Lack of science for evolution and abiogenesis?

Question

I am asking for two things here:

1. Can any evolutionist give me a scientific law that states life can arise from non-life (abiogenesis)? Is there any scientific law that says this should be possible? Please name the law so I can look it up.

2. Can any evolutionist give me a scientific law that says new genetic information can be added (through any natural process? A law that says this is possible? Again, name the law.

God Bless

Answer 1

1. I can't give you this one





2. Their are some mutations in humans where their are "extra pieces" on the x or y chromasome. This usually results in a mental disability but could in theory increase the information of a animal. Interestingly humans arent even CLOSE to having the most complex DNA

Answer 2

You might want to look at last month's issue of Scientific American, which featured an article describing a simpler model of early organic life than had previously been used. I have tossed away my copy, or I'd give you more detailed information.



I'm not a scientist by profession, just a rather interested amateur, so I'm not in a position to fully answer your question. Does this incapacity to answer this question mean that evolution must ipso facto be false? I don't think so.



I imagine that it would be difficult for you to provide any verifiable information about God's activities at the foundation of the universe. Job couldn't. Does this mean that your faith is an error. Again, I don't think so.

Answer 3

1. The fact that no law prohibits it leaves the possibility wide open.



2. Evolution shows that DNA can be mutated and added together in different combinations to create different traits. It happens, so that proves it CAN happen. "New" information is a bit of a misnomer. The info is different (mutated, different combination), which could be "new" I suppose. The building blocks are the same.



You are not really looking at things from the correct perspective, though. I would suggest Darwin's Origin of Species for more insight.

Answer 4

1. You just want a law that says it's possible, right? That's simple probability theory. As long as all the necessary components for making amino acids are available, there is a nonzero probability that they will combine into an amino acid capable of self-replication. The rules of probability theory state that all nonzero probabilities are possible.



2. New genetic information is added through the process of mutation in several different ways. Here's one example:



A single strand of DNA often has several copies of the same piece of information one after the other. That is, the base sequence repeats. For example, a strand of DNA might have the sequence ATCATATCAT. That is simply two copies of the sequence ATCAT. (Obviously, the actual strings would be longer but you get the idea.) The reason information is copied like this in DNA is to protect the information from the frequent mutations that occur.



During transcription, it is possible that a mutation would cause one of these strings to be improperly replicated. For example, one of the bases could be replaced with an incorrect base, thus making the string ATCATATGAT.



This would then be a new string that could potentially code for a different set of enzymes performing different functions from the original string. Additionally, it is possible that this set of enzymes performs a function that no other set of enzymes previously has.



If that string is self-replicating and codes for an advantageous enzyme, that new string will replicate. Since that new string codes for amino acids that were not there before, new information has been "added" to the genetic code.



There's no specific "law" that says this... It's a fact of biology and has been observed in several different studies... Here's a link.:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html





Edit: Anybody want to explain why they gave me a thumbs down? Am I just getting hassled by creationists or are there flaws in the science I provided?

Answer 5

1. On an atomic level, you and me are the same as a sheet of aluminum. It's just that our protons and neutrons are arranged differently. So, on an atomic level, life and inanimate objects are closely related.



2. There is no scientific law that states new genetic information can be added. That's why evolution is called the "Theory of Evolution"

Answer 6

2) DNA is coded into small 3 part segments called codons.



The sequence of these parts are easly altered by natural occurences (like contact with UV light)



When a codon changes, it can change the expression of a characteristic. If this change is favorable, or at least not a negative change, the animal will live and will pass the gene onto future offspring.



And scientific laws only exist when a mathematicla formula is involved. So what you are looking for is called a scientific theory.

Answer 7

a million. Have scientists solved the subject with the lacking hyperlinks in macro evolution? The fossil checklist is incomplete. we will not in any respect have the full tale. there is adequate of the story there so as that we are able to declare that we do certainly share a user-friendly ancestor with chimpanzees. 2. in case you place a great sort of chemical substances at the same time, you do not make existence. The DNA is what places the existence at the same time. How can existence sort from chemical substances? does not or not that's purely a pile of goo? Over a era of roughly seven hundred million years and a lab the dimensions of the planet Earth, there replaced into "organic decision" between molecules and structures of molecules. 3. what's the vast bang concept, and what's precisely their concepts of it and what happened? that's cosmology, not biology. The "universe" replaced into as quickly as plenty smaller and warmer than it fairly is as we talk.

Answer 8

Dear Mr. Creationist (or whatever your handlers tell you to call it this week),



Another 30 board-feet of pasting the same arguments does not change the fact that they are still as wrong as when we debunked them all the first time.



You have absolutely zero ability to comprehend what you paste, and as such, when you come across the same argument already shredded here at a later date it appears brand new to you. It is a truly sad state, and you need to grasp that you only highlight your own mental deficiency by persisting with the cut and paste marathon.



Were you able, on even the simplest level, to grasp the concepts involved, you would recognize the repetitive nature of your posts. As it is, you do not even have that elementary comprehension of the topic at hand.



Sadly, this is how creationism works, they rely on the vehement and vociferous response of their most ignorant and uneducated of followers to speak for them. They pot up the article, fully knowing the lies, distortions, and misleading nature of them and wait for people like you to cry them from the mountaintops.



We know the creationist movement to be dishonest to it's core, because the articles they produce requires a pretty decent knowledge of astronomy, cosmology, geology, anthropology, and a variety of other sciences... yet it is deliberately twisted and distorted in to outright lies. And this is not the type of misunderstanding that comes from a bad grasp of the topic, it required in-depth lies and trickery to produce.



So climb that mountain again, Rainman, and tell us again how wrong we are.

Answer 9

Oh dear - so desperate you are inventing things now.



Even the Pope said a few months ago that evolution existed but pointed out that because it happened over millions of years final proof was unlikely ever to be found.



I suppose you are one of those bad Christians that thinks God was to stupid and unintelligent to use evolution as his tool!!!!!



Interestingly in recent months scientists have discovered one non carbon possibility for life and found helix-es in other primordial matter. What would that do to your lack of faith if they show that life can come from dust?



Fundamentalism is not Christianity but is an ideology which is something entirely different - I do hope that you can rediscover Christianity soon!

Answer 10

I'm not going to waste any more time on this than what I will now. If you are seriously interested in the answers to these questions, which you of course aren't, look up Ribonucleic Acid (RNA) and the Amino Acids. Study the chemistry behind them, why they interact the way that they do, and how it could happen will become clear. We may not know exactly how it happened yet, but at least we try to figure it out. That, after all, shows a hell of a lot more intellectual integrity than saying "God did it."

Answer 11

1. The law of abiogenesis is that rots and vermin arise from existing life. It does not apply to vast, complex, sterile environments over hundreds of millions of years.



2. Gene duplication (observed) and base pair mutation (observed) can both add information to the genome. That is basic information theory.

Answer 12

Can you give me a "scientific law" that explains HOW gravity works? No really, I'm waiting.



We call abiogenesis a hypothesis for a reason you know. Although I will take any natural explanation over "I don't understand it, it must be god".



Your second question makes no sense.

Answer 13

1: First you have to define life, which is notoriously difficult to do because living things are made of what you would call 'non-life'. There is no process or moment which you can define as the instant of transition from non-life to life. It's all the same stuff. This in itself should tell you that life is just a particularly complex and long-lasting manifestation of the physics and chemistry that goes on all the time in 'non-living' matter. In other words, the distinction between life and non-life is one of human definition rather than black-and-white reality.



2: Diploidism would be one such process.

Answer 14

Scientific laws don't state things about complex events such as abiogenesis and genetic mutations. They are about much simpler things (e.g. for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction).

Answer 15

If you even bothered to read one single book on the subject you would find all the answers you need on the subject.



Like most Christians, however, the only book you pick and choose from is that book of contradiction, innacuracy, bloodshed and downright lies that has been rammed down your throat since childhood, called the Bible.



You really are gullible aren't you? I'm guessing you're American.

Answer 16

Evolution is not about the beginning of life. Right now, they haven't discovered how it happened, but they have discovered how evolution happens and it's called natural selection. Evolution is how life has changed through natural selection since it appeared until now.



atheist

Answer 17

Yes, the law for both is call "Evolution".



Can you show me any evidence that would indicate a 6 day creation?



Or a flat earth?

Answer 18

Can you prove Creationism using a credited book and not the bible?????



Please name the law.

Answer 19

Well, OBVIOUSLY we were created by the FSM. That's the only idea that makes any sense!



See? Fighting science doesn't make you even close to right. It still leaves every other explanation as valid as your own.

Answer 20

*drink*



Please read just ONE book on evolution before you come here and pretend like Behe is the thorn in evolutions side. Try The Anscestor's Tale by Dawkins or anything by Steven J. Gould.

Answer 21

All this science and knowledge.... hurts my brain..... Isn't is just easier to say that a pink invisible unicorn created the universe magically out of nothing?

Answer 22

If you read the news you'd have seen the article about space dust randomly collecting and forming DNA like chains.

Answer 23

can you state catagorically that they they don't?

Answer 24

science in the future -



IM YOUR GOD