The very beginning

I tried to search, but couldn't find what I was looking for. I'm sure it's out there somewhere, but incase it's not, I thought I would ask.I once heard the "But where did THAT come from argument?". You can argue speciation and macroevolution all you want, but if you can't give a valid explanation of where the original being came from, than you don't have much of an argument. I believe much of evolution is correct, but that it does have a few flaws.If you throw out creation, and try to run with evolution, how do you explain where the first proton came from? It seems to me like much of the theory of evolution is starting in the middle. Evolutionists are showing how things can change, on the micro and macro levels, but I've never heard a good argument for how the whole process started. The big bang can't even account for the beginning, since it's assuming something was there to blow up. Is all of evolution simply starting in the middle?
JeremyThis message has been edited by Waddell1, 01-17-2005 12:45 AM

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Why? I don't need to know the structure and origin of the atom in order to do basic chemistry.Evolution is a theory of biology, not of chemistry or physics. We observe that organisms exist; we observe that they evolve; we observe evidence that they share a common ancestry. The origin of the first living thing is completely irrelevant to those observations, or to the theory that ties them all together. No. Like all scientific theories, it starts with what we observe.

So, evolution makes no attempt to explain the origins of life? Evolution deals with one thing evolving into another, but doesn't seem to account for where the first thing came from. That means that evolution has to break down at some point. If animal A was the first animal, and it evolved into animal B, than how did Animal A get here? We know it didn't evolve, since it was the first, and there was nothing for it to evolve from. Since Evolution and creation seem to be the 2 possibilities here, and we know animal A didn't evolve, doesn't that only leave one option? If animal A was created, that why couldn't animal B habe been created as well?Creation seems to be much more uniform. Everything was created. Evolution seems to suggest that things are evolving, but can't explain where the first one came from.Obviously my example is a very dumbed down version, since evolution would've started way before the first "animal", but I think you get my point. This is the one thing that causes me to lean more towards creation than evolution. I don't see how evolution can account for the beginning, meaning that we know evolution did not exist at some point (ie, the formation of the first "animal"). THis has me really confused.
Jeremy

Do we require economists to come up with their version of the Big Bang (the "Collosal Crash"?), before we accept their economic theories?Then why impose those requirements on evolution biologists?

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

The Theory of Evolution does NOT account for the beginning. If you are referring specifically for the origins of life, that is a separate field of study, "abiogenesis".The fact that Evolution does not deal with the origin of life in no way weakens it as a theory, since it does not describe the origin of life - similarly, The Germ Theory of Disease doesn't fail because it does not describe the properties of Gravity.Since Evolution doesn't describe the origin of life, many have reconciled Creation and Evolution, as in, God created life and then it evolved. Others prefer a less supernatural method for the origin of life. Why do you think Creation somehow succeeds where the Big Bang / Abiogenesis / Evolution fail? Creation doesn't fulfill your own requirements for a reasonable theory of universal origins as you yourself described in your opening post - you said the Big Bang was flawed because it "assumed there was something there to blow up."With Creation not only are you "assuming that something was there", you are going a step further and assuming that it is a highly intelligent, omnipotent being. Do you find that more likely than the Big Bang?By your logic, I state that Creation fails because the Creator would need a Creator, or to paraphrase your own post: [Creation] deals with one thing [creating] another, but doesn't seem to account for where the first [creator] came from. That means that [creation] has to break down at some point. If [creator A] was the first [creator], and it [created creator B], than how did [creator A] get here? We know it [wasn't created], since it was the first, and there was nothing for it to [be created by]. Since evolution and creation seem to be the 2 possibilities here, and we know [creator A wasn't created], doesn't that leave only one option?

I believe that if you have an omnipotent God, that God would be capable of creating, and would be capable of "Always existing". That's how the biblical God is described, so it makes sense. The bible says that God always existed, doesn't it? I don't believe a proton, or whatever you want to believe was there when things "blew up", has that power. So, yeah, I do find that more likely than the big bang. Protons don't have the power to create. The God in the bible does. The big bang requires a proton to be able to do things that we both know a proton can't do.
JeremyThis message has been edited by Waddell1, 01-17-2005 19:24 AM

That's a bit of a leap isn't it? God exists therefore he must be the god in the bible.Can I ask how you discounted the other 3400 versions?

You're wasting your time. You'll get, and are already getting, loads of talk around your question......the very first 'thing'...where did it come from?
Well, it must have happened or there wouldn't be stuff happening today. We must have an explanation for the initial speck of dust, and I'm sure it lurking just around the corner.

Yes, because evolution is a theory of biology, but the origin of life is a problem in chemistry. The mechanisms of evolution don't apply to living, reproducing things. They don't apply to simple chemical interactions. It doesn't "break down", it just stops being applicable - specifically, it ceases to be applicable to simple chemical systems. Every scientific theory has its limits; has questions that it isn't meant to answer. The kinetic theory of gases doesn't apply to a single atom of hydrogen, which has no temperature. This isn't nearly as big a deal as you're making it. Why on Earth would you conclude it has to be one or the other? It's entirely uniform; every question has the same answer - "God did it that way." It's rather boring, and not at all useful. The only thing that can evolve is that which reproduces itself imperfectly, and that can die. Simple chemical systems don't really do that. At some point, a simple chemical system became complex enough to reproduce imperfectly and/or die; at that point, evolution begins. In fact that's probably as good a point as any to draw the line between life and protolife - the possibility of evolution.There are no living things that do not evolve, so the first living thing would be the first thing with the capacity to evolve. It would have itself been decended from non-living chemical interactions.I'm sorry it's confusing; it always is when we talk about the origin of life without a very clear idea what life actually is.

You mean the first living thing? It came from its non-living chemical precursors. For this to make sense you have to concieve of the first living thing as bearing almost no relationship to any living thing you're aware of; even the simplest archeobacteria alive today is light-years more advanced than what we're talking about. The first living thing would be almost indistinguishable from a complicated but non-living chemical system.

Uh, Yeah dude. I would venture to guess that is why it is called Evolution. Nor is it trying to, it is about the means by which life has achieved the diversity it has. It was mentioned before that what actually caused life itself to begin is another subject altogether, Abiogenesis. But I’ll summarise my view on that. Atoms react with each other to form molecules. Molecules are the basis of elements and compounds. Elements and compounds react in various combinations creating other substances. Eventually certain organic compounds react, forming a molecule that can replicate itself, and has a tendency to keep doing so. These self-replicators (ancestors of DNA) keep reacting with other chemicals to form more complex substances, and so on, ultimately forming the very first primitive examples of what we call life. And that sir, is the point where Evolution takes over.I know that’s a very basic, dumbed-down explanation. It doesn’t go into any kind of fine detail, nor do I intend it to. It’s not from a science book or anything, and I am not a scientist (yet). This is simply how I myself explain in my own mind where life originates, or in your own terminology, where Animal A came from. Yes, it does to many people. Evolution is a complex subject. It’s not an easy thing to study and understand, there is a lot of detail involved. In addition to that, the implications are repugnant to a lot of people. One has to accept that we are here by chance, that there is no great spiritual being watching over us, and no afterlife. Not always easy to accept for someone who is brought up with Religion and/or doesn't have a scientific leaning. For me, believing something like creation purely because it looks more uniform seems like taking the easy option.

Well, insofar as I agree those things seem to be true, I agree that they need to be accepted; but they're not as far as I know implied by the theory of evolution. After all what could a model of changing allele frequencies in populations tell us about the ultimate destination of the soul, or the existence of God?I think you've started to conflate evolution and atheism, which is as much an error for you as it is for the creationists.

Thank you Kermee.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Why do we need an explanation at all? It is to commit the fallacy of composition to assume that because everything in the universe has a cause¹ the universe itself must too.¹This assumption is probably false anyway.