Origin of Life: Another Great Challenge to Darwinism

[Dunenewt]

Merry Platypus, one and all.

Does this help?

[SandChigger]

Um ... no, 'Newt, not terribly.

:D

Half. I could ask my dad I suppose.

Oh ... well, thanks ever so, but considering the awkwardness, maybe it's best you don't? Unless of course your family is incredibly open about these things and your parents wouldn't mind the inquiries...?

Do you, btw, use the language at home? It's quite beautiful and I've been searching for beginner's texts everywhere....

[SandChigger]

Just saw this over in the Amazon Science Community forums, posted by a Gary S. Hurd:

Here are some books written by Christians who are also accepting the physical reality of geology, cosmology and biology.

Ayala, Francisco

2007 Darwin's Gift: To Science and Religion (Washington DC: Joseph Henry Press- National Academies Press)

Collins, Francis S.

2006 The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief New York Free Press- Simon and Schuster

Frye, Roland Mushat (editor)

1983 "Is God a Creationist?: The Religious Case Against Creation-Science" New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, Inc.

Giberson, Karl W.

2008 "Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and believe in evolution" New York: HarperCollins (Giberson is a physicist and it shows).

Godfry, Stephen J. and Christopher R. Smith

2005 "Paradigms on Pilgrimage: Creationism, Paleontology, and Biblical Interpretation." Toronto: Clements Publishing.

Haught, John F.

2001 "Responses to 101 Questions on God and Evolution" New York: Paulist Press Haught is a Catholic theologian who testified as a plaintiff expert in the Dover, Pa "Intelligent Design" trial.

Hyers, Conrad

1984 "The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science" Atlanta: John Knox Press (Conrad Hyers has served as Professor of the History of Religion and Chair of the Department of Religion at both Beloit College and at Gustavus Adolphus College. He is also an ordained Presbyterian minister)

Kitcher, Phillip

2007 "Living With Darwin: Evolution, Design, and the Future of Life" Oxford University Press

Miller, Keith B. (editor)

2003 "Perspectives on an Evolving Creation" Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing

Ken Miller

1999 "Finding Darwin's God" New York: HarperCollins

____

2008 "Only a Theory" New York: Viking Press

Towne, Margaret Gray

2003 "Honest to Genesis: A Biblical & Scientific Challenge to Creationism" Baltimore: PublishAmerica"

Walton, John H.

2009 "The Lost World Of Genesis One: ancient cosmology and the origins" Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press

Young, Davis A.

1995 "The Biblical Flood: A case study of the Church's Response to extrabiblical evidence" Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, Paternoster Press

Young, Davis A., Ralf F. Stearley

2008 "The Bible, Rocks and Time: Geological Evidence for the Age of the Earth" Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press

And two very interesing books by Rabbi Natan Slifkin,

2006/2008 "The Challenge of Creation: Judaism's Encounter with Science, Cosmology and Evolution" New York: Zoo Torah and Yashar Books

2007 "Sacred Monsters: Mysterious and Mythical Creatures of Scripture, Talmud and Midrash" New York: Zoo Torah and Yashar Books

There is also the testimony of over 12,000 Christian clergy who have signed the following statement:

Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible - the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark - convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as "one theory among others" is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God's good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God's loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

<a href="http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/">http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/</a>

<b>To reject this truth or to treat it as "one theory among others" is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance...</b>

I rather like that bit. :D

[chatfsh]

We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as "one theory among others" is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children.

Oh really?

So, I guess that the 600 PhDs from prestigious universities such as Yale, Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, MIT and Princeton are among those

[Wolf]

I fully support this position.

Haha, so wait, you're pro-evolution, now?

[athanasios]

...evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned

Please stop misleading the people. Sacred Dogma is what creationists preach. Evolution is not a Dogma neither a Theory, it is a Fact.

The term 'Theory' applies to how we think/describe it took place with the current knowledge/data available.

Your title is misleading too.

Simply stated:

Darwin first talked about evolution. HIS theory - Darwinism (and not Evolution!), is practically dead now. Why? Because we have more knowledge/information now that he had at his time. And probably people in the future will conclude that we were talking bullshit here. Science isn't a Dogma and Knowledge increases by time. Isn't that what the Bible states? (Daniel 12:4)

As a person who believes in God, I simply state that:

'Yahweh created life on earth through evolution.' ;-)

The details leave it for science to investigate.

regards

athanasios

[SandChigger]

athanasios, you can edit the text in the subject fields in these threads. "Darwinism" is the bored Hausfrau's pejorative; no need to put up with it.

Let's see, what hath she posted now?

Nothing new, just more appeal to authority. Righto, business as usual.

Next?

[SandChigger]

Religion sits spinning prettily on its upthrust thumbs of Willful Ignorance and Blind Adherence to Dogma; meanwhile, Science marches resolutely on...

<b>What came first in the origin of life? A study contradicts the 'metabolism first' hypothesis</b>

In the first half of the 20th century, Alexander Oparin established the "Metabolism First" hypothesis to explain the origin of life, thus strengthening the primary role of cells as small drops of coacervates (evolutionary precursors of the first prokaryote cells). Dr Oparin did not refer to RNA or DNA molecules since at that time it was not clear just how important the role of these molecules was in living organisms. However he did form a solid base for the idea of self-replication as a collective property of molecular compounds.

Science more recently demonstrated that sets of chemical components store information about their composition which can be duplicated and transmitted to their descendents. This has led to their being named "compound genomes" or composomes. In other words, heredity does not require information in order to be stored in RNA or DNA molecules. These "compound genomes" apparently fulfil the conditions required to be considered evolutionary units, which suggests a pathway from pre-Darwinian dynamics to a minimum protocell.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-01/uadb-wcf010810.php

[chatfsh]

SandChigger, while I

[athanasios]

"Darwinism" is the bored Hausfrau's pejorative; no need to put up with it.

Not necessarily.

...

While the term has remained in use amongst scientific authors, it is increasingly regarded as an inappropriate description of modern evolutionary theory. For example, Darwin was unfamiliar with the work of Gregor Mendel, having as a result only a vague and inaccurate understanding of heredity, and knew nothing of genetic drift.

...

However, Darwinism is also used neutrally within the scientific community to distinguish modern evolutionary theories from those first proposed by Darwin, as well as by historians to differentiate it from other evolutionary theories from around the same period.

[SandChigger]

Yes, yes, athanasios, but we're not discussing the history of evolutionary theory here, now are we? This thread was started by Hwi, and I assure you that I have no doubt but that she meant it pejoratively.

Hwi, wonder away. I read and understood everything in the article I linked to, so please spare me your supercilious snottiness. Remember, God and Jesus are watching you. ;)

Obviously YOU missed the point of my posting the link. Let me know if you figure it out, mmkay?

[athanasios]

OK. You know her better.

Still it is good to keep in mind that some people use specific terms and phrasing to trick the ignorant ones-Pythia style, so they can always appear they are correct.

[SandChigger]

Saw a comment with a link to an article about the discovery of glycine on a comet, but I think it was from last summer, old news.

Pointing out that AMINO ACIDS FORM NATURALLY IN OUTER SPACE would be rather pointless here, wouldn't it? :)

[chatfsh]

Yes, I'm afraid that it would be rather pointless for the following reasons:

1.  RNA and DNA molecules consist of nucleotides not amino acids. (DNA and/or RNA are essential components of the natural selection process.)

2.  The lab experiments conducted by Urey-Miller and various others were decidedly based upon the premise that life originated from planet Earth, thus ensuring an adaquate supply and generation of the building blocks of life.  Relying upon random comets to provide the abundant resources required for life would be most unwise due to the inefficient and unreliable  nature of the process.   

3.  Even if by some prohibitively small chance the perfect number of comets, with the precise measure and mix of monomers so happened to hit the planet Earth, this would only be one tiny step in the multitude of astronomically improbable steps that would need to take place in order for life to emerge.

4. Indeed, amino acid bearing comets are old news. For the reasons listed above, origin of life scientists find little to no solace in this phenomenon.  Nor should they.

[athanasios]

1.  RNA and DNA molecules consist of nucleotides not amino acids.

::) So what? And if it was the opposite (nucleotides found instead of a.a.) you would say the opposite.

You people will never learn. :(

Can you please provide us with a list of what is considered a species and what a kind, and we can talk a couple of years later.

regards

athanasios

[Wolf]

1. Which... form from amino acids?

2. If you read pretty much any article on wiki concerning the formation of life on other planets, you'll eventually be confronted with the line, "... life need not be sun-dependent; it only requires water and an energy gradient in order to exist." The reason Mr. Chiggles brought up the point about the comet was not that a comet or other piece of space debris struck the Earth and "seeded" it with some form of bacterium or other simple lifeform--which is certainly possible, but as you said, unlikely--but it was that if you concede that amino acids can form on a piece of rock only a few meters wide far, far beyond any star, then it is virtually certain that complex life can form on a terrestrial planet. So, aside from totally missing someone's point and confusing "unlikely" with "impossible," what else is new for you today?

3. Uh, so you concede ("old news," as you said, but I guess you would be the one to know, right? Am I right?) that amino acids can form on tiny rocks that drift in the vacuum between stars, but refuse to believe that complex life can form on a terrestrial planet the majority of the surface of which is covered with water? Really? I mean, really?

EDIT: You really hate that Urey-Miller experiment: why not explain to us again the whole "not enough chances" bit? I think we could all benefit from having that cleared up.

[chatfsh]

Which... form from amino acids?

No, Wolf, nucleotides are not comprised of amino acids.  Nucleotides, along with other monomers, are the building components of DNA and RNA.  Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins.  

Athanasios

[SandChigger]

Ass.

Oh, sorry! My dog did it!

[athanasios]

1. We must first establish an abundant resource of amino acids.  On Earth, the only way scientists have been able to reproduce these monomers in laboratories is by manipulating atmospheric conditions to as state that is often in conflict with what the scientific data suggests for a prebiotic Earth atmosphere.  But as you once implied, Wolf, perhaps the scientists have misinterpreted the scientific data and therefore have incorrect models.  But you see, that would be sort of like

[SandChigger]

Oh, pooh, athanasios, why did you have to bring up the "sea origin, away from the atmosphere" idea? She's obviously been ignorant of it all this time, the way she harpies on about Miller blah blah blah. Now she'll just have something else to sit and spin on and on about for page after page after page. :(

:D

You know, I was thinking this afternoon ... why is she posting this here? I mean, is it like this is some vital mega battleground for the souls of the world's youth? (No offense meant to the board or its members!) Other than those of us jeering her on, who's really paying attention to her? Anyone?

Oh well.

Just one last thought, though: <b>2009 ... Yet another year HE didn't come back.</b> ;D

[Wolf]

No, Wolf, nucleotides are not comprised of amino acids.  Nucleotides, along with other monomers, are the building components of DNA and RNA.  Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins.

... and proteins play an important role in the function, and potentially even evolution of DNA. Although it's unclear which of the two came first (or whether natural constraints or the operation of physical laws renders their development necessarily simultaneous) it's certain that the natural development of amino acids (which have been shown to occur under a number of different environmental constraints) is a necessary step in the eventual development of DNA. I'm sorry I simplified it (for you), I thought it would make this thread easier to read and bear (for me). Tell me, do you hold your own statements to that high a critical standard? Or only those of others?

Very few origin of life scientists subscribe to such unwarranted optimism and flawed logic on this matter, mostly because the gulf between amino acids and complex life is enormous.  Let me attempt to explain it this way:

I like it how when others are this condescending, you cry foul and declare yourself offended/insulted, but feel absolutely no shame in employing the strategy yourself. (This has nothing to do with the origin of life, post script.) If you want to hold others to a "moral" (of sorts) high ground, then it behooves you to occupy it yourself. (I think we're beginning to see a theme develop for this post.)

Okay, then you tabulated your second-to-last post. Which was weird, since the tabulations made no sense. Whatever, I'll handle them as you exuded them:

1.

But as you once implied, Wolf, perhaps the scientists have misinterpreted the scientific data and therefore have incorrect models.  But you see, that would be sort of like

[SandChigger]

My GOD... that was... inspired.

If I had the right plumbing, I would want to have your baby.  :O

[athanasios]

<b>2009 ... Yet another year HE didn't come back.</b> ;D

That's his business. I am not of the ones predicting which date he will come only to fool themselves the next day. ;D

Now Hwi Noree I am still waiting for that list... (not that you will provide one).

[chatfsh]

Some of you take great delight in debasing and ridiculing the concept of Intelligent Design, equating it with, among other things, superstitious belief in magicians and magic wands.  What you fail to understand is that unwarranted faith in purely naturalistic mechanisms, specifically evolution, is the materialists

[Wolf]

Heh, no, I