How life began????

If a theory is conclusively proven there is no need to say we don't know. But the theories of how life began will only be conclusively proven when scientist can create simple reproductive organisms from "dead" material. To my knowledge, that has yet to happen, so for the time being we have to admit that we do not know how life began, even though we might have a pretty good idea about it.

Did you even read the entire thing.
If you did then what you have said has already been proven to be faulty.

Why would that particular experiment be relevant to this particular phenomenon??? Even if we could create life in the laboratory all day and all night, it wouldn't prove beyond any doubt at all that this is exactly what happened back then?

Are you seriously suggesting that it is impossible for chance to produce a self-replicating molecule given enough ocean and enough time?

Is the idea of magic creeping into this discussion?

brandon wrote:

Why would that particular experiment be relevant to this particular phenomenon??? Even if we could create life in the laboratory all day and all night, it wouldn't prove beyond any doubt at all that this is exactly what happened back then?

Are you seriously suggesting that it is impossible for chance to produce a self-replicating molecule given enough ocean and enough time?

Is the idea of magic creeping into this discussion?

Why relevant? Because if the experiment succeeded it would prove beyond any doubt that such a thing is indeed possible. What we know today is that it is probable, but that's not the same thing.

I am not suggesting that it is impossible for chance to produce a self-replicating molecule. But I am not saying that it's possible either, since we do not have any evidence either way. So, again, an experiment where such a thing would be done would prove that it is indeed possible, and could be considered conclusive proof that nature "created" life somewhere in this ocean of time, and not some magic being.

Just because we cannot think of an alternative doesn't mean one doesn't exist. To think so is arrogance.
The idea of creationism rings false in my ears, and the scientific theories of evolution sound very plausible. But that isn't to say that they are correct. To think so is little better than thinking creationism is correct. Sometimes we just have to admit that we do not know completely.

There is a scientific theory that explains everything very well, and not one single alternative anyone can think of besides the supernatural. That's more than sufficient for me to state the scientific explanation as the accepted origin of life.

Brandon, come off it.

I am not suggesting anything. Is it so hard for you to accept that WE DO NOT HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS? No magic, no *poof*, no nothing. Why can't you accept that? I am not suggesting any alternative at all.

Quote:

There is a scientific theory that explains everything very well, and not one single alternative anyone can think of besides the supernatural. That's more than sufficient for me to state the scientific explanation as the accepted origin of life.

The theories are not proved, and so your persistence that they are true is equal to the persistence of those who claim creationism is true in one aspect: It is a belief.

I do believe that nature is the engine behind the beginning of life, but I do not presume to know it. Until those theories you speak of are conclusively proven to be true I will continue to believe it. When they are proven I will know it. But that may not happen. The theories may be discarded, and a whole new set of theories may replace them, painting a picture of how nature made life that is completely different from how we envision it today.

There's a difference. The things you mention have been empirically verified. The theory of the origin of life has not, to my knowledge.

Forget about magic, will you?

The nuclear reactions that occur on the sun have been created in laboratories on smaller scales, thereby verifying the theory.

Yes, and you can say that about the structure of atoms, the fact that the sun operates by fusion, almost anything about the elementary particles, much of geology, etc., etc., but if the scientific explanation fits the facts and has no observed problems, I'll just quote that until someone demonstrates that some other theory is better.

You're mistaken. The 2nd Law only states that the entropy of the universe as a whole must increase, it makes no statement whatever about what happens locally. Here's what happend.

1. Eventually, after hundreds of millions of years, a single, self replicating molecule formed and started replicating. Each of the replicas also started replicating etc.
2. From time to time there would be a mistake in replication, which usually resulted in an inert, dysfunctional unit, but occasionally resulted in one which was either just as good or even superior, just by random chance. In a sample with trillions of self-replicating units, you'll get almost every possible outcome, including the occasional improvement.
3. When improvements occur, they give that unit an enhanced probability of lasting longer and having more descendants.

Thus, with huge sample sizes over immense amounts of time, there is a gradual trend towards impovement in functionality, usually achieved by increased complexity.

Now, specifically, tell me what is unlikely about this process, and stop quoting other people.