if not Creation... Creation, not

puZZle

This is NOT a post about
religion vs religion
nor
creationist vs evolutionist
and not exactly
theist vs atheist either

I've always wondered about evolutionist(macro) believing that all species on earth are evolved from a single cell organism,
and that's how we've come into being.
Leaving this argument aside for now

How did the first single cell organism come into being?

I am just interested in what the macroevolutionist in lyk think about this issue
Evolution might be an explanation of the diversity and complexity of life as it is now
(i.e. the origin(s) or species)
but it does not seem to explain the First Cause
(i.e. the origin of life)

I don't mean to stir up religious/anti religious wars here
please refrain from using or attacking religious terms if possible

puZZle

But the problem is
The first single cell organism (that is, if that's how we came into being) must have complex and functioning genetic material, which can "self-reproduce"
This would require billions of atoms, somehow, by chance,  getting together forming this long strand of genetic material (is that RNA in simple organisms like this? correct me if i am wrong)
This strand would have to give instruction to how the organism would
function (e.g. to produce and release certain chemicals)
be formed (the cellular level structures)
and reproduce (telling it how to copy the genetic material correctly and splitting the cell at least)

if i am not wrong, unzipping RNA/DNA would require a special enzyme to do the work

can this complexity (irreducible complexity) be formed JUST by chance?

that is the question

puZZle

notgoddy can you please point out where exactly in the article gives the exact notion you've given?

also, in the same article gives a cruicial point:

Difficulties

Since there are no known chemical pathways for the abiogenic synthesis of nucleotides from pyrimidine nucleobases cytosine and uracil under prebiotic conditions, it may be the case that nucleic acids did not contain the nucleobases seen in life's nucleic acids.[14]
Tellingly, the nucleoside cytosine has a half-life in isolation of 19 days at 100°C and 17,000 years in freezing water, which is still very short on the geologic time scale.[15]
Others have questioned whether ribose and other backbone sugars could be stable enough to be found in the original genetic material.[16]
For example, the ester linkage of ribose and phosphoric acid in RNA is known to be prone to hydrolysis.[17] Additionally, ribose must all be the same enantiomer, because any nucleotides of the wrong chirality act as chain terminators.[18]

For random molecules to join together (like they have a mind of their own) and forming complex genetic material which is also the Foundation of all future life's DNA/RNA (being meaningful and replicable)
isn't that a little stretched?

A cell coming from nothing also contradicts part of the cell theory: all cells from come from pre-existing cell(s)
(Both the classic and the modern)

puZZle

it is true that chance might be a factor here
but we have to also note that chemical bonds are easily broken by elements such as oxygen
for billions of atoms to join together without breaking apart (and meanwhile carrying meaningful and super complex instructions for the organism) requires an environment with no oxygen, and the like

puZZle

reposting some deleted stuff~

Intelstan
the Miller-Urey experiment would not be a good representation of the ancient ocean/atmosphere because of the super high concentration of compounds which existed in the consealed flask

lemme just quote what was "created" in the experiment from wiki (not my favorite but ya i am just too lazy)
引用:

    The experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2).
    ...
    Nucleic acids (DNA, RNA) themselves were not formed.
    As observed in all consequent experiments, both left-handed (L) and right-handed (D) optical isomers were created in a racemic mixture. Virtually all amino acids in the proteins of living cells are left-handed amino acids.
    Any right-handed amino acids, for the most part, are poisonous to the construction of the protein, causing it to unravel. Equal amounts of left- and right-handed amino acids would not be an environment friendly to life.

No life was ever created (out of "nothing") by humans
i think i have partly answered notgoddy's question here also?


Also, regarding the whole "ancient atomosphere" hypotheses,
there are much debate about what what when how why of the environment.

How can they really know it was around 4 billion years ago that all these had happened (if they did)
and how can they know how exactly the environment was like?
(There exists much circular arguments in this field,
e.g. for life to have begun on its own, the environment must be oxygen-less etc
which assumes that life DID begin on its own)
引用:

    Although lightning storms are thought to have been very common in the primordial atmosphere, they are not thought to have been as common as the amount of electricity used by the Miller-Urey experiment implied. These factors suggest that much lower concentrations of biochemicals would have been produced on Earth than was originally predicted

We cannot just simply assume that there was no creator (be it a deity or aliens or other sources)

puZZle

...and then lyks talked alot about "objective truths," "believing," "ultimate creator"
too lazy to copy and paste all that sorry
then chunsh said:
thats what I am talking about if our assumptions are correct, puzzle wants to refer to ultimate creator.

Austin:
So what?  Ultimate creator doesn't have to be related to any religion. i.e. all the religions in the world might be referring to the wrong ultimate creator.

notgoddy:
Do we need a creator in order to exist?

Littleprince:
愛因思坦有天造了一個很漂亮的地球儀﹐
叫了他的朋友們來看﹐
他的朋友問他﹕
“這麼漂亮精美的地球儀﹐誰造的﹖”
他說﹕
“沒有﹐我只是把零件放在這裡﹐
過了許久﹐它們自己碰撞就出來了。。。”
他的朋友大笑說﹕
“開玩笑。。。
這麼漂亮精美能碰撞得出來﹖”
愛恩思坦就說﹕
“就是了﹐
區區一個地球儀都不能﹐
甚麼令你們覺得﹐
這麼精美結構奇妙浩瀚的宇宙﹐
是沒有創造者的呢﹖”

(puzzle: i thought it was said by Newton, lol o well, the concepts the same)

puZZle

原帖由 notgoddy 於 2008-8-20 19:35 發表
"chemical bonds are easily broken by elements such as oxygen"-puZZle, citation needed.

However, when oxygen gas is added to this mixture, no organic molecules are formed. Opponents of Miller-Urey hypothesis seized upon recent research that shows the presence of uranium in sediments dated to 3.7 Ga and indicates it was transported in solution by oxygenated water (otherwise it would have precipitated out).[13] These opponents argue that this presence of oxygen precludes the formation of prebiotic molecules via a Miller-Urey-like scenario, attempting to invalidate the hypothesis of abiogenesis.

oh i just thought you would know that since you argued that genetic materials can be formed in a natural environment o_o sorry
this is the same reason why the Miller-Urey experiment did not have any oxygen in the mixture

puZZle

whatever the First Cause is

puZZle

we have the concept of causation because we reside within the limits of time

"outside of time" there can be an ultimate creator or whatever the First Cause is
that First Cause would have created Time also

puZZle

how big, do you think, is that chance?

say.. if the properties of carbon and it's compounds are changed
would life still exist?