Attack on Evolutionism

[esteban]

The generally accepted parts of modern cell theory include:

1. The cell is the fundamental unit of structure and function in living things.
2. All cells come from pre-existing cells by division.
3. Energy flow (metabolism and biochemistry) occurs within cells.
4. Cells contain hereditary information (DNA) which is passed from cell to cell during cell division
5. All cells are basically the same in chemical composition.
6. All known living things are made up of cells.
7. Some organisms are unicellular, made up of only one cell.
8. Others are multicellular, composed of countless number of cells.
9. The activity of an organism depends on the total activity of independent cells.

The cell theory cannot account for the first cells that had to divide to produce the next series of cells. So an exception is made stating that the the first cells did not derive from other cells.

So where did the first cells come from, may I ask?

 

[Shredderbeam]

Evolutionary theory does not deal with the origin of the first life, as it does not relate to evolution.

It's really not that difficult to conceive of how the first cell could have arisen, though. All you need is a replicator.

 

[The Fat Controller]

Evolution isn't abiogenesis. You aren't attacking "evolutionism" with your argument.

Wikipedia is good for reading about all the different models for how life could have come about.

 

[jebckr]

We can logically theorize quite a few options here. I suppose you think, "God did it because those options involve science that befuddles me."

 

[jdmj101]

I did a little research and found a famous British mathematician named Sir Roger Penrose. He calculalated that the probability of the universe producing life was 1 in 10^10^123. In mathematics, anything with a chance of 10^50 is considered impossible. To look at that in another perspective, there are around 10^78 atoms in the entire universe. An astronomer named Fred Hoyle stated that the chance of DNA assembling from organic compounds is one in 10^40,000. Just some things to think about.

 

[Shredderbeam]

I did a little research and found a famous British mathematician named Sir Roger Penrose. He calculalated that the probability of the universe producing life was 1 in 10^10^123.

I'd be very interested to see his calculations.

To look at that in another perspective, there are around 10^78 atoms in the entire universe. An astronomer named Fred Hoyle stated that the chance of DNA assembling from organic compounds is one in 10^40,000. Just some things to think about.

You find statements, and you post them. Do you have any understanding of them, or is this going to become a quote war?

 

[jdmj101]

I'd be very interested to see his calculations.



You find statements, and you post them. Do you have any understanding of them, or is this going to become a quote war?

I do understand what I've been saying. This isn't the first time I've heard these before. I've been looking for evidences for while, but I wanted to wait till I thought I had a solid argument before I started posting in this section. I noticed you didn't say anything about these figures either so maybe you don't have an answer for them?

 

[Shredderbeam]

I do understand what I've been saying. This isn't the first time I've heard these before. I've been looking for evidences for while, but I wanted to wait till I thought I had a solid argument before I started posting in this section. I noticed you didn't say anything about these figures either so maybe you don't have an answer for them?

Ok. Demonstrate to me how such a figure was arrived at (without copy/pasting), and fully explain the work involved.

These figures are entirely correct - assuming that all DNA/life just composed itself in an instant. Of course, it did not. These mathematicians fail to take into effect cumulative changes.

 

[Masterfaizy]

You're not attacking evolution. You're using the circular thinking fallacy, common with people who believe in Judeo-Christian religions.

 

[esteban]

Alright, I get the point that i used the wrong word to describe what I'm attacking. After reading a bit on the Iron-Sulfur World Theory which can be summerized as:

Some of the fundamental ideas of the iron-sulfur theory can be summarized in the following brief recipe for life: Boil water. Stir in iron sulfide and nickel sulfide. Bubble in carbon monoxide and hydrogen sulfide gas. Wait for peptides to form.

I find myself simply questioning how that is supposed to explain the origin of cells. Sure, i can explain the appearance of lipids, but It does not explain how cells arose from lipids.

 

[Shredderbeam]

To form a cell, all you need is a replicator - something that makes near-perfect copies of itself from its surroundings. Once you have that, it's not hard to imagine one being trapped in a minute lipid bubble. This would be a very basic cell.

 

[Masterfaizy]

This has been thought of atleast 100, if not over 9,000 times, but you just can't prove it, which is why it's not in cell theory.

 

[esteban]

Shredder, if there was a replicator, where did it come from, what created it?

 

[Shredderbeam]

Replicators can arise from chance, given enough time. The Miller study, in the 50's, showed that proteins at least can arise purely by chance. Given a few hundred million years, it's not unreasonable to think that a simple replicator might have.

 

[wowhamba]

Shredder, if there was a replicator, where did it come from, what created it?

Even if we absolutely didn't know where it came from, that doesn't necessarily mean god did it. A replicator which came from a rock which hit the earth 6 billion yearsa go from Pluto is a more valid theory than GOD DID IT since it has no proof to back it up.

And WHO CREATED GOD?

 

[Personal Jesus]

I don't remember the name of the theory, but it makes perfect sense to me. The first simple-celled organisms is theorized to be created out of leftover-radioactive material from an exploding supernova. Gasses, molecules, and all that yabyab formed the first cells, which, via the theory of panspermia, landed on Earth. Common knowledge tells us that Earth has a habitable environment, and almost perfect ecological system for life to develope and evolve.

I did a little research and found a famous British mathematician named Sir Roger Penrose. He calculalated that the probability of the universe producing life was 1 in 10^10^123. In mathematics, anything with a chance of 10^50 is considered impossible. To look at that in another perspective, there are around 10^78 atoms in the entire universe. An astronomer named Fred Hoyle stated that the chance of DNA assembling from organic compounds is one in 10^40,000. Just some things to think about.

Not sure what point you're trying to prove here, so I'm just going to repost an old counter-argument.

The Universe is infinitely huge. The chance of life originating anywhere is tremendously low - probably around 0,000000000000000000000001% (rough, exaggerated, random estimation to emphasize on incredibly low odds)

If I throw a card game in the air, what are the odds of all of the cards landing in perfect order, stacked on top of each other, both numerical, symbolical and in accordance to color. Probably the same as previous estimation. However, if I'm given infinite chances (the Universe is infinitely huge), then it WILL happen sooner or later.

The fact that life (as far as we know) only have been empirically recorded on our planet backs this logic up. If the Universe flooded with life, I too would accept the possibility of a higher creator equally much as the theories of the origins of life.

And WHO CREATED GOD?

Stupid argument is stupid. God is believed to be eternal, thus he was never created, he simply is.

 

[xx mdv xx]

You're not attacking evolution. You're using the circular thinking fallacy, common with people who believe in Judeo-Christian religions.

But that is just everyones excuse to not answer his question how the first cell got here.

 

[Shredderbeam]

It's not an excuse - we're informing him that he's asking the wrong question.

Anyway, several hypothesis have been proposed on this thread.

 

[esteban]

I don't remember the name of the theory, but it makes perfect sense to me. The first simple-celled organisms is theorized to be created out of leftover-radioactive material from an exploding supernova. Gasses, molecules, and all that yabyab formed the first cells, which, via the theory of panspermia, landed on Earth. Common knowledge tells us that Earth has a habitable environment, and almost perfect ecological system for life to develope and evolve.

But what caused the those elements, gasses, etc to combine exactly to form a cell, and most importantly, the DNA of a cell, the most complex element of a cell?

 

[XeroXeroX]

lol its funny that we're actually studying this (cell theory) etc in school the last couple of lessons. But i've still got loads or learning to do, before i can argue on this topic.