What Came First, the Chicken or the Egg?

[Rele WT]

A creation vs. evolution debate thread.

Okay, well insomethread or another some person or another said they would make a thread on this, butthey never did, and I still wantedto see how it would go, so yeah.

I personally am an evolutionist, so the eggcame first. Justto answer my own question. You know dinosaurs evolved to birds, then different kindsof birds would mate, creating eggs that were a mix of the two birds, then, one of those eggs hatched into the first chicken. Then other birds ofthose sametwo kinds had more chicken babies, and eventuall chickens started having chicken babies and all that stuff.
I believe in evolution because there areobvious signs of it. Like how leptictidiums look like a later (although still prhistoric) mammal, the name has ascaped me. How you can see the similaraties of in the skeletons of a t-rex and a chicken. Besides, if theEarth was created in only seven (although really only six) days, why would aincient fossils and skeletons even exist?
Preserved mammoths have been found in the ice, I don't think that God would just put fossils and skeletons and aincient tools that early humans and the dead end neanderthals (sp?) used there to trick us. It would be rude to just do that as a joke, and I have to doubt that He is that mean.

So, take the ball and run with it.

[_Grey_]

To me, it's obvious that the egg came first. How else would the chicken get here?

Other than that, I really don't know what to say... My mother is a Christian... she doesn't believe in creationism, though. She believes that "god created man in his image" meant that when evolution created man, god touched us and gave us our ability to separate right from wrong... other than that, I have no clue what she thinks.

Maybe she believes that "7 days" is a metaphor or something, and the first day was like... a few billion years in which animals were created and evolved into what they were when man came in... I dunno.

_Grey_

[Aeolus]

I dont necessarilly believe in evolution, but I study it to learn where non-christians are coming from. Most people don't understand how it really works, which leads to bad arguments and faulty reasoning on both sides.

Evolution has a lot of 'proof', but much of it may be simple conjecture. I am somewhat unconvinced that species can change so drastically from a single-celled prokaryotic organism to a species capable of complex subconscious thought, even given the current explanation of scientists, which states that they slowly evolved after reproducing generations, each with new, favorable traits.

I know that life, as well as the universe had to have been created, because of the failure of the Stanley-Miller experiment, (I think it was) to demonstrate that life could form on it's own. Also, the big-bang theory is incredibly far-fetched. Even my biology teacher, who firmly supports any findings of the scientific community in general, is rather disconcerted about proffessing the idea as some kind of truth.

[_Grey_]

Big bang has nothing to do with evolution. Therefore, not all scientists who believe in evolution believe in the big bang.

Also, the Miller/Urey experiment didn't fail, technically. It proved that amino acids could be created under certain conditions, however it involved predominantly reductant molecules which might have not been in the atmosphere at the time organisms would have started, and involved intense continuous energy that couldn't have occurred on earth.

A thought is that amino acids could have come from meteors or otherwise... because it's been known that outer space could potentially hold the materials present in the experiment.

A link: Miller/Urey Experiment (http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oGkiPIDItG7Us AqRZXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDM TE3c2Nya3AyBHNlYwNzc gRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA3cEd nRpZANGODI0XzE0MgRsA 1dTMQ--/SIG=12kqhksm8/EXP=1183604296/**http%3a//www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html)

[Aeolus]

Big bang has nothing to do with evolution. Therefore, not all scientists who believe in evolution believe in the big bang.

Of course not, but quite a few do simply because they would otherwise be left without an explanation. Not a good position.

Also, the Miller/Urey experiment didn't fail, technically. It proved that amino acids could be created under certain conditions, however it involved predominantly reductant molecules which might have not been in the atmosphere at the time organisms would have started, and involved intense continuous energy that couldn't have occurred on earth.

Uh, yes it did. Quite miserably. They conducted those experiments, not some random force of nature, and the results would have poisoned someone who drank them. I can only imagine what would happen to prokaryotic cells without any real means of defence, if they were indeed able to form.

Further, there was no Oxygen in Earth's early atmosphere, and we really dont have a reasonable explanation for how it got there, other than photosynthetic lifeforms (which still need oxygen) putting it there.

A thought is that amino acids could have come from meteors or otherwise... because it's been known that outer space could potentially hold the materials present in the experiment.

That's true, but it doesn't bring life.

[DarkWolf]

Actually Evolution doesn't necessary mean the egg came first. Evolution would allow the possibility that a creature was born to produce external eggs, despite being born a different way. Even a mammal, today, can lay eggs. So, being an evolutionist doesn't mean the egg came first.

Also, it's possible for God to have created the egg to be hatched into a chicken.

Either remains possible on either sides of the philosophical battle.

The debating is moot. If you want to battle creationism against evolution why not try one focused on that rather than some stupid chicken/egg question that's really pointless to either side? I believe there's already one active somewhere. It pays to look before posting...

[Aeolus]

Actually Evolution doesn't necessary mean the egg came first. Evolution would allow the possibility that a creature was born to produce external eggs, despite being born a different way. Even a mammal, today, can lay eggs. So, being an evolutionist doesn't mean the egg came first.

Also, it's possible for God to have created the egg to be hatched into a chicken.

Either remains possible on either sides of the philosophical battle.

The debating is moot. If you want to battle creationism against evolution why not try one focused on that rather than some stupid chicken/egg question that's really pointless to either side? I believe there's already one active somewhere. It pays to look before posting...

Uh... wouldn't someone bitch at them for reviving a dead thread or something?

That's what seems to happen everytime when someone tries to post on an old thread without just starting a new one...

I am open to the idea of God creating life and giving it the abillity to change on it's own from there.

[DarkWolf]

I meant that they could try the Science Central thread "Evolution vs. Creation Science (http://www.werewolf.com/vb/showthread.php?t=160 24)" which is still active - the last reply was 23rd of June so it's fully within the allowed posting time for anybody. It's not "old" yet.

[UNODRAGONE]

Depends. If you believe in God then the chicken came first cause God created all the animals first, (to my knowledge of the bible) If you don't believe in God then the egg. Me, I could care less either way :)

[_Grey_]

Uh, yes it did. Quite miserably. They conducted those experiments, not some random force of nature, and the results would have poisoned someone who drank them. I can only imagine what would happen to prokaryotic cells without any real means of defence, if they were indeed able to form.

Please find a link that says that.

Until then, seeing as all my searches come up with success, I will believe it was a success. That's simply the way I work.


That's true, but it doesn't bring life.

That's also true, but it was one of the things required by the experiment. In other words, the amino acids being present would certainly help prove (notice I say "help prove"...) that it could happen on it's own.


Also, it's possible for God to have created the egg to be hatched into a chicken.


Good point.

_Grey_

[Aeolus]

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/8830/abiogenesis.html

http://www.truthinscience.o rg.uk/site/content/view/51/65/

This site says that there may have been oxygen, but a friend of my father's is a geologist, and he says that there is no actual evidence of oxygen in the deeper rock layers. That will take some more research.

http://www.allaboutphilosop hy.org/naturalism.htm

Our Mcgraw Hill textbooks also claim that the atmosphere would not have been as it was in the Miller-Urey experiment.

[_Grey_]

All of that doesn't prove that it failed, only that it might have not worked on earth.

Which brings people (like me) to the idea that such organisms could have been potentially created outside earth.

In other words, to boneheads on both sides of the debate (which yes, I am admitting to be a little... close minded here... but so are you), it could still be either way. Nothing's proven, nothing's disproven.

_Grey_

[Aeolus]

All of that doesn't prove that it failed, only that it might have not worked on earth.

Which brings people (like me) to the idea that such organisms could have been potentially created outside earth.

In other words, to boneheads on both sides of the debate (which yes, I am admitting to be a little... close minded here... but so are you), it could still be either way. Nothing's proven, nothing's disproven.

_Grey_

Agreeable for the most part, but I dont think that we can demonstrate Creation or Abiogenesis in Early Earth, but that's just me.

I used to be really big into the debate, but it's depressing and aggravating so eventually I lost interest.

[Rele WT]

Actually Evolution doesn't necessary mean the egg came first. Evolution would allow the possibility that a creature was born to produce external eggs, despite being born a different way. Even a mammal, today, can lay eggs. So, being an evolutionist doesn't mean the egg came first.

Also, it's possible for God to have created the egg to be hatched into a chicken.

Either remains possible on either sides of the philosophical battle.

That is a good point, I didn't think of that.
Also, I wasn't trying to center thethread on the chicken or egg thing, I just couldn't come up with a better name that wasn't boring.

Also, I think I'm just really bad at looking for threads because this is my second (besides like poems and things) thread and both times I ended up creating a thread that already existed, so sorry about that...

[Locksmyth]

Miller-Urey experiment was a success, it proved that the basic building blocks of life can be formed from lifeless matter. It also used an atmosphere that at the time was believed to be the atmosphere present when abiogenesis occurred. If the atmosphere was different then the experiments needs to be re-done with an earth like atmosphere, regardless the conditions in the experiment can have occurred anywhere in the solar-system and seeded life on earth.

Oxygen content on earth was produced by very early life that produced oxygen as a waste product. There are organisms that still exist to whom any amount of oxygen is toxic.

You also need to provide sources that are scientific in nature not from biased religious based organizations like truth in science. Find a citation from a valid scientific source that shows the experiments were failed please.

Further more that is an experiment in abiogenesis which while in a similar field of study is not an aspect of evolution. Evolution is the theory that life-forms change over successive generations, by a combination of mutation and selective pressures.

[Aeolus]

Yeah I know I am looking over those sites now. I am not really familliar with many of the zillions of creationist websites, accept for answers in genesis. My bad.

It is possible that anaerobic bacteria created oxygen, but we should look further into the requirements of such bacteria. As a waste product, it would still take a lot of time to produce such massive quantities of oxygen, would it not?


Although scientists regard the Miller experiment as a success, the nature of prebiotic Earth seems to lack some of the prominent chemicals they used, and the amount of electricity used was not an accurate amount. I still stand by those facts.

[Locksmyth]

It is possible that anaerobic bacteria created oxygen, but we should look further into the requirements of such bacteria. As a waste product, it would still take a lot of time to produce such massive quantities of oxygen, would it not?
Yes entire oceans filled with oxygen producing bacteria over about 2 billion years. I didn't mean to imply that anaerobic bacteria was responsible for oxygen it's cynobacteria that is claimed to have produced it. I was merely indicating that life doesn't require atmospheric oxygen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromatolite

Although scientists regard the Miller experiment as a success, the nature of prebiotic Earth seems to lack some of the prominent chemicals they used, and the amount of electricity used was not an accurate amount. I still stand by those facts.
If we assume that abiogenesis occurred on earth and not in another region of space and was subsequently bought here (clouds of organic chemicals have been found in space), then we need to fix these errors in the experiment.

First I want to point out that conditions in the experiment were meant to simulate an early earth as was theorized at the time (which hasn't really changed that much) but more importantly was designed to produce results rapidly, we don't have billions of years and a 'beaker' the size of the earth in which to reproduce the exact circumstances. Continuous low current is an acceptable substitute for random lightening strikes in this situation.

The experiment proved that life's building blocks can be formed by application of energy to matter. How flexible the requirements are is unknown. We've established that the underlying theory is sound, as new information about the early earth is discovered we can fine tune the experiments.

[Tiamot]

At the time the Miller/Urey experiments were conducted, they attempted to re-create the atmospheric conditions that were thought to exist at the time. Thus, as our knowledge improved so too did our view of what the early atmosphere must have been like. Earth’s early atmosphere wasn’t known to be the most stable of things, and understandably the atmosphere underwent various changes. However the atmosphere we’re concerned with was one that would have allowed for the production of life building materials. We now think that this early atmosphere wasn’t the blend of reactive methane and ammonia as portrayed in the Miller experiments, but one of a more un-reactive mixture of nitrogen and carbon dioxide. You’re quick to base your decision against evolution on data that was obtained in 1953, my friend. Your facts are outdated. Yes, that experiment is less important today to the understanding of how life arose from a scientific standpoint because more discoveries led to the knowledge of a different atmosphere. But it set a precedent, mainly; it got people thinking about the idea of ‘spontaneous generation’ showing that the precursors for life could be spontaneously created, and thus paved the way for more experimentation. Miller repeated the experiment again in 1983, this time using the correct combination of atmospheric elements. However the results produced few amino acids. Proponents of creationism were quick to jump on this, as one may imagine. But, more recently scientists have been re-examining this experiment and have made even more discoveries. Namely, a California biologist Jeffery Bada realized that Miller’s second experiment was producing nitrites, which rapidly destroy amino acids as they form. Furthermore the nitrites were causing the water base used in the experiment to become acidic which prevents amino acids from forming as well. Given this, it’s no surprise that Miller didn’t get many amino acids the second time around. But, Bada also realized the early earth would have contained plenty of carbonate and iron which would have the effect of neutralizing the acid and nitrites. Thus, Bada reproduced Miller’s second experiment, but this time accounted for the presence of iron and carbonate. The result? Tons of amino acids. So now we have a much more recent experiment (the results were presented at the American Chemical Society’s meeting somewhere around late March-early February this year.) in which amino acids were produced in the type of atmosphere that is generally accepted to be reflective of primitive earth.

[Locksmyth]

We now think that this early atmosphere wasn’t the blend of reactive methane and ammonia as portrayed in the Miller experiments, but one of a more un-reactive mixture of nitrogen and carbon dioxide.
Apparently I was erroneous about how different the early atmosphere is believed to be compared to 60 years ago. My bad.

But surely the fact that the experiment is reproducible in such vastly differing circumstances proves that abiogenesis is a solid theory. How many different environmental models can produce amino acids? Is the production inevitable in a carbon rich environment? Scientists may not know the answers to these questions right now, but with patience and time they very well might.

[Aeolus]

Locksmyth, they think that cyanobacteria produced the oxygen? I'll have to go back to my studies and learn more about them. They are part of kingdom Archaea, aren't they?

@Tiamot- I read about the tests down south with nitrites and iron and carbonates. What about the argument that ammonia and a few of the other chemicals needed would have been broken down by atmospheric oxygen?

[Locksmyth]

@Tiamot- I read about the tests down south with nitrites and iron and carbonates. What about the argument that ammonia and a few of the other chemicals needed would have been broken down by atmospheric oxygen?

If you read her post you'll see that those experiments were done in an atmosphere of nitrogen and carbon dioxide, no need for ammonia. Further more, significant levels of atmospheric oxygen can only have come about after life has been formed and would have had little effect if any on the processes that formed life. Further more as you say but a friend of my father's is a geologist, and he says that there is no actual evidence of oxygen in the deeper rock layers.Hence no oxygen in 'pre-life' earth.

[Aeolus]

If you read her post you'll see that those experiments were done in an atmosphere of nitrogen and carbon dioxide, no need for ammonia. Further more, significant levels of atmospheric oxygen can only have come about after life has been formed and would have had little effect if any on the processes that formed life. Further more as you say Hence no oxygen in 'pre-life' earth.


Alright, then explain to me something that I never could understand:

How do bubbles in the ocean waters protect ammino acids (and the chemicals necessary to form them) within from being broken down by UV rays?

[Shalinda]

When thinking of it, the egg came first, because of the dinosaurs, they later turned into birds and... well ... chickens ^^ thats why the egg came before the chicken

[Locksmyth]

Alright, then explain to me something that I never could understand:

How do bubbles in the ocean waters protect ammino acids (and the chemicals necessary to form them) within from being broken down by UV rays?

http://www.newton.dep.anl.g ov/askasci/phy00/phy00502.htm

UV rays are scattered reflected and absorbed by water.

[Cheater388]

I'm sorry if I'm off topic but you guys post really long posts and I can't read all of this in 30 minutes. So consider me as not paying attention to what some of you are talking about (although I get the general idea of current topic).

I understand evolution somewhat but it doesn't explain why evolution needed to happen... was it because of need or want (Survival is special in that it could be considered a need and a want, right)? Dinosaurs evolved, right? And then they became extinct by something... and then the same thing caused a massive ice age... and then we're basically here.

But why did we get so small (everything, in particular)? Why don't we get bigger again? Was it the shift in geography? It couldn't be the food chain unless something totally became extinct and made the rest of the animals change... was it the climate?

Evolution is really simple, but the reason to evolve is probably complex!

[Aeolus]

But why did we get so small (everything, in particular)? Why don't we get bigger again? Was it the shift in geography? It couldn't be the food chain unless something totally became extinct and made the rest of the animals change... was it the climate?

Evolution is really simple, but the reason to evolve is probably complex!



All the things you have mentioned, may have, according to evolution stimulated changes. Animals would need certain traits under certain conditions. For example, Darwin's finches each survived by eating seeds or insects. During the winter time of the year, those birds would need to eat larger seeds, because the seeds needed larger shells to keep the fragile embryo at just the right temperature, or something along those lines. Now, it would naturally take larger beaks to eat these seeds, so when the birds reproduced, those offspring that had been born with larger beaks (by random chance from genetic interaction, of course) would have a better chance at survival. Now, in the summer, the seeds shrank, and so did the beaks. Observing this, we see that, to some degree, animals grow traits that are favorable based on the environement through natural selection, or survival and reproduction of the fittest.

EDIT- forgive me if that example is a bit crude, but it's a classic, I know that, and it is part of how Darwin formulated the theory that really changed biology.

@Locksmyth- I see now that the Miller-Urey experiment wasn't a total failure, but indeed our knowledge of early Earth's atmosphere has changed considerably since then.

Now, I was told that the bubbles would have risen to the surface to meet chemicals that were of a gaseous nature and existed in the atmosphere at the time (no joke, it's directly out of school text books, and Idaho can't be that far behind, we spent more than the national average on education a year or two ago)? What do you say to that? I am really not buying the current explanations based on where exactly these chemicals existed.

[Tiamot]

Although some difference of opinion does occur, it is widely believed that earth’s primitive atmosphere contained little if any oxygen and therefore no UV shielding ozone layer. However, prebiotic organic polymers as well as several inorganic compounds are sufficient to protect oceanic organic molecules from UV light. In short-there is more than one way to skin a cat here.

Water scatters and reflects UV radiation, and the radiation left to get through doesn’t penetrate. One of the motivations for proposing an origin near deep sea vents, subsurface environments, and benthic regions concerns the protection from UV radiation. Further attempts to deal with at least the atmospheric end of UV protection include organic hazes and gaseous sulfuric absorbers such as Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2). Given the lack of atmospheric shielding, however, there are still absorbers which would allow for the accumulation of organic molecules. Organic polymers from electric discharges and hydrogen cyanide (HCN) polymerizations, solubilized elemental sulfur, and inorganic ions such as Cl- Br-, Mg2+, and SH-, or Fe2+ would all provide protection. Furthermore, the presence of ice over water surfaces (With the absence of greenhouse gases, the earth’s surface temperature would have been around -40 C.) would provide significant protection, as well as oil slicks (likely formed by the photopolymerization of methane or by the accumulation of hydrocarbons carried by meteorites) or an amount of organic foam floating on the surface, likely created by UV light acting on compounds like pyrene and hexadecene.

Oh and cheater, buckle in and get ready. I'll get to you in a bit! *wink*

[Locksmyth]

@ Aereolus.
I would like to know your reasoning for saying abiogenesis is not likely to have occurred and saying that the miller experiments were not a total failure rather then a total success when the experiments show that life's fundamental building blocks are formed spontaneously. The experiments show that his has happened in 2 vastly differing environmental models and thus are likely to occur in many more environmental models. The fact that these experiments did this is a complete success. It indisputably proves the theory, all that remains is to figure out what the prebiotic earth was like.

Additionally knowing that amino acids can be formed in space. How can you claim that it is unlikely that life can have been seeded on earth from space? Only someone seriously against science can casually wave these away.

[Aeolus]

@ Aereolus.
I would like to know your reasoning for saying abiogenesis is not likely to have occurred and saying that the miller experiments were not a total failure rather then a total success when the experiments show that life's fundamental building blocks are formed spontaneously. The experiments show that his has happened in 2 vastly differing environmental models and thus are likely to occur in many more environmental models. The fact that these experiments did this is a complete success. It indisputably proves the theory, all that remains is to figure out what the prebiotic earth was like.

Because I am not able to find much about the pre-biotic world that I dont already know, and nothing as informational as Tiamot's explainations. Sorry, I was good at Chemistry, but I haven't memorized the periodic table, the effects of all the millions of substances that could have been present. I have no idea exactly what was there and what wasn't and what there effects were, not many informational sources reiterate upon this too heavilly. All I knew was that the atmosphere in question had changed since then, and sceintists thought that underwater vents and bubbles somehow made up for the supposed differences, and that the chemicals needed would have met in the air. That sounded unlikely, from my standpoint, and so based upon that I thought that it was impossible.

Additionally knowing that amino acids can be formed in space. How can you claim that it is unlikely that life can have been seeded on earth from space? Only someone seriously against science can casually wave these away.

I dont remember saying that I wasn't open to those possibillities.

Here however, is a link posting Stanley Miller's statements about those ideas:

http://www.accessexcellence .org/WN/NM/miller.html

[Locksmyth]

Because I am not able to find much about the pre-biotic world that I dont already know, and nothing as informational as Tiamot's explainations. Sorry, I was good at Chemistry, but I haven't memorized the periodic table, the effects of all the millions of substances that could have been present. I have no idea exactly what was there and what wasn't and what there effects were, not many informational sources reiterate upon this too heavilly.You don't need to know all of that, all you need to know is that the experiments have shown that this process occurs in a variety of situations. That in itself is evidence that the process is likely. Not having enough information about the early atmosphere doesn't prove anything. The theory stands as true for earth until such a time as a discovery is made that affects the experimental results in a negative manner.

That sounded unlikely, from my standpoint, and so based upon that I thought that it was impossible.Ah so did you used the argument from ignorance? i.e. I don't understand/know how it could have therefore it didn't. The wording of you sentence makes me wonder do you now consider it a possibility? If you do you have not yet indicated that it is you seem to keep attempting to poke holes in it. The closet you've come is saying that the experiments weren't a total failure, yet your argument against it like saying the oil cannot burn because I've never seen it burn and the first guy to experiment with fire used wood.

I dont remember saying that I wasn't open to those possibillities.

A thought is that amino acids could have come from meteors or otherwise... because it's been known that outer space could potentially hold the materials present in the experiment.
That's true, but it doesn't bring life.

[Aeolus]

You don't need to know all of that, all you need to know is that the experiments have shown that this process occurs in a variety of situations. That in itself is evidence that the process is likely. Not having enough information about the early atmosphere doesn't prove anything. The theory stands as true for earth until such a time as a discovery is made that affects the experimental results in a negative manner.


I don't need your chiding. 'It wasn't a failure', what are you looking for? Are you just trying to press it on me for my mistake?

Ah so did you used the argument from ignorance? i.e. I don't understand/know how it could have therefore it didn't.


No. All I had to go on was the fact that, to my knowledge, the Earth's atmosphere was different than it was in Miller/Urey's experiment. Rather, I was told that, in order to make the products of the experiment, the chemicals would have had to have met together in several other environs for it to work. It sounded really unlikely, because I didn't know of the chemicals that would have been in the air or in the water etc. Because I didn't know of them and their effects, I couldn't see it working. That is why I need more information, besides your word that it simply works.

The wording of you sentence makes me wonder do you now consider it a possibility?

If you are talking about whether or not the Miller/Urey experiment was a success. Sure, for those conditions.


If you are talking about abiogenesis, then no I don't. I am repeating it back to you because that seems to be what you want, and the current evidence disagrees with what I am saying. It isn't convincing to me, and I will return to argue with you more often once I have learned more about the subject.


If you do you have not yet indicated that it is you seem to keep attempting to poke holes in it.

Oh, and that's wrong? I suppose I should just submit myself to whatever you say.

The closet you've come is saying that the experiments weren't a total failure, yet your argument against it like saying the oil cannot burn because I've never seen it burn and the first guy to experiment with fire used wood.

No, it's like saying that the chemicals may not have worked together. I dont understand how the current understanding of abiogenesis is supposed to sound reasonable when we have (supposedly) moved beyond the idea of spontaneous generation, or why we never see lifeforms just taking shape out of a menagerie of chemicals now that we HAVE a reducing atmosphere. I still think it's bullshit, yes.

[Locksmyth]

I don't need your chiding. 'It wasn't a failure', what are you looking for? Are you just trying to press it on me for my mistake?I'm not chiding I genuinely want to know, I genuinely do not understand how one can look at the evidence (even when it was just the one experiment that worked under one specific circumstance) and then turn around and say that it's an unlikely explanation for the origin of life, without evidence to the contrary. The only argument you have provided is that experimental model was not accurate, that is not evidence against the theory. Merely evidence of a gap in knowledge.

That's what I don't understand, how that kind of mind works. Do you still think it's wrong after the experiment was successfully performed using the currently accepted pre-biotic environmental models?

SIDENOTE: These are fair questions and are kind of the point of a discussion board. You might want to read this article (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/02/70179) It's about how most of the time when people read text they actually put their own emotional twist on the words and get a different emotive tone then was intended by the writer. Not everyone is out to get you.

All I had to go on was the fact that, to my knowledge, the Earth's atmosphere was different than it was in Miller/Urey's experiment. Rather, I was told that, in order to make the products of the experiment, the chemicals would have had to have met together in several other environs for it to work. It sounded really unlikely, because I didn't know of the chemicals that would have been in the air or in the water etc. [B]Because I didn't know of them and their effects, I couldn't see it working.The bolded is the definition of argument from ignorance. Do not make the mistake that I trying to imply stupidity or anything like that on your part. However arguing that something cannot have occurred or did not occur because you personally don't have the information, is called an argument from ignorance, it's one of the big faux pars of debate. From a rational unbias point of view the fact that the original miller experiment produced RNA regardless of the conditions under which it is highly likely that there is a natural process that can cause abiogenesis. The rational unbias point of view then is that until it is proven that the earth cannot have supported such a process, one must assume it did regardless of a lack of understanding of how it happened in the earths.

If you are talking about whether or not the Miller/Urey experiment was a success. Sure, for those conditions.That's the point you don't seem to understand that it's not just about those conditions and I don't understand how can fail to understand that.

The experiment proves a theory, all that's left is filling in the blanks, those blanks include what exactly pre-biotic earth was like. This is the way all theories work.

Further more as has been said multiple time the experiment was successful in two vastly differing atmospheric conditions. That means that there is a very high probability that it will be successful in other atmosphere conditions. The only way to prove abiogenesis wrong is to have irrefutable evidence that the pre-biotic earth cannot have supported the conditions required for abiogenesis. Until that time the only responsible scientific position is that the pre-biotic earth must have supported abiogenesis, that means that people should be actively attempting to disproving it via experiment and "pre-biotic earth" rock analysis. Thus far no one has been able to.

I dont understand how the current understanding of abiogenesis is supposed to sound reasonable when we have (supposedly) moved beyond the idea of spontaneous generation,
I don't know of any credible biologist that has moved beyond the idea of spontaneous generation.

why we never see lifeforms just taking shape out of a menagerie of chemicals now that we HAVE a reducing atmosphere. I still think it's bullshit, yes.
We don't have a reducing atmosphere we have an oxidizing one (that's why stuff rusts). Further more if it is possible to have spontaneous generation in an oxygen rich environment, we are almost certainly never going to witness it in the 'wild' and we would need a beaker the size of the earth and about a billions years of lab time to witness full spontaneous generation in a lab.

Basically what I want to know is how can you look at the evidence and the work of these scientists and claim abiogenesis is bullshit? Do you simply ignore the evidence?
If your world view is faith based and no amount of evidence will shift your position (and in this case the evidence is substantial) why bother to learn what the theories are anyway? That doesn't make any sense to me, what is the purpose? Is it so you can attempt sound like you know what you are talking about when you try to argue against them? Is it so you can proudly claim "I gave it a go but it was unconvincing"? I want to believe that there is a noble reason but I can't see how there can be, it would be like me not buying a lottery ticket then preying to win knowing I can't and declaring prey is doesn't work when I don't. I've already decided the outcome.

I want to know why bother trying to learn about something when it seems your mind is already made up.

Don't think I'm attacking you these are genuine questions, if your answer is that you simply don't think abiogenesis is possible because of your faith, then why try to confront it on scientific terms? Surely a simple "Yeah the evidence is for it, the science is valid, but that's not what I believe is the truth, I believe the truth was handed to us in the form of the Bible by God Himself." What is wrong with that position? It's not one anyone can take away from you, it doesn't require any facts, all it requires is faith. Why do you feel the need to prove science is wrong? A position of faith cannot be argued against, but if one tries to argue against science then you have to expect to justify your position with factual evidence not faith nor the argument from ignorance you have been.

[Aeolus]

I'm not chiding I genuinely want to know, I genuinely do not understand how one can look at the evidence (even when it was just the one experiment that worked under one specific circumstance) and then turn around and say that it's an unlikely explanation for the origin of life, without evidence to the contrary. The only argument you have provided is that experimental model was not accurate, that is not evidence against the theory. Merely evidence of a gap in knowledge.

That's what I don't understand, how that kind of mind works. Do you still think it's wrong after the experiment was successfully performed using the currently accepted pre-biotic environmental models?

SIDENOTE: These are fair questions and are kind of the point of a discussion board. You might want to read this article (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/02/70179) It's about how most of the time when people read text they actually put their own emotional twist on the words and get a different emotive tone then was intended by the writer. Not everyone is out to get you.

Thanks, sorry if I have been abrassive.



Basically what I want to know is how can you look at the evidence and the work of these scientists and claim abiogenesis is bullshit? Do you simply ignore the evidence?
If your world view is faith based and no amount of evidence will shift your position (and in this case the evidence is substantial) why bother to learn what the theories are anyway? That doesn't make any sense to me, what is the purpose? Is it so you can attempt sound like you know what you are talking about when you try to argue against them? Is it so you can proudly claim "I gave it a go but it was unconvincing"? I want to believe that there is a noble reason but I can't see how there can be, it would be like me not buying a lottery ticket then preying to win knowing I can't and declaring prey is doesn't work when I don't. I've already decided the outcome.

I want to know why bother trying to learn about something when it seems your mind is already made up.

Don't think I'm attacking you these are genuine questions, if your answer is that you simply don't think abiogenesis is possible because of your faith, then why try to confront it on scientific terms? Surely a simple "Yeah the evidence is for it, the science is valid, but that's not what I believe is the truth, I believe the truth was handed to us in the form of the Bible by God Himself." What is wrong with that position? It's not one anyone can take away from you, it doesn't require any facts, all it requires is faith. Why do you feel the need to prove science is wrong? A position of faith cannot be argued against, but if one tries to argue against science then you have to expect to justify your position with factual evidence not faith nor the argument from ignorance you have been.

Fair enough, but I am always overvigilant to give more elaborate answers than that on a forum, and I usually try to find some kind of further justification for my faith. I really must thank you for your abillity to accept such an answer, but the sad truth is most people can't, especially not on forums.

Now that I know what you mean by 'ignorance' I understand, but do you see how more knowledge would definitely be more necessary on my part? That is my complaint, I did not know enough. It's really supposed to be directed toward myself.

[Locksmyth]

Fair enough, but I am always overvigilant to give more elaborate answers than that on a forum, and I usually try to find some kind of further justification for my faith. I really must thank you for your abillity to accept such an answer, but the sad truth is most people can't, especially not on forums.I'm much more accepting of that type of answer then an answer trying to 'prove' a position of faith with science and arguments which stem from lack of evidence.

[Aeolus]

I'm much more accepting of that type of answer then an answer trying to 'prove' a position of faith with science and arguments which stem from lack of evidence.

Again, I wish more people were like that. Most seem to want to attack religion and would never hope to even dream about letting me post a reason like that. I feel pressured to find an answer of some sort.