -> metacycles -> protobionts -> simple cells.

To elaborate, it's the difference between single step selection and cumulative selection. The argument of throwing watch parts into the air and having a watch form is based on the false idea of single step selection. Reality is that simple parts form more complex parts, those complex parts form even more complex parts, etc, etc. That's cumulative selection and over billions of years becomes completely probable. For example, in the watch analogy, the reality is that if you threw watch parts up into the air for billions of years, you'd likely get a few parts to form together to make larger parts. Then, those larger parts would get thrown up in the air and form even larger parts....over billions of years...until we end up with a fully formed watch.

 

[Warthaug]

To elaborate, it's the difference between single step selection and cumulative selection. The argument of throwing watch parts into the air and having a watch form is based on the false idea of single step selection. Reality is that simple parts form more complex parts, those complex parts form even more complex parts, etc, etc. That's cumulative selection and over billions of years becomes completely probable. For example, in the watch analogy, the reality is that if you threw watch parts up into the air for billions of years, you'd likely get a few parts to form together to make larger parts. Then, those larger parts would get thrown up in the air and form even larger parts....over billions of years...until we end up with a fully formed watch.

EXACTLY! It's amazing how much difficulty creationists seem to have with that very simple concept.

Bryan

 

[MikeFerrara]

2) In regards to abiogenesis, the origin of life is simply a product of chemistry. Organic molecules form spontaneously; giving rise naturally to monomers of things like DNA nucleosides, RNA nucleosides and amino acids. These molecules polymerize (form into chains) spontaneously. Chains of these molecules have catalytic ability, including some which have the abilitiy to self-replicate. When those facts are taken into account life isn't that surprising - we're simply the end-product of how certain chemicals behave.

And before you jump to the inevitable "the probability of forming <insert favorite organism/gene here> spontaneously is 1:1trilliontrilliontrilliontrilliontrilliontrilliontrilliontrillion... let me point out that spontaneous generation of life is the religious view, not the scientific one. Abiogenesis theories predict the following process:

Formation of monomers -> formation of polymers -> formation of self-polymerizing polymers -> formation of self-polymerizing polymer complexes -> metacycles -> protobionts -> simple cells.

Of that pathway the first 4 have been reproduced in the lab; we know they'll occur with nothing more then a bit of water, some RNA, and if your in a rush, some clay to act as a catalyst. The probability of those occurring in the early earth is simply 1. After that we have to rely on computer models, but once again those models suggest that the complex->metacycle and metacycle->protobiont steps are probable.

All this seems to assume that your first sentance that I quoted above "In regards to abiogenesis, the origin of life is simply a product of chemistry" is true and that no other ingredients are required. I don't think that has been demonstrated.

 

[Thalassamania]

All this seems to assume that your first sentance that I quoted above "In regards to abiogenesis, the origin of life is simply a product of chemistry" is true and that no other ingredients are required. I don't think that has been demonstrated.

OK, maybe a dash of Physics.

 

[Warthaug]

All this seems to assume that your first sentance that I quoted above "In regards to abiogenesis, the origin of life is simply a product of chemistry" is true and that no other ingredients are required. I don't think that has been demonstrated.

And what, pray tell, would be the "other ingredient". Life is simply complex chemistry, chemistry is a product of the physical laws of the universe. In the lab we can interfere with lifes chemistry, and the results of that are exactly what the laws of chemistry dictate. Individual components of living organisms can be isolated, purified, and their chemical functions monitored. There is even a new science called "systems biology" wherein the chemistry is modeled via computer, and amazingly, not only can this accurately reproduce many of life's functions, but it has actually lead to the discovery of new chemical processes.

The only significant difference between life and other complex chemical systems is the presence of heredity - and heredity is a direct product of the very chemistry life is based on.

Bryan

 

[MikeFerrara]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soggy
To elaborate, it's the difference between single step selection and cumulative selection. The argument of throwing watch parts into the air and having a watch form is based on the false idea of single step selection. Reality is that simple parts form more complex parts, those complex parts form even more complex parts, etc, etc. That's cumulative selection and over billions of years becomes completely probable. For example, in the watch analogy, the reality is that if you threw watch parts up into the air for billions of years, you'd likely get a few parts to form together to make larger parts. Then, those larger parts would get thrown up in the air and form even larger parts....over billions of years...until we end up with a fully formed watch.

EXACTLY! It's amazing how much difficulty creationists seem to have with that very simple concept.

Bryan

It is a simple concept but...after 17 years of engineering experience in various manufacturing related areas, my money says you can't throw a bunch of watch parts up in the air or put them in a bag and shake them and end up with a watch, regardless of how many billions of years you allow for the process. The simple reason is that there are aspects of the assembly process not accounted for by a list of parts.

A watch is too complicated. Lets take something easier. Take a piece of metal (any metal) and put a hole in it. Take another and make a pin out of it. Size the pin for a press fit into the hole. Now put the two pieces in a bag and shake it or throw them into the air for 5, 10 or 20 billion years and see if a pin ever gets pressed into the hole. Put a bunch of those parts in a bag and shake it. I bet they abrade to dust before any pins get pressed into any holes.

I think we really do need a watch maker to end up with a watch.