The Grand Theory of Life

Hi Modulous In some way, the understanding of molecular biology does put evolution on shakey ground because even the simplest life forms are extremely complex making it highly unlikely that they developed without guidance in an organic soup.complexity does not come together by chanceSome scientists have shown thru experiments that life cannot originate by chance...that in itself puts evolution (basic lifeforms advancing to more complex lifeforms) in doubt. there is no such thing as 'simple' life....its all very complicated and even though you know that, you will continue to be led by the idea that complicated life is the result of slow evolution. Why?I thought scientists were supposed to be the ones who look for evidence before they believed a particular theory. In the case of evolution, the theory has come before the evidence...its as if the theory blinds people to the real evidence. So if the study into abiogenesis shows beyond any shadow of a doubt that life could NOT have arisen in a primordial soup, you are still absolutely certain that the ToE will hold true???that is a blind faith you have right there. Edited by Peg, : 'not' added in last paragraph

i dont think thats quite the case (and i meant if abiogenesis is proved to 'not' be possible so i fixed it)there is definately changes occuring in species, but those changes are within the species...they have not been proved to create new completely different life forms.

i'm not going to speculate on varieties of simple life forms that 'may' have existedI will mention bacteria (not virus's as they are not living) because even though they are incredibly small they are also very complex.Molecular biologists have shown that the basic design of the cell system is virtually the same in all living systems from bacteria to mammals. Even these simplest life form require the same roles of DNA, mRNA and protein in order to survive. And its been shown that the protein synthetic machinery is practically the same in all cells. So in terms of their basic design, not even the simplest living systems, such as bacteria, can be thought of as being primitive and simple. One example is the smallest microbe found, the primitive riding dwarf, which has the amazing ability of living in boiling temperaturs...if it can do this, then it cannot be simple.If this is what molecular biology has shown, then how is it possible that evolutionary science can continue to teach that life had a simple beginning? There is no evidence of a simple beginning. how do they know that the primitive atmosphere lacked oxygen?They know because experiments have shown that compounds such as amino acids are not stable in the presence of oxygen. Oxygen, as you know, is reactive and if there was a lot of oxygen in the atmosphere when amino acids were assembling, it would destroy the organic molecules as they formed.The Italian physician Francesco Redi (1700's) comes to mind. His experiments proved that maggots appeared in rotten meat only after flies had laid eggs on it thus disproving the prevailing belief of spontaneous generation.And im sure you know Louis Pasteur. He also performed experiments to determine whether tiny life forms could arise by themselves. He was able to show that even minute bacteria did not form in sterilized water protected from contamination.And the Russian Alexander Oparin theorised that if the atmosphere was much different, life could possibly generate spontneously and in the
1950’s Stanley Miller attempted to test his theory and experimented with a flask. Apparently, producing some amino acids proved that Oparins theory was a possiblity.and you may already know this, but at the 1996 International Conference on the Origin of Life, the journal Science reported that the nearly 300 scientists who attended were still unable to provide an answer to how DNA and RNA molecules first appeared and how they evolved into self-reproducing cells But complete theories do get thown out. You've heard of the phlogiston theory?
It was a scientific theory introduced in the 1700's and was proved completely false.The astromomer Ptolemy devised the geocentric theory which was widely accepted until the 16th century. Copernicus and Gallileo proved it completely wrong and it was thrown out.Darwin's 'Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection' is still widely accepted as fact, yet there is no evidence of a simple beginning.Im saying this because some theories ARE proved wrong, or are perported to be factual before the evidence has been presented. If it turns out that there could not have been a primordial soup which caused life to exist, then the theory of evolution will need to revised too. It will have to change its ideas on the ancestral link between species because if abiogenesis is impossible, then so will be the ancestral link.I just dont think its fair to teach something that cannot be proved yet...and I know you'll say that evolution does not require abiogensis, but it does when we are told that humans came from apes and all species are related. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Hi Iblis,i will reply in about 6 days...i'm heading out of town so this will be my last post for nowmy mum has no internet!!!

in the book 'Evolution From Space' on page 8 it says that
fossil residues of ancient life-forms discovered in the rocks do not reveal a simple beginning. Although we may care to think of fossil bacteria and fossil algae and microfungi as being simple compared to a dog or horse, the information standard remains enormously high. Most of the biochemical complexity of life was present already at the time the oldest surface rocks of the Earth were formed.and in the book 'The Enchanted Loom, the mind of the universe' on page 23 says:
"The record of the rocks contains very little, other than bacteria and one-celled plants until, about a billion years ago, after some three billion years of invisible progress, a major breakthrough occurred. The first many-celled creatures appeared on earth."You assume that there was a simple beginning because you acknowledge that "complex things don't just occur without simpler precursors"Another book entitled 'A View of Life' says about the cambrian period on page 638 Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.and becaues their is no evidence of life before the cambrian period, one Palentologist said in an article in Natural History entitled "Darwin and the Fossil Record" Oct 59'
Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.So the 'life had a simple beginning' is not consistent with the available evidence...,not by a long shot. because miller was unable to create anything living. That experiement was not a success if it was to see if a primitive atmosphere could spontaneously generate life. because RNA and DNA are necessary for reproduction what's the alternative?Creation?Which would mean that all creatures were actually created individually including man. this would put an end to decent with modification and the idea that mutations cause species to change into new species. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Hi GM says that 'Enchanted Loom'on page 23
The record of the rocks contains very little, other than bacteria and one-celled plants until, about a billion years ago, after some three billion years of invisible progress, a major breakthrough occurred. The first many-celled creatures appeared on earth.How can there be nothing but bacteria, then a sudden burst of life in the form of multi celled creatures? That doesnt sound like a steady increase in complex life in more recent layers at all.

from Science542 Million to 488 Million Years Ago

​

The Cambrian period, part of the Paleozoic era, produced the most intense burst of evolution ever known. The Cambrian Explosion saw an incredible diversity of life emerge, including many major animal groups alive today. Among them were the chordates, to which vertebrates (animals with backbones) such as humans belong.they dont call it the 'cambrian explosion' for nothing.And what came before it? "The earliest living organisms were microscopic bacteria, which show up in the fossil record as early as 3.4 BILLION years agothe first multi celled animals came along much later then this
according to the same Nat Geo article"The first multicelled animals appeared in the fossil record almost 600 MILLION years ago...these fall into three main categories. The simplest of these soft-bodied creatures were sponges....cnidarians, which included sea anemones, corals, and jellyfish...annelids, or segmented flatwormsSo if there is any confusion, its because the information provided isnt consistent. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

its for this exact same reason that creationists cannot accept evolution. Ok granted, can you cite any examples of anyone who has been able to prove that life spontaneously generates?

ok, so there must have been a lot of creatures developing these partsLet me ask you why we dont see partially developed features, but rather fully formed features? If there really were lots/millions of creatures developing all sorts of new body parts, they should be readily available in the fossil record. Do we see them? Nuggin i think you've missed the point that the time between 3.6 Billion years and 600 Million years is also a very long time with very little evolution.from 3.6 BILLION years ago to as little as 600 Million years ago, there was bacteria living and not much else...then suddenly within 58 million years, we get a burst of all sorts of many-celled lifeforms?how can that make sense??

I find that hard to believe.What a non natural origin for life would prove is that life was created.this would imply a supernatural first cause. It would also put an end to the silly notion that all living beings decended from a primordial soup. No it wouldnt. But it would certainly change the understanding of how the war ensued. I would hope that it would be the same for evolution but somehow I doubt people would change their view.to answer your question
"how this does or does not affect the study of evolution.?"I would say that it would have to be recognized that all living things were created individually and therefore trying to find linkages to ancestors would be a thing of the embarrasing past.Scientists could focus more on genetics and work at important things such as disease control and how to feed the starving millions...how to get water to the waterless regions and how to treat and dispose of sewage safely. They could spend their time working out how to extend the life of telomeres and slow the aging process, they could find a cure for the common cold or more serious ailments like Aids which is said to kill 60million people over the next 20 years.But i guess to many scientists, proving evolution is just as important as any of the above. I really hope that one day they are able to prove how life began because then at least all the time spent wont be in vain.

lol, i must have missed that one in bible studySo are you saying that virus's are living creatures? animals? Cause you know they have no cellular structure, they cannot reproduce on their own and they have no metabolismI would have thought this counts them out as being living things.

I have tried to do that multiple times and you keep ignoring it.I can see that your point of view is that even if life were created, evolution would still prove true. You've said that over and over and I get it.You havnt really explained how the theory might have to be reviewed though, you've just continued on the vein that 'it would still be true'So when you say that, what exactly do you mean? In what way would it still be true? Is it still true that humans are related to monkeys, and that monkeys are related to what came before it, and so on an so on?