Evolution Hole #1 - Origin of Life

by shadow 90 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  konceptual99

  Are you able read? English?

  I can read and I am English. Is that what you were asking?

  depressingly predictable instant reaction . . . . .

  No. Despite your disclaimer, what you actually quoted from the Cambridge Dictionary has nothing to do with the origin of life. Despite your disclaimer, the thread title has everything to do with Abiogenesis.

  What I find not at all credible is that there is some supernatural being out there who went to all the trouble of putting stuff on the Earth, created a being capable of understanding something about that stuff but is happy to continue to let those beings endure the worst shit imaginable when it is 100% in his power to stop it, just so he can be Billy Big Bollocks and not lose a bet.
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  Not sure that evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life - let's think it through.

  Natural selection acts on individual organisms but only populations evolve. At the origin of life, were there any populations of organisms? Likely not.

  Dawkins thinks the accumulation of layers of minerals over time was a sort of pre-evolution evolution - someone needs to go into detail and explain this.
• 

  shadow

  "In discussing how this house got to be here in its present state, we must only talk about how it was remodeled. Its construction is totally off limits, irrelevant and is not connected to the present situation." Really???
  
• 

  Hadriel

  Just as a matter of clarity here, I'm no expert in the area whatsoever, however when I think of evolution I do also think of how evolution started. Perhaps where the bridge is gapped is in that there is more than one there theory as to how it kicked off. The point is abiogenesis sometimes gets bundled with other theories. At least for me that's how I think of it. it's I'm sure technically wrong.

  In short I don't see how evolution (natural selection, life creating life yada yada) happens without some sort of event where non-living elements result in protozoan that then subsequently all life was formed.

  It started somehow regardless of what you call it.
• 

  enigma1863

  Does the theory of gravity require the origin of planets. Is the atomic theory full of holes without knowing the origin of atoms. Is meteorology useless without knowing the origin of all the water?
• 

  shadow

  Does the evolution of the universe require thinking about how it started?
  
• 

  Joe Grundy

  I never was a JW.

  A few days ago, my son (who works nights) was awakened by dubs at the door. He reminded them politely but forcefully that he had asked them not to call. 'Sorry', said the guy 'But there are a lot of us'. My son pointed out that the 'silent sister' with him was there last time when he had (again) asked them not to call.

  The guy offered to discuss stuff - even said he had read 'The God Delusion' (Dawkins). My son told him that there was no point in discussion, even at a suitable time, because while he (my son) was prepared to change his opinion in the light of evidence the JW never would be.

  They left a WT (No.1 2016 'Why Be Honest') and 'Was Life Created', which he passed on to me.

  These publications are a joke. I really don't have the motivation or the interest or the time to go through them paragraph by paragraph for a critical review. I feel sorry for the dubs who peddle this crap and, TBH, if they come to my door and admit that they're dubs my response is 'I'm sorry'.

  IMHO and IME it really is not worth discussing these issues with dubs.
  
• 

  Anders Andersen

  For those saying that evolution cannot have happened because we don't know how life started:

  Suppose we find a dead body with multiple bullet holes and knife wounds in a room sealed shut from the inside, and no weapons are found anywhere.
  

  Should we conclude this person was not killed or is not currently dead just because we can't explain yet where the weapons are, or who did it, or how the room was locked from the inside?

  
  

  Should we rejects all the facts that show us how life evolved , just because we don't know (yet) how it started?

  Should we reject the facts for the existence of gravity, because we don't know how/why gravity works?

  
  

  And if you can't accept that organic life (which is basically a collection of self-replicating molecules) came from non-replicating molecules, and argue that it can't be true because we don't exactly know how it happened, please explain to us the mechanism by which non-organic life (e.g. God) started.

  Because if you can't explain how non-organic life started, all that follows (e.g. Bible, religion) cannot be true either...

  So, my current position is:

  • Start of spiritual life: Please provide evidence of existence first
  • Start of organic life: some ideas, nothing conclusive yet...
  • Evolution of life: as much evidence as there is for the existence of gravity. Fact.
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  Does the evolution of the universe require thinking about how it started?

  This thread is presumably a response to Cofty's 'evolution is a fact' series that presents evidence for biological evolution.

  You have so far been keen to discuss abiogenesis and evolution of the universe (both examples of non-biological evolution, if they are examples of evolution at all).

  Again, I don't mind discussing abiogenesis or the origin of the Solar System but none of that would disprove Cofty's points or make his threads meaningless.
• 

  shadow

  Thus, both positions are a matter or faith re: the origin of life. I say the evidence points to the fact that life will not develop from inanimate matter. This leads to the conclusion that life began via creation. Do I pretend to understand this creator and how the creator originated? Not at all and why should humans expect to? What have humans discovered about our place in the universe? We can't even begin to comprehend the visible universe.