Well, to use darwin's words:

evolution is about the origin of species, not about the origin of life.



But hey, just go on and tell me what you were trying to say.

There's a very long thread about evolution here with lots of good information and a clear explanation of the difference between evolution and origin of life.

I already said what I had to say, but I will put it another way, if the origin of species isn't synonomous with the origin of life, then the difference is no more than a time frame. The two theories are totally dependent on the other. But then, I am not going to be derailed into an exchange on the semantics involved with these theories. For a poor old ignorant Christian, you have to take things one step at a time to avoid confusing me. Or isn't the purpose of this "discussion" about truth or not.

I have absolutely no need for links. This is about what each of you knows for yourselves, not about fragmentary bits of knowledge that you can't fit into the puzzle yourselves.

If you actually read that thread---which occurred on this forum---you would see that I posted several times there. And this thread is about the origin of life, not about evolution. I was merely directing you to a place where you might find some posts you would like to read.

Your refusal to read links suggests that you are not honestly tackling the issue, but just being argumentative.

Let me try to explain it with the Roman Catholic Church, which represent the majority of christianity.

Catholics do recognise evolution as a fact BUT believe god was the one who created live.


To say it in a funny way, for a catholic the big bang, the beginning of our universe was a fart of god, and the origin of life was a sneeze after about 10 Billion years after the beginning of time.

I am being argumentative? I made a post that was directed at no one in particular, about a paradigm that applies to any aspect of this discussion, and only received a tirade from Big Dave, making alot of unfounded assertions, spiced with derogatory remarks. What posts that I have made since were simply responses to those that followed. One thing that I never do is to allow anyone to dictate the manner of my responses. If you had been around forums much, you would know that threads naturally evolve and do not necessarily remained focus on just one aspect of any subject. Therefore, I shall repeat...evolution and the origin of life is simply two sides of the same coin.

I will respond by simply saying that I am not a Catholic, therefore it doesn't matter what the Pope accepts or doesn't.

Dude, If you want to tell us that you think it is, it's fine, but could you at least explain why you think it is?

Some arguments, anything. Not just saying it is like that because I, the mighty seekermeister, say so.


So, would you mind explaining it to us, or don't you want be part of the discussion?

I never started out, or even thought that I had all of the answers. Therefore, this is not a matter of what I say. It is a matter of what you and the others say. To phrase it another way, science is supposed to be a search for the truth...that is the goal. But, unless each of you determine for yourselves the validity of this kind of scientific output, instead of allowing science to tell you what to believe, neither you or science will ever begin to fathom any portion of the truth. Don't expect me to tell you what the truth is, because I only know part of it, and that part is what makes it obvious that theories such as these are what I said in the first place...daydreams, or perhaps more aptly daymares.

You are evading the question, you claim there the origin of live and evolution are two sides of the same coin, explain it, without avoiding it.

And no science is not about finding truth, science is about finding wisdom, the word is self explanatory, there is nothing to argue about.

How do you think that it is possible for you and I to be able to understand each other when we keep squabbling about words? There is no wisdom without truth.

So just stop digging deeper and deeper and answer the question.

You said evolution and the origin of life are kind of the same.

To remind you, the question was: Why?

three simple letters.

your turn.

I made a statement that should have been self explanatory, so instead of making another one that will confuse the issue further, I shall begin with asking you a couple of questions. Would you agree that the basis for the theory about the origin of life at it's most basic level, to be about chemical reactions? Would you agree that the process of evolution to also be explained by further chemical reactions? Before I would attempt to go any deeper, I would like to hear your response.

don't respond with a counter question. just answer

Sorry, but if this is not a two-way conversation, then I'm not going to waste my time.

Lol of course it isn't you aren't interacting in any way, you're talking to youself.

Is it so hard to answer a question? I just want you to explain your statement to me, as it is NOT clear for me what you mean.

You can't just answer questions with question and really think people won't care and move on in a discussion.

I've got to agree with MRiGnS here. Seeker, you have absolutely NO clue what you're talking about. You don't understand any science at all, nor have you ostensibly bothered to try to educate yourself. Ignorance, superfluity thereof.

You never even bothered to respond to anything I wrote in my first post. Rather, you simply insulted my scientific qualifications (I'd love to see your qualifications, by the way) and then asked me to explain the origin of life from simple molecules all the way through to now. Spinning it around shows me that you were unable to answer my original post, so instead you through a complex question in my direction.

Nope. MRiGnS is right. Evolution only deals with how life evolved to its current complexity from simple non-living matter. The discipline which studies how the first living cells appeared is called abiogenesis. It is interested in how non-living molecules can polymerise and develop into a functioning cell.



I would be surprised if you would understand this sort of science. It is not a daydream; religion is the daydream. Science has real empirical (look it up, don't ask) and irrefutable evidence to back it up. You're being so hypocritical here, it's unreal.

Anyway, the origin of life...

There simply is no single theory as to how life developed. It's such a complex process, that many hypotheses have been raised. To quote Wikipedia, these are some of the best theories:

1. Plausible pre-biotic conditions result in the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.
2. Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can spontaneously form lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane.
3. The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis).
4. Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity result in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. Thus the first ribosome is born, and protein synthesis becomes more prevalent.
5. Proteins outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer. Nucleic acids are restricted to predominantly genomic use.

The most popular theory is a mixture between #1 and #2 in that list.

In 1953, there was an experiment carried out by two scientists which is now known as the Miller-Urey experiment. They put some of the simplest chemical compounds in a flask. The compounds used were water, ammonia, methane and hydrogen gas. These compounds were exposed to an electrical spark from an electrode in the flask, designed to simulate a bolt of lightning. Within a week, the compounds had reacted and formed more complex molecules, including simple amino acids such as glycine.

Two or more amino acids can react and form a peptide bond between themselves - a process called polymerisation - to form a protein molecule. Proteins are the so-called "building blocks of life"; every organism is at least partly made up by proteins.

Other molecules which can be formed in similar reactions are nucleic acids. If nucleic acids are joined on a ribose-phosphate backbone structure (inorganic phosphate ions are also simple compounds which would have been present before life on earth evolved), they would produce simple RNA strands. RNA is a simpler form of DNA, which is used as genetic code in most organisms around today. RNA has been found to be able to, in rare circumstances, be able to self-replicate itself into more identical RNA strands when its composite molecules are present in its surroundings. (RNA transcription happens inside every nucleus-containing cell in the human body (the exception being red blood cells), albeit with more complex procedures involved.)

A cell membrane - the material surrounding cells - is composed of two layers of a substance called phospholipid. This is called the phospholipid bilayer. A phospholipid molecule is a long, thin molecules with an aptly-named "head" end and "tail" end. The "head" end is composed of a phosphate ion, and the "tail" end is comprised of a chain of lipid (fat) molecules. These two ends have diametrical affinities for water. The phosphate "head" is hydrophilic - it "likes" to be in the presence of water. The lipid "tail" is hydrophobic - it repels from water. Phospholipids tend to form a "bubble" when they are in water, as the double layer of phospholipids has the phosphate end pointing out into the surrounding water on the outer layer, and the phosphate end pointing into the cytoplasm (internal cell fluid) on the inner layer. This is how a cell membrane is formed. (Take a sample of one of the cells in your body and look at it under a microscope. You yourself have cell membranes surrounding all of your internal cells, so you can take a look for yourself. You cannot deny the presence of a phospholipid bilayer cell membrane.)

Here's a diagram of a phospholipid bilayer. You can clearly see the two phospholipid molecules with their "head" ends pointing into the water, and the "tail" ends inside:



When these materials come together, they are able to form a simple prokaryotic (without a nucleus) cell. These cells have the ability to reproduce asexually (not requiring a partner, they just split) through a process called mitosis.

As cells have gotten more advanced after living matter formed, they began to develop different genetic characteristics. They were able to differentiate and develop new traits and features of themselves. Some developed nuclei (the place where the genetic information, DNA, is stored in a cell), making a new type of cell called a eukaryote. As cells begin to reproduce to make a larger number of themselves, they incur random genetic mutations. These can, in some instances, produce favourable traits in the offspring organism - in other words, it can survive better in its environment.

Organisms which are better able to cope better in a particular environment will have a higher chance of survival compared with organisms without this favourable trait. This means that the adapted organism will survive and pass on its genetics to its offspring, whilst the non-adapted organism will gradually die out, until its unfavourable genes are removed from the gene pool. This is a process called natural selection.

Natural selection powers evolution. Organisms develop new characteristics, and if they are good traits, the organism will survive and reproduce. If it is a bad trait, the organism will die and the unfavourable gene will be removed from the gene pool. This is evolution at work. Over the past 4.4 billion years or so, this process has been occurring. Gradually, organisms have become more complex up to the point whereby we have humans and many other complex mammals on earth. It is possible.

Unfortunately, since records have begun, humans have always been trying to explain how they got here. The first was religion. Humans found that the easiest and most convenient was to propose that a guy up somewhere in the sky created the world, and wrote a book about it. This also has another added benefit: if you propose that this guy, aptly named "God," was omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, a form of "control of the masses" could be invented. A heaven and hell - if you behave, you have eternal life, if you don't, you go to hell to suffer for eternity. This has held back the progression of human civilisation for decades.

Now, we have science. We can actually do experiments and determine things that just a few hundred years ago would have been unthinkable. We understand much of the inner workings of the human body; if you become ill, we can make you better. We have achieved amazing engineering feats; we can put a man on the moon, and have invented aircraft which can travel faster than the speed of sound, rise several miles into the air, and travel for thousands of nautical miles. Science has achieved much in the past century; it is the only system which human beings have ever entrusted their life with (every time you sit in an aircraft, every time you go into hospital).

So, in conclusion, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. If you think science is still an abomination and is completely useless, I expect from you:

1) A complete scientific rebuttal to everything I have written. Don't spare any information, as I'm smart enough to understand.
2) A well-reasoned, knowledgeable essay on why religion is greater than science.

Until then, don't continue to snipe at people for not believing something with no evidence to ensure its veracity. If you can't produce what I asked for above, then STFU. I don't want to hear from you again until you can produce what I asked for above.

Have a nice day.

Did I offend you somehow? Gee, I don't know how that could have happened, because I went out of my way to phrase my response in a fashion to only place you in the limelight. But then, perhaps you don't enjoy the spotlight, if so, then I sincerely apologize. However, to avoid such a reoccurence, it might be wise if you were to respond in a fashion that doesn't automatically cause me to reflex in such a fashion.

Apparently, you did feel that my request was too complex, because you failed to answer it. Instead, you choose your own subject, and instead of links, you copy/pasted, which is an equivalent to links anyway. I and most people can Google for almost any kind of information, in just about any quantity, so you haven't really accomplished anything, except to demonstrate that your greatest skill is to assert either positively or negatively, depending on your bias. Unfortunately, your bias is not the subject at hand, for that has been obvious from the beginning.

My request remains as before, so I won't repeat it, because it is clear that you understood it before. Now, would you like to take another stab at it? But while honing your knife, sharpen it to the subject, not at me.

Wow, I don't really have anything to add except Dave.

seeker, if you think science consists of making glib statements and expecting others to both decode and validate their meaning, then you might find your scientific career to be short lived. Sorry.