Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Earth
How did life start on Earth? Science still has no definitive answer. But in the 1950s, a pair of chemists mixed a stew of poisonous gases, like you'd find at a volcano. They zapped it with electricity, mimicking lightning. And they found that they'd created a few amino acids. All life on Earth relies on these compounds to make proteins.
In 2007 researchers at Scripps Institute of Oceanography found sealed samples from those half-century old experiments. They re-examined the contents with today's better equipment, like liquid chromatography and mass spectrometers, and found that the electrified volcano's breath produced 23 different amino acids. The work appears online in the early edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The finding could mean that various building blocks of life were common in pools of water on the surface of the early Earth. What's more, the amino acids are similar to those found on certain types of meteorites, which suggests that the basic constituents of life could be widespread in the universe.
But how those oases of amino acids started to come together and form life? Well, the origin of life as we know it remains a mystery.
—David Biello
See what we're tweeting about
42 Comments
Add CommentThis is bad reporting because it gives a false impression that almost nothing is known about the processes which may have lead to life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMentions nothing about the works of Meierhenrich, Filippi, Meinert , Vierling, Szostak, Mansy, Treco, Zubay, Horneck, Rettberg, Gesteland, Cech, Atkins, Pályi, Zucchi, Caglioti and MANY others in this field of research.
I put some detailed info up here on my blog:
http://iconoclasm2000.blogspot.com/2010/12/abiogenesis-part-i.html
But a LOT more is known about this subject that this guy suggests. And it is also not accurate to suggest that this one Miller/Urey has been the only one done.
In fact, the original Miller/Urey experiment didn't use the right mix of chemicals to correctly mimic our best knowledge of the early Earth environment. This was corrected in later experiments and found that the more accurate mixture had certain difficulties, it took many years of study to understand how those difficulties could have been overcome and why they are actually NECESSARY as well.
So I urge anyone interested in the TRUTH to dig very deeply in the subject before jumping to conclusions based on a lack of knowledge.
It is important to remember that we are investigating a series of microscopic event that happened some 3.5 billion years ago. We will NEVER know exactly what actually happened -- but what science can show that it is POSSIBLE and reasonable for some series of events to have happened naturally from the basic laws of physics and chemistry.
The danger of entering long, conversational style comments with out editing is that you miss your typos like: led to life & microscopic events
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn my defense, I was going for the first comment slot :)
I also meant to include a couple of other resources:
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2060658,00.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=primordial-soup-urey-miller-evolution-experiment-repeated
"all the evidence shown in DNA only supports a constant de-evolution from Genetically engineered life forms" -- I always love double-speak, you say "Genetically engineered life forms" and then you go on arguing about natural life forms.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou also clearly do not understand the use of the term 'fit' in evolutionary terms. Either something survives to reproduce or it does not. It does not mean smarter or healthier in some absolute sense. It is also NOT a statement about specific individuals but the tendency over time.
And finally, your arguments are just flat out, factually incorrect. You are so categorically and willfully wrong it is pointless to even attempt to discuss anything with you as you have no interest in understanding things accurately (yes, I have seen you posting elsewhere).
The Human
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMISSING LINK
We as humans ponder our existence and are from time to time, swayed by evidence and discoveries. Mans interpretation of these is, in most part, foggy and he will scratch, bite and kill to protect his egotistic interpretations.
Only a couple of hundred years have passed since a person would have been burnt at the stake had he talked about Dinosaurs or, in more recent times, ostracised for thinking man could fly to the moon.
In recent times of discovery man is tripping all over himself trying to contain this new knowledge within his box. A time has come when communication (computer) has blown the lid off. I feel for the well-meaning, good people that have been duped by so-called education.
We, as humans, are a product of All Life Produces Life and are of bits and pieces (info cells) of other times and places. The Voigt Papers explain the existence of man and his regession to cave man in Earth’s last one hundred a fifty million year cycle and how we are well on our way to becoming Earth’s next cave men. Oh, the missing link — look for a tiny human skeleton.
cbc.ca bruce voigt
This is old news... if you are doing a re-post, you really need to flag it as such.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI remember it in... 1976??? Somewhere in there.
Such a thinly disguised attempt to wrap creationism (or intelligent design if you must - they are one and the same) in psuedo scientific nonsense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnly a weak minded person would consider that this is some not an accident and instead require intelligent engineering behind it.
Your message seems to be that your divine creator cooked up something that didn't cut it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople who believe in Evolution are ignorant beyond any possible understanding on my part. If you think there are magical mutations that cause a net improvement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI want you to show me the absolutely irrefutable PHYSICAL evidence that this has ever happened. IF you attempt to answer this you will get free from this delusional nonsense.
Evolution: "that theory which sees in the history of all things organic and inorganic a development from simplicity to complexity, a gradual advance from a simple or rudimentary condition to one that is more complex and of a higher character." Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language.
DNA evidence ONLY shows degradation; Gene loss, weakness in cells that were stronger, atavisms (left over from atrophy), genetic diseases.
Evolution is a pile of religious mumbo jumbo mythological HEMG. Basically it is because people want to believe in it, and for no other reason.
http://evolutionforum.info
Actually the Genetic Engineer just left it to it's own devices and we pretty much screwed up our own genome.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only creatures that seem to be stable are the Gecko, Mosquito, Crocodile, Opossum, and all the ones who have not de-evolved, like the snakes who were more complex and now have lost legs.
If you look at any multi-cellular genetic lineage, it has become weaker, less complex, lost bone strength, muscle strength. There is no fantasy evolution.
Only blind believers would follow this religious nonsense. There certainly is NO EVIDENCE for evolution.
Evolution: "that theory which sees in the history of all things organic and inorganic a development from simplicity to complexity, a gradual advance from a simple or rudimentary condition to one that is more complex and of a higher character." Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language.
ColdDimSum: We have to put up with creationist trying to convert us all the time. GoodScienceForYou is best ignored.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRichard Dawkins is his/her arch enemy.
Suggest you read "The Greatest Show on Earth" you will realise there is no missing Link. Unless of course you are a Wendy Wright who can never be convinced no matter what evidence you provide. She is the kind of person who sees nothing other than she wants to see. She could walk through a massacre, be covered in blood and swear she never saw a thing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvodelusionists are degrading science and causing all sorts of genetic diseases to go on and on. Evotards are people who think that simple life has ever become complex.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause there IS NO EVIDENCE for evolution they use inference, implication and HEMG to promote a religious agenda.
I am far more intelligent (tested) than 99% of the people on this planet. If you would like to debate me in a public forum on video, I would relish it and put this crap religion of Evodelusionism to rest.
I add this comment for those that didn't notice. GoodScienceForYou says
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The chimp is a direct descendant from the same lineage as us. It was human at one time but, has severe genetic degradation and is now nearly extinct."
This shows the narrow-mindedness of a creationist zealot deceitfully hiding behind the science he doesn't understand.
I add this comment for those that didn't notice. GoodScienceForYou says
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The chimp is a direct descendant from the same lineage as us. It was human at one time but, has severe genetic degradation and is now nearly extinct."
This shows the narrow-mindedness of a creationist zealot deceitfully hiding behind the science he doesn't understand.
You are the best example of "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet us just ignore "GoodScienceForYou". This flamer just wants attention. Coochy coochy coo, little fella!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligious Evodelusionists are common. They are the latest version of the "earth is flat syndrome". It is not scientific, but rather is based on faith and wanting to believe in fantasy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDNA is ABSOLUTE evidence against evolution. Get over it.
Yet the only thing you want is something to believe in. That magical crap that all humans crave, giving them some hope for the future.
If you want to see where we are heading as a species look at our closest relatives. They are all animals going extinct.
It is the number one cause of ignorance, faith and belief in things you know nothing about. In the religious mythology of Evodelusionism magical events and mystical causes take place that are NEVER found in the natural world.
It is time we put this idea it the trash along with geocentric ideas, alchemy, magic and all mystical human emotional mental garbage beliefs.
http://www.evolutionforum.info
A creationist would not say "The chimp is a direct descendant from the same lineage as us. It was human at one time but, has severe genetic degradation and is now nearly extinct."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA true creationist would say that humans were created separately from any of the animals.
Intelligent Design and Creationism is NOT the same thing. Creationist say that God created everything in 6 days around 6000 years ago. Intelligent Design says a unknown designer made the animals and this could have been billions of years ago. Big difference.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou wrote "show me the absolutely irrefutable PHYSICAL evidence that [mutations that cause a net improvement] has ever happened"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFine, here is one of MANY:
Blount ZD, Borland CZ, Lenski RE (2008-06-10). "Inaugural Article: Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli". PNAS 105 (23): 7899–7906. doi:10.1073/pnas.0803151105. PMC 2430337. PMID 18524956
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full
"Twelve initially identical populations of Escherichia coli were founded in 1988 to investigate this issue. They have since evolved in a glucose-limited medium that also contains citrate, which E. coli cannot use as a carbon source under oxic conditions. No population evolved the capacity to exploit citrate for >30,000 generations, although each population tested billions of mutations. A citrate-using (Cit+) variant finally evolved in one population by 31,500 generations, causing an increase in population size and diversity."
Not only did they observe it once. They REPEATED it from saved populations (they archived every ~500 generations). AND they sequenced the genome and found the EXACT set of several mutations that happened which enabled this innovation in the E. coli population.
Another good example was the unicellular Chlorella OBSERVED to evolve a multicellular capability.
I trust you have the neuronal capacity to google that one?
You can apologize now -- no wait... I sense that you will continue with your baseless denials and arguments from ignorance - the Prophecy has been spoken.
You wrote "I am far more intelligent (tested) than 99% of the people on this planet."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd modest to boot! Well done.
Fortunately, your IQ is irrelevant to the facts of the matter. And you are categorically wrong on the facts. And just FYI 99th% is not really a very high IQ and gives you absolutely NO greater ability to be correct when you are incorrect on that facts.
I have no doubt that you could test reasonably high but I observe that you are lacking necessary metacognitive abilities to evaluate propositions fully logically and reasonably. I also observe that you are extremely poorly socialized. And I would say that those who bullied you when you were a child were wrong to do so - and I say to you, that you should really try to move past that however difficult it might be.
For example, you challenged "show me physical evidence" -- which shows that your argumentation is really nothing but an argument from ignorance. Claims are supported by evidence in hand, not by being unaware of evidence that better supports alternative hypotheses.
Now, I gave you evidence showing actual, beneficial evolutionary mutations. You will reject that evidence because you are suffering from extreme cognitive biases.
And knowing this, I post them anyway -- not for your benefit because I believe that you are probably beyond all help and reason -- but for others who might be reading the comments.
not-evolved, you are incorrect because only SOME Christian creationists claim what you have stated. Other Christian creationists make different claims (and there are many variations).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIntelligent Design was shown in Kitzmiller v. Dover to be a DIRECT lifting of claims from Christian creationist mythology - They changed a few terms, and republished it as Intelligent Design.
http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/expert-witness-kitzmiller-v-dover-says-intelligent-design-disguised-creationism
I trust you will now read and understand this and stop spreading untruths -- If you are a Christian I'm sure you are familiar with the injunction against bearing false witness? -- which is what you are doing here.
If you wish to 'debate in a public forum' please call into the Atheist Experience show:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.atheist-experience.com/
I look forward to your unequivocal evidence that your god is real and not a figment of your imagination and supported only by the existence of your many obvious cognitive biases.
...Some of these comments...dang! If stupid were noise, I'd be deaf.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe DNA, Chromosome, fossil record and all the evidence only shows that chimps, gorilla, orangutan and Macaque monkey are direct genetically shown relatives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Chimp has devolved drastically in the brain capacity, it has retained muscular strength. Humans have managed so far to not degrade the brain capacity, but most barely use it anyway. Humans are physically much weaker than chimps.
All the evidence points to DE-EVOLUTION, and no possible evolution towards more complex or more fit.
http://www.evolutionforum.info
What are you unable to read. Single cell creatures are not multi-cellular complex life forms, and when they mutate, they either die or live period.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBacteria has an ability to adapt better than any other creature on this earth, but it has never evolved. It has always remained a single celled creature that "eats" carbon based "foods", and produces enzymes. That is all it has ever done.
The comparing bacteria to humans is ridiculous use of inferences and implication; the same crap that used car sales people from the 1950's use.
Multi cellular creatures like humans can live with cell degeneration, and cells with improper proteans that reduce function. This IS the process we have continually been going through, and why we have over 4000 genetic defects cataloged so far causing various forms of diseases.
Bacteria cannot live if it is damaged, because it only has one cell.
Evodelusionists are cowards, and only hang out with other Evdelutionists. I made the only fair forum for the discussion of evolution. You are afraid to go there, because you would not have your fundy Evodelusionists there for your emotional support.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWeak willed people conform to nonsense of mass hysteria and think that numbers of believers is evidence. It isn't.
You are afraid of the truth, because you are wrapped up in this for some emotional weakness. When people attache themselves to religious ideas from mythology and project that on the world, they are delusional no matter what the belief is. And as you know getting past your own mytological delusions is the hardest thing to do, because it is what you base your life on.
I don't have beliefs. Beliefs destroy all credibility for any scientist. When you see the evidence and ALL of it from an objective reasonableness, there is no evolution. It is a disgusting religious ideology that has just taken over for another religious ideology.
This is because most human are really pretty limited mentally by emotional caused beliefs.
If you want to debate on a public forum at a university, I am willing to do so. I have asked Ken Miller, and all the gurus of this religion to debate me, but they all refuse.
http://www.evolutionforum.info
My prophecy came true! What are the chances?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The comparing bacteria to humans is ridiculous" -- you said NOTHING stating that I had to give an example in humans. You are guilty of moving the goal post here AND are again making an argument from ignorance to boot.
I cannot directly observe 31,500 generations of Humans but, as you well know, the extreme parallels between all different cellular structures are well documented as are the mechanisms of mutations which have been demonstrated to be the same mechanisms in humans - so you are the only one making a leap of faith here.
Each human born has been shown to have approximately 100 mutations. Unless you can produce the gene sequence of the some 600 billion mutations that are walking around and demonstrate that every single one of them is a degradation then your assertion is unfounded and based solely on an argument from ignorance.
And, in fact, we have found, for example, mutations in the CCR5 gene that make people virtually immune to HIV. We also see variations in human populations that are directly attributable to genetics. We know that morphology is driven partly by the HOX complex, which we can tweak in EXACTLY the same ways that nature does and we can observe the changes in the offspring. http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v97/n3/fig_tab/6800872f6.html
And, if you check the statistics, MILLIONS of human fetuses are never born because they have mutations so detrimental to their system that they are simply not viable.
And finally, you completely ignored the part about the unicellular organism observed to evolve multicellular clustering which refutes your claim of once-a-single-celled-organism-always-a-single-celled-organism.
Boraas, M., Seale, D., and Boxhorn, J. (1998). Phagotrophy by a flagellate selects for colonial prey: A possible origin of multicellularity Evol. Ecol. 12, 153–164
Wait, another vision is coming... you will claim that doesn't prove anything because it's just another protein 'adaptation' and doesn't demonstrate evolution. How you manage those levels of cognitive dissonance should be studied. Or maybe you're just being duplicitous?
In responce to the antievolution comments to this article and from others to all evolutionary science in general, I cannot escape the the feeling of a bleak future for man and life itself. I have never felt fear from any other subject as I do this one. To me, the only other subject that comes close is the denial of slavery and racism as the main cause of America's Civil War. It is very sad to me that laymen like myself who find evolution intriguing, mysterious, sometimes dark, yet have no doubt of its veracity, have learned to keep quite on the subject as a result of violently verbal attacks from people I thought well versed on the matter, friendly, and similarly educated. From my own experiences dealing with wild mammels, noting the different behaviors in a same species and their common surviving behavior, I cannot escape the similarities of these to us even at a rudimentary level. But most striking to me is certain wild mammels show definite emotion similar to us and I ask myself of this relation to an evolutionary connection and all its possibilities. To me, and I may be way off base, evolution becomes part of the metaphysical spectrum. I think sometimes also that religion itself is partly evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs posited by my molecular biology professor:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst you have amino acids...
1. Chemical evolution through generation of free radicals
• CO2, H2O, N2, NH3, CH4, H2 all present in early atmosphere
• No oxygen/ozone present. Allowed UV light to break CO2 and H2 to form hydrogen, oxygen and CO. Allows formation of HCN and H2CO (formaldehyde). Multiple formaldehydes interact to form carbon chains, amino acids, carbs, nucleotides, hydrocarbons.
• Miller did experiment to test formation of amino acids. Suggests water protects formation from UV rays.
Next you have RNA...
• Nucleotides able to self-polymerize (RNA oligo’s). Form first hereditary systems.
Then you show it can replicate...
Johnston et. al 2001 – generate multiple, unique RNA oligos. Shows RNA able to self replicate.
• 18 rounds of replication “The round-18 ribozyme” forms…
• …RNA ~189nt-200nt long
• Can extend from RNA primer in template driven process for up to 14nt in 24hr.
Origin of life steps:
1. Pre RNA world – RNA molecules beginning to form nucleotides and self-replicate
2. 1st age RNA world – cellular molecules formed in step 2. Lipid bilayers naturally form and surround metal cations to protect RNA.
3. 2nd age RNA world – cellular molecules, have ribosomes that form from independent RNA sequences. Ribosomes begin to synthesize proteins.
4. Viruses created to steal ribosome machinery
5. RNAases formed to degrade viruses
6. Viruses respond by inventing DNA (2 enzymes required: reductase + polymerase)
7. Cell responds by making DNA/reverse transcriptase (converts RNA->DNA)
8. Viruses can also make reverse transcriptase
9. Viruses surrounded by cell membranes to form first eukaryotic cells
ColdDimSum, you are correct that not all Christians believe the same way but I was talking about those who are typically called Young Earth Creationists. They believe a straight reading of the Biblical account. The others try to mix the Biblical account with some form of evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are also correct about that court case but that is not how the Discovery Institute (the “headquarters” for the ID movement) describe ID. From their site:
4. Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism?
No. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case. For more information read Center Director Stephen Meyer's piece "Intelligent Design is not Creationism" that appeared in The Daily Telegraph (London) or Center Associate Director's piece " Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same" in Research News & Opportunities.
GoodScienceForYou wrote “All the evidence points to DE-EVOLUTION, and no possible evolution towards more complex or more fit.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was not saying anyone or anything evolved. I said “humans were CREATED SEPARATELY from any of the animals”
Perhaps someone should inform GoodScienceForYou that "proteans" are "involuntary flirting signals in humans" not biochemicals in cells. I would have thought that someone so intelligent would have known the difference.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI recall a recent article in SA which spoke of people from Tibet evolving their ability, as recently as 5000 years ago, to live at an altitude where there is significantly less oxygen. However, it COULD be possible that there is an evolution/de-evolution cycle which occurs at the huge timeframes involved. Life is still more complex than we can fully understand, and our record is incomplete.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGoodScienceForYou is simply ignoring what we DO know in favor of what we DON'T know yet. It is time for him to quit his name-calling and chest-pounding, assemble his data and publish a paper for peer review. However, he does have some internal issues to overcome before anyone will listen. Grow up, pal.
@GoodScienceForYou, "However, it COULD be possible that there is an evolution/de-evolution" there is no such thing as de-evolution just like there is no such thing as deceleration. There is only evolution (change). Evolution does not have a direction. It does not move towards complexity as the vast number of single cell life forms that currently exist would attest. Long time periods allow for complex life forms to evolve just as it takes many years to build a great building or just as long to do something relatively simple such as renovate my basement. NoScienceForYou, you just don't get it. You don't know what you are talking about. Telling us that you are an expert is not working for you. Denying the facts is not proof. Making irrational statements is not proof. Lying is not proof! The only thing you are succeeding at is proving that creationists are off their collective nut. You would do much more for your cause if you said nothing. Get yourself educated or medicated or at least put a note on your computer advising, "do NOT use while insane".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this[Alan Bellows at the Damn Interesting website]
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The more incompetent someone is in a particular area, the less qualified that person is to assess anyone’s skill in that space, including their own."
"It is likely that such individuals are completely ignorant of their ignorance."
Sound like anyone around here?
I‘m not a creationist but producing a handful of amino acids in a lab and saying that it possibly indicates start of life is like finding some flat rocks and making a conclusion about how buildings appeared. Maybe it is possible to make an „evolution theory of buildings“, from ancient huts to modern skyscrapers?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe probability of amino acids to combine to a meaningful code is the same as the probability for a monkey typewriter to produce a bestseller.
@Stranger, "is like finding some flat rocks and making a conclusion about how buildings appeared" well it might be if that is what they were doing but they aren't (even then I still don't buy your analogy). Your argument is similar to taking any one piece of evidence from a court case and saying that we cannot determine guilt or innocence from this piece alone so throw the entire case out. Science is built on a process of refinement and accumulation of evidence. Also note, that the scientists are not saying that this finding proves how life evolved from simple elements rather it contributes to a hypothesis about how life may have arisen. To reuse the court case analogy, it is like we have demonstrated that the accused once owned the same kind of gun used in the crime. It doesn't mean the accused committed the crime but at the same time it does help build the case rather than forcing us to reconsider. To relate back to the science. If it was demonstrated that these amino acids could not be formed naturally the current hypothesis might have had to be reconsidered.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The probability of amino acids to combine to a meaningful code is the same as the probability for a monkey typewriter to produce a bestseller." I would be very interested in seeing the stats you used to justify that conclusion. To me it seems like an "appeal to ridicule" which would imply that you are in fact a creationist trying to pass yourself off as an objective third party. If you actually understood how dna and rna work and how proteins fold and how that folded shape then does work you would realize that it isn't a matter of finding the right combination of letters that produce a very rare result, rather it is more like creating a sculpture that looks pleasing. There are many potential patterns and some look more pleasing than others. Small refinements can make the sculpture more or less pleasing, but they don't necessarily cause it to be either beautiful or ugly. Also, there isn't some end pattern that nature is trying to create through random changes. If the shape derived from the code benefits the code bearer, then it is more likely that the code will continue on. That means that random changes can be evaluated based on what they do and then either discarded or replicated rather than determining success or failure on whether or not they match some pre-ordained pattern.
It is generally worthwhile spending the time to understand what you are criticising otherwise you give the impression of a biased opinion that is not interested in the facts.
(1) Creationists need to get off science websites, you are not going to win any converts; you are only going to cause trouble. (2) Websters dictionary is a very poor place to look for definitions of scientific terms; evolution is not at all a process of change from lower to higher complexity. Some times it is, some times it isn't. It all depends. Rather, for the sake or argumentative rigor I would suggest getting your definitions from an actual science text. There they are guaranteed to be accurate. (3) There is physical evidence for evolution, but alas; it cannot be presented here. You need to be taken in to a laboratory and shown so that you can see with your own eyes. (4) Scientists do not believe what they want to believe; they believe what is shown to be true. The scientific method has built into it a number of methods to avoid reaching conclusions based on what the researcher may hope to fin or may expect to find. Scientists, or at least good scientists are engaged in a dispassionate search for truth, meaning they are neutral. They go about their researches hoping to arrive at knowledge of what is the case in the world. Because this is their goal, namely to know what is the case in the world, they do not tip the scales or commit the confirmation bias fallacy by only affirming the facts that support the hypothesis and ignoring the facts that support the null hypothesis. (5) Finally, evolution is not a religion. I deal with this all the time. There is a very clear demarkation between scientific findings and religious beliefs. If you cannot understand the difference, then I fear the educational system has failed you. Now, if science had shown that species were immutable and that they were intelligently designed I would readily accept that conclusion. But science has shown the opposite. I, and other scientists and scholars lend our sympathies where the empirical data is. But back to my original point: if you're going to come on here and go off about how you think evolution is religious mumbo jumbo and all that, you need to buck up, get a life, and stick to your creationist websites and learn to leave well enough alone. The squabbling and finger pointing is childish. G'day.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...I would suggest getting your definitions from an actual science text. There they are guaranteed to be accurate."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne slight problem: the definition of an "actual science text" would include, in the minds of creationists, some home schooling texts, publications by "ID scientists" and even worse.
It is amazing that the simple wonder and the ongoing confusion and debate over the fundamental laws and evolutionary probability of origin, the creation of a cosmos, universe and then more selective or reactive forms of life is so interesting because humanity is still so deeply lost and divided in the historical dogmas of ego and place.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do however worry for those that need to create illusionary elemental or spiritual hierarchies to present some form of truth to an unknown, because until science has more data, it will always be subjective.
But whatever theory you prefer to choose - whether evolutionary or creationist - it doesn't matter, as everything comes from a humble origin (or perhaps more probably ongoing cyclic expansion and death points) of fundamental order, evolution, random selection and/or circumstantial reaction and chance. Lets cut to the chase and realize that even if god or the gods exist, they too would still have to come from some prior form of natural order, selection or reaction. Therefore my favorite question - to confuse all believers - is asking who or what created god, or who might be the boss or parents. Always fun.
I am not criticizing the theory of evolution after the life was started (The analogy with buildings was the joke). Some mathematical, programming and thermodynamics findings makes me doubt the random origin of life. The simplest self-reproducing system is so complex that I cannot imagine it could appear spontaneously. How many amino acids have to connect to make the simplest code with self-reproduction ability? Smallest viruses have 2000 base pairs in their primitive RNA, and they are not stand-alone replicating systems, they need a host cell. The probability that 100 base pairs connects randomly into correct order is 1 / (4^100) = 6.2E-61, less than atom count in our galaxy. My guess that life could appear in some strange part of universe where thermodynamics laws do not apply and self-organizing is a natural feature.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this