It's no use. Evolutionists conveniently divorce themselves from explanations of abiogenesis because they have absolutely no explanation of how it is possible. To simply state that it's not part of evolutionary theory is a cop-out.
The simplest concievable form of life as we know it would require at least one strand of DNA or RNA. Simply put, the probability of such a complex molecule randomly coming together is nill. Even if by some freakish event such a spontaneous arrangement were accomplished, it would require the intricate protein/lipid structure of a cell to survive and reproduce.
To base an entire theory on such an enormously improbable event is ludicrous. Science follows laws of probability.
14 comments
Except, if you actually knew anything about evolution, you would realize that it doesn't cover abiogenesis. God could have come down and put the first cell on Earth Himself, and evolution would still be valid. Not to mention there are plenty of theories on abiogenesis anyway. For one thing, the first organic self - replicating molecule was far simpler than creationsists like to believe.
I've decided that rather than just tell you you're wrong, I'm going to sing it.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong,
wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong,
you're wrong
you're wrong
you're wrong
Thank you.
Since all those probabilities are almost nothing, even though the Earth is so huge compared to molecules, obviously nothing happened.
*ahem*
PROBABILITY DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!
DW: I would argue that explanations of abiogenesis fall into the realm of evolutionary study. However, Springer is apparently not well acquainted with the work of Urey and Miller, or Sidney Fox, or the RNA-world hypothesis, which provide some of the steps of a cogent theory of abiogenesis. Urey and Miller demonstrated that many of the components necessary for cellular function assemble spontaneously under a wide range of conditions. Fox demonstrated that simple polypeptides and nucleic acids may also be formed abiogenetically under pretty normal conditions. Ribozymes (RNA molecules with catalytic ability that may also be self replicating) may well have been the first genetic system. Even if the probability of such a molecule forming abiogentically is abysmally low, it is not zero. Further, such an event would only have to happen once, because that molecule would quickly become prevalent by self replication.
This is in some ways besides the point. The hypothesis of an intelligent creator doesn't solve the problem that Springer is harping on. It merely pushes it back. If there is a creator, how did it come into being? To me this seems like a less probable event than abiogenesis. To place these on equal hypothetical footings one would be forced to ask if anyone ever made a "creator" spontaneously in a lab setting (pretending of course that the "creator" would have some physical attributes that would allow recognition that such an event took place).
Science only favors the most probable of articulated competing hypotheses. Among these two there is a clear winner.
actually, the elements that form those basic building blocks of life come together QUITE naturally. carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen have strong bonds together
You do realize that, not only evolution, but the entire universe is just one big experiment of trial and error, meaning there have probably been trillions, definately billions, of years for nature to get it right.
It's no use. Evolutionists conveniently divorce themselves from explanations of abiogenesis because they have absolutely no explanation of how it is possible.
...yet.
Simply put, the probability of such a complex molecule randomly coming together is nil.
Well, it's clearly not nil, since we're all here. The probability is likely very small, but when you have billions of years and trillions of molecules to work with...
Even if by some freakish event such a spontaneous arrangement were accomplished, it would require the intricate protein/lipid structure of a cell to survive and reproduce.
Actually, I think one of the major areas being looked into right now is whether or not genetic material or cells formed first, and how the two managed to get associated.
No, this is simply the response you have to things changing overtime. You lost that battle so you moved the goalposts back to origin of life. Some of you are so dishonest you move them to creation of the universe.
It all boils down to the same results every time: You insist we have to prove everything since the dawn of time and you aren't obligated to prove anything.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.