Question For Darwinists

O

OilIsMastery

Banned
Banned
Darwinists and other religious types claim that the Earth is ~4.5 billion years old and that life began ~3.8 billion years ago (Schidlowski 1988): http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v333/n6171/abs/333313a0.html

This means that there was only 700 million years available for the spontaneous appearance of life. "Life, it seems, did not wait for blind chance to roll the dice but erupted at the first available instant, leaving Darwinists with no time at all for their probabilistic processes." (Milton 1992).

How come we don't see life being spontaneously generated in today's oceans and how come we can't produce life in the lab (e.g. Miller's [Miller-Urey] Primordial Soup experiment)?
 
The world is a different place billions of years ago.

Also, we haven't been doing these experiments for millions of years on scales so large as the oceans.
 
Life already filled the Earth with vast amounts of oxygen, which is damaging to organic molecules. Life itself eats such sources of nutrients, so conditions are not the same at all. That is why life does not arise again, it would at first be weak and unprotected. Current life has evolved within an arms race of other life, and so is already well practiced and strong.

700 million years is plenty of time.

The Miller-Urey experiment was actually extremely successful. It's purpose was not to create life, but show that the organic molecule precursors of life could arise spontaneously in the conditions of early Earth.
 
We don't know exactly in what conditions life arose, wether the building blocks came from volcanos or undersea vents or in mild tide pools or deep in cracks in the bedrock...
 
I lean towards Panspermia.

Although clearly speculative, the majority view in the scientific community seems to be an acceptance that the existence of life elsewhere in the Universe is highly probable due to the sheer number of potential sites where life could take hold. Today's estimates of values for the Drake Equation suggest the probability of intelligent life in a single galaxy like our own Milky Way may be much smaller than once was thought while the sheer numbers of galaxies in our Universe make it seem inevitable somewhere nevertheless.[16] Space travel over such vast distances would be limited to below the speed of light by the theory of relativity alone, taking such an incredibly long time to the outside observer, with vast amounts of energy required.
Click to expand...

If a fuel was discovered to make travel such as would be required feasible then it would be more probable.

Just as silicon in micro chips or something similar.
 
oils said:
That doesn't address why we can't produce life in a lab.
Click to expand...
Maybe we can.

No one has tried, seriously. Kind of an expensive, large scale project for dubious gain- even in knowledge: you would never know if that was how it happened, a much more interesting topic.
 
OilIsMastery said:
That doesn't address why we can't produce life in a lab.
Click to expand...
Geeze dude, be a little patient. We've only known about DNA for a century, and we've only had the physical tools to manipulate it for a few decades. There are many pieces of the abiogenesis process that are still a mystery. Come back in a hundred years and we'll probably be building our own customized lifeforms out of methane, silicon, or even materials that today we would not even classify as "organic."

You often say things that make it appear that somewhere along the way you got a fairly decent basic education in science, but then you say stuff like this and you completely blow it. We've only had proper science for 500 years. For the entire rest of history our culture was to a greater or lesser extent controlled by the antiscientific forces of religion. It's gonna take some time to catch up from all that ignorance.
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
We've only known about DNA for a century
Click to expand...
What other things don't scientists know about?

and we've only had the physical tools to manipulate it for a few decades.
Click to expand...
To no avail apparently.

There are many pieces of the abiogenesis process that are still a mystery.
Click to expand...
Sounds like religion. You can say that again.

Come back in a hundred years and we'll probably be building our own customized lifeforms out of methane, silicon, or even materials that today we would not even classify as "organic."
Click to expand...
I'm not so optimistic.

We've only had proper science for 500 years.
Click to expand...
And scientists still have it wrong.

For the entire rest of history our culture was to a greater or lesser extent controlled by the antiscientific forces of religion.
Click to expand...
What about the scientific forces of religion? Like Galileo and Newton?

What about the religious forces that control science today? Have they had an antiscientic effect?

It's gonna take some time to catch up from all that ignorance.
Click to expand...
We'll never catch up because scientific truth is always changing.
 
We have produced life in the labs. Life was more likely to occur during that time period than it was to not.
 
OilIsMastery said:
Darwinists and other religious types claim that the Earth is ~4.5 billion years old and that life began ~3.8 billion years ago (Schidlowski 1988): http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v333/n6171/abs/333313a0.html

This means that there was only 700 million years available for the spontaneous appearance of life. "Life, it seems, did not wait for blind chance to roll the dice but erupted at the first available instant, leaving Darwinists with no time at all for their probabilistic processes." (Milton 1992).

How come we don't see life being spontaneously generated in today's oceans and how come we can't produce life in the lab (e.g. Miller's [Miller-Urey] Primordial Soup experiment)?
Click to expand...

Yeah, like 700 million years is a short time. Why can''t we recreate that in a weekend? Similarly, if the Earth is all sorts of young, and yet has grown so much due to nuclear fission in its 100 million degree core, why has no one ever noticed the planet changing size? (The answer, even for your dubious theory, is that however short the timeframe on a geological level, it was a long time compared to the the time we humans have.)

Multicellular life, by the way, took about 4 BILLION years to first appear. The live forms that cropped up first were simply single celled.

So, think about it. It took 700 million years for the first life to form. AND, just about 600 million years ago the first multicellular life formed. What can life do in 600 million years? It can evolve every species that average human could name, badgers, mankind, halibut, cobras, T-Rex, sea urchins, frogs, earthworms, tiger sharks, even oak trees, lichen and all our common vegetable cousins.
 
yes the chance of life starting on earth is low but the probability of life coming into being somewhere in the universe is very high.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top