Destroying the theory of evolution in one post

[bodhitharta]

The first living organism would have had to be able to have the following functions in order for evolution to occur:



Metabolism

Waste management

Replication/reproduction capacity/capability



If these three functions were met at the onset of life they could not have evolved to get to this point.

[lukec]

The problem here is that you are not even talking about evolution- evolution, as has been said before many different places, is only the fact that organisms change throughout time. This fact is well documented by the fossil record, and by genetic testing, and is fact. The theory of evolution, which I assume you also disagree with, is a well-established one which explains how exactly these changes come to happen. What you disagree with, here, is the idea of abiogenesis.

Consider for a moment the idea that the first replicating molecule may not have been living. Have you heard of prions? These are self-replicating proteins. NOT even RNA or DNA here, I'm talking proteins. If the first "thing" which began self-replication was merely a string of, say for simplicity's sake, amino acids, then it would need neither metabolism nor waste management.

Original ideas, please.

[solidsquid]

Evolution as in the biological theory of evolution, by definition, only deals with life - an precursor is outside of its intended explanatory framework. So, no Bodhi, this doesn't "destroy" evolution. Didn't we go over this a while back when the Atheist Coalition site was around?

[bodhitharta]

The problem here is that you are not even talking about evolution- evolution, as has been said before many different places, is only the fact that organisms change throughout time. This fact is well documented by the fossil record, and by genetic testing, and is fact. The theory of evolution, which I assume you also disagree with, is a well-established one which explains how exactly these changes come to happen. What you disagree with, here, is the idea of abiogenesis.

Consider for a moment the idea that the first replicating molecule may not have been living. Have you heard of prions? These are self-replicating proteins. NOT even RNA or DNA here, I'm talking proteins. If the first "thing" which began self-replication was merely a string of, say for simplicity's sake, amino acids, then it would need neither metabolism nor waste management.

Original ideas, please.

You misunderstand what I am saying, perhaps you should review the information again.

I am not talking about abiogenesis. I am talking about living organisms. Only living organisms would be able to evolve but to evolve such an organism would need to metabolize, manage waste and reproduce it would also have the capacity to achieve these functions.

Since this is true it is logical to conclude that these functions were "created" from the beginning.

For instance, if I asked you to explain the evolution of the Gag reflex you would not be able to give a definitive answer.

---

Evolution as in the biological theory of evolution, by definition, only deals with life - an precursor is outside of its intended explanatory framework. So, no Bodhi, this doesn't "destroy" evolution. Didn't we go over this a while back when the Atheist Coalition site was around?

I am only talking about "living" organisms.

BTW, I'm not certain but if I remember you correctly you were graduating the last time we communicated, right?

I hope your doing well, your a very intelligent person

[Darwinian]

lukec has pretty much hit the nail on the head.

While we obviously don't know how the first replicating chemicals got together we do know that they did. And as soon as they did then inevitably, evolution took over the process.

Now, if you want to say that God or some other intelligence created the very first spark of life then that's fine, you go for it, but it certainly isn't any threat to evolution.

[bodhitharta]

lukec has pretty much hit the nail on the head.

While we obviously don't know how the first replicating chemicals got together we do know that they did. And as soon as they did then inevitably, evolution took over the process.

Now, if you want to say that God or some other intelligence created the very first spark of life then that's fine, you go for it, but it certainly isn't any threat to evolution.

You must not understand my point. Living organisms are the point here, not how a living organism came to be.

In order for evolution to occur the living organism must be able to metabolize which includes waste management and have the capacity to reproduce/replicate.

If a living organism has the capacity to evolve it is already developed enough to render the idea of evolution being primary useless in the scheme of life.

Life when seen from this view is obviously created primarily, even if evolution was a slight secondary function. This also shows that no evolutionary "tree of life" is neccessary and any such tree is an unproven assumption.

[Darwinian]

In order for evolution to occur it needs something to work with. Simple replicating chemicals will do just fine, evolution does not care if they are alive in the sense that we understand or not, it simply favours certain mutations in this replicating chemistry over others.

Everything else that we see as life follows on from that.

[bodhitharta]

In order for evolution to occur it needs something to work with. Simple replicating chemicals will do just fine, evolution does not care if they are alive in the sense that we understand or not, it simply favours certain mutations in this replicating chemistry over others.

Everything else that we see as life follows on from that.

Chemicals don't simply replicate into living organisms. If that were the case scientist would be able to create life easily. But, what we have always known and have been able to prove is that life is biogenic.

DNA has a capacity that involves intent.

[Darwinian]

Chemicals don't simply replicate into living organisms.

How do you know? This simply depends upon your definition of life.

And why would we not be able to create life easily? Given the right mix of chemicals and the right environment for them to exist in then it may be inevitable that at some point a self replicating process will occur.

However, it may take millions of years for this to happen. Nothing for the Earth but too long for a scientist in his lab. On the other hand, scientists have 'created' all the building blocks for life and perhaps the next step in the process is just around the corner.

[bodhitharta]

Chemicals don't simply replicate into living organisms.

How do you know? This simply depends upon your definition of life.

And why would we not be able to create life easily? Given the right mix of chemicals and the right environment for them to exist in then it may be inevitable that at some point a self replicating process will occur.

However, it may take millions of years for this to happen. Nothing for the Earth but too long for a scientist in his lab. On the other hand, scientists have 'created' all the building blocks for life and perhaps the next step in the process is just around the corner.

Yes, but living organisms can reproduce with almost no effort and make life immediately.

It is the same as the reason why science hasn't been able to even make a single seed of any sort. The seeds that grow our food did not evolve into a seed it was created.