Creation

Not even creation explains all origins. It just shifts the unknown to the origin of the god and then allows the god to be the explanation of the rest.

I suspect these are things we will never know.

Well, very early in the earth's history there was water. Lots and lots of rain fell at one point (for several years running, or so the theory goes). There's also the possibility that the earth was smacked into by another planet, and from that came the moon and a very different earth; e. g. that the collision precipitated the rise of land above sea level. See http://home.earthlink.net/~yvonr/library/margin/moon.html for a pretty good summary.

Another theory is that life originated elsewhere, or that the building blocks did, and was brought here via comets and/or meteorites. See http://www.planetary.org/html/news/articlearchive/headlines/2001/cometlife.html for some info on this theory.

One reason why it will be tough to really know these things for sure is that early evolution didn't leave much in the way of fossils, because individual cells don't have anything which is hard enough to imprint as a fossil. So we rely on chemistry, and DNA, and conjecture quite a bit.

Plus, there was an experiment in 1953 by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey. They used a sterile, enclosed system consisting of a flask over a heat source, a spark chamber, and various other tubing They added sterile H2O, H2, CH4, and NH3 to the sealed system. Heat was applied under the flask to simulate volcanic action, and this was enough to turn a significant portion of the water into steam. A spark chamber periodically discharged electricity into the gasses to simulate lightening. See:
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio106/origins.htm In any event, the experiment showed that amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) could arise from these conditions. And don't forget, the earth had about a billion years for this to happen before we start to see rudimentary evidence of life - which was life that was clearly more complex than how life originally was.

I like how Dr. Robert Jastrow phrased his understanding of your post: "The scientist has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak. As he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Who is Dr. Jastrow?

Founder of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
Professor of Astronomy and Geology at Columbia University.
Professor of Earth Sciences at Dartmouth College.

I'm not sure why you say that the Big Bang doesn't explain anything. It seems to me that it explains a lot. As for the appearance of life, it happened like this. As someone alluded to, a combination of huge volumes of ocean, and various forms of energy discharge will form complex organic compounds. Many experiments have shown this. So, you had immense volumes of organic compound soup sitting around for billions of years, having various chance chemical reactions, and then, finally, a chemical reaction formed a structure capable of replicating itself. At this point evolution took over and the self-replicating structure became, slowly over the eons, more efficient and complex. These were the first, primitive cells. With an unimaginably large number of cell replications, now and then a mistake would occur, and once in a blue moon it would be a beneficial change. At some point, this process resulted in multi-cellular structures, and the rest, as they say, is history. Although new, original self-replicating molecules may form from time to time by the same chance process, such structures do not offer much competition for the more complex life already here, and tend to get eaten.

These were the first, primitive cells. With an unimaginably large number of cell replications, now and then a mistake would occur, and once in a blue moon it would be a beneficial change. At some point, this process resulted in multi-cellular structures, and the rest, as they say, is history. Although new, original self-replicating molecules may form from time to time by the same chance process, such structures do not offer much competition for the more complex life already here, and tend to get eaten.

So, is this abiogenesis or is this simply phrased as something else -- if anything at all?

I don't believe in creationism let alone creationism but I don't buy gradual evolution either.

I have no idea what it's called, but this is the accepted theory. If you don't buy gradual evolution, what do you believe?

Brandon

I think that rather than a gradual evolution which may be compared to a simple "lottery", lifes "evolution" on this planet may be more nearly approximated to a "Bingo" game with literally trillions of players. It seems to me that this would more nearly approximate the "punctuated" (somebody elses term) evolution that we can more or less observe.

Are you familar with the Bingo games used as fundraisers for the various churches and volunteer fire departments about the U.S.?

I know how to play the game but figuring out when a particular card would win is a bit beyond my capabilities. Actually figuring out the rules alone would tax them .

Not sure what you're saying. The changes occur as the result of natural selection plus the occasional introduction of new traits into the gene pool by acccident. This is gradual, and is called evolution. Actually, there is no way this could have failed to happen, since these two processes do occur. What do you think happened?

Brandon

There is a subject running around on these threads, that deals with the improbability of mutations and genetic drift over a limited time resulting in the organisms that we see as having had happened.

IF life and evolution is viewed as a "lottery" we probably would not be here. It simply takes too many beneficial changes to have happened as fast as it apparently did.

So, since you sound like a competent person, I stuck in a "teaser"(lifes lottery viewed as a "Bingo" game) if you are interested in pursuing that line of thought. If so we'll all get together someplace.

It is my understanding that the mutations combined with natural selection occurred over hundreds of millions of years and are still occurring, and that only the tiniest fraction of the mutations are ever beneficial,but that this is enough to drive evolution. I do not know what would be improbable about the combination of natural selection and the introduction of new traits during this length of time resulting in the life we see around us today. As far as I can see, this is a solved problem.

Craven is correct, none of the explanations get to the beginning of the beginning. Neil

Maybe not, but the origins of our cosmos and life are understood back to the first tiny fraction of the first second. Also, I think it's appropriate to point out that this topic is a matter of physics, and that considerable work has been accumulated in this area, so that it is difficult to make too many worthwhile judgements about it without studying the relevant physics, which I personally have not. I certainly don't want to stifle conversation, which is the entire purpose of the board, but it is simply a fact that one can't make too many worthwhile judgements about techniques of brain surgery without studying medicine.

Craven,I think that in assuming a beginning we may be stretching the evidence a bit.

Brandon, Nobody is attempting to deny that evolution works. Just trying to get a little more of a handle on "how" it does.

Alright, but I think this is already pretty well understood. What is the part that you want clarification about?

Brandon,

We are hopefully going to start a thread specifically noting that it is extremely unlikely that sequential random mutations could power evolution as rapidly as is shown to have happened. With the arithmetic such as it is. And to show some of the mechanics involved.

You will be invited. M

Thanks. You seem like a very pleasant person, but this is one of a small number of subjects that I feel strongly about. Evolution has two components. The first is that those creatures best suited to survive tend to survive more often statistically, so that eventually their genes come to dominate the gene pool. Inferior traits die out. The second is that from time to time, a chromosome is damaged, or else a mistake of some sort occurs in the transfer of genetic information to a child, and a new trait is thereby created, only once in a blue moon beneficial. This introduces a new trait into the population. The idea that over hundreds of millions of years this could result in the life we see here on Earth seems perfectly plausible to me. What do you think happened???

Believe it or not, I really don't like arguing, but since I do feel strongly about this, I will participate in your new thread and thank you for the invitation.

Brandon

Please, I hope it doesn't become an arguement. Personally I hope it will allow us to understand the mechanics behind evolution. Perhaps it won't but IMO it's worth a shot.

The math, the physics, the mechanics, and the genetics all have to work in some semblance of agreement.


Later, M