AuldSoul,
This is going to be a long post, but I will try and address the issues you brought up as they are excellent questions to ask. First I’d like to say that you obviously seem genuinely interested in science and how things work and that is a passion we both share. I cannot disprove that God exists, I merely point out that there is also no way to prove that he does exist.
Which, except for the fact that lots more people agree with these invented terms, is ultimately a no more "real" explanation of things than the story of the Great Mantis Father vomiting out everything that exists. If you invent the nature of the world as you go by coming up with new terms and definitions to describe what you see and feel and test for, you will obviously arrive at a universe which you believe to be absent anything you cannot see, feel, and test for.
The point you raise is philosophically interesting but not valid scientifically. There are many processes and forces in science which cannot be seen and some cannot even be measured, but we know they exist from the way other things we can measure react. The idea that the only reality that exists in our head is a silly argument, while not unprovable it serves no purpose to consider such arguments. It may be true that I cannot disprove certain ideas, but that does not give the ideas any credence. For example I can say that Jesus was a closet homosexual, of course I have no proof, but you cannot disprove it either. One would not argue that the theory of the ‘Great Mantis Father’ be taught in schools because it serves no purpose. The point you miss with science is that it does serve a purpose, just look at all the technological advances that have come about do to scientific understanding. No such advances have occurred from religion, except in the form of art and literature (which are not unimportant by any means).
In physics, is a "force" physical or spiritual, and where do forces come from?
Forces are mathematical constructs to describe real world physical phenomena, for example, gravity is clearly observable, yet it cannot be seen or touched. It can be described mathematically and to a degree explained philosophically (thanks to Einstein) but it is not spiritual. Gravity results from mass warping space-time which causes objects less massive to fall towards it (according to Einstein). While not a physical force and merely a mathematical model, it none the less arises from real physical and observable matter.
But science will not accept the posibility that just as a dog has limitations in its perceptions that prevent it from grasping the world it lives in fully, we might have the same sort of limitations. So science can never prove the existence of more reality that exists outside our perceptions.
I would disagree with this statement, much of what science has discovered goes way beyond our ability as humans to comprehend, just look at quantum mechanics. Scientist by there very nature keep an open mind about these subjects. It’s a silly argument to say that scientist are limited by their inability to measure what cannot be measured, because if it cannot be measured either directly or indirectly it has no bearing on how perceivable physical reality works. That is the original argument I made about God in the first place, that if he does exist, his existence isn’t provable.
I would love to consider the sources that you have read suggesting bacteria can arise from amino acids. As far as knew the furthest they've gotten is creating circumstances under which the basis of single proteins form, which are only the building blocks of bacteria. I wasn't aware there was a theory (perhaps hypotheses, but not a theory) that explained how these strands became a bacteria or any other form of life. I'm willing to learn, though. Please share the current theory that describes a single cell's formation, then describe how it becomes animated after formation (or during the process of formation), then describe the development, under current theory, of cellular division.
I assume your not asking this question as a means to discredit science by pointing out various unanswered questions or trying to argue specifics but that you have a sincere desire to know about this field, so I will explain the best I can in simple terms. Currently our best theories about the evolution of bacteria (or prokaryota in more general terms) have to do with self replicating RNA. For most of the 20th century it was firmly believed that only proteins can act as reaction catalysts (enzymes) in biological systems, but then in 1981 Sidney Altman, and in 1982 Thomas Cech, discovered two different RNA enzymes (ribozymes), which are not proteins. Altman and Cech shared the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1989 for their discoveries.
Ribozymes (not to be confused with riboSOMES) are catalytic RNA molecules that can promote specific biochemical reactions without the need for ancillary proteins. The RNA-catalyzed reactions can either be intramolecular (autocatalytic), e.g., self-splicing or self-cleaving, or intermolecular, using other RNA molecules as substrates and involving multiple turnovers of the ribozyme. This last case is an example of a true enzymatic reaction, since the catalyst (the ribozyme) is recovered unchanged after each reaction and can thus catalyze many reactions.
The following points are made by E.A. Schultes and D.P. Bartel (Science 2000 289:448):
1) The authors report a single RNA nucleotide sequence that can assume either one of two ribozyme folds and catalyze two respective reactions (a ligation reaction and a cleavage reaction). The authors make the following points:
2) The authors report the two ribozyme folds share no apparent evolutionary history and are completely different, with no base pairs (and probably no hydrogen bonds) in common. Minor variants of this sequence are highly active for one or the other reaction, and can be accessed from prototype ribozymes through a series of neutral mutations. The implication, the authors suggest, is that in the course of evolution, new RNA folds could arise from preexisting folds without the need to carry inactive intermediate sequences. The authors suggest this raises the possibility that biological RNAs having no structural or functional similarity might share a common ancestry, and that, furthermore, functional and structural evolutionary divergence might in some cases precede rather than follow gene duplication.
3) The authors point out that their findings concerning ribozymes raises the question of whether similar possibilities exist in proteins. Some peptide segments can assume very different folds within larger proteins or ribonucleoprotein contexts. The authors point out, however, that no protein sequence is known to autonomously assume two different enzymatic folds and catalyze two respective reactions, and that it is questionable whether such a protein sequence could be found. "The chemical diversity of the 20 amino acid subunits may restrict the conformational options of protein sequences. The 20 amino acids have characteristic propensities to form *alpha-helical or beta-sheet secondary structure. They also differ in water solubility, which may explain why the most dramatic protein conformational changes... result in insoluble aggregates. In contrast, the roles of the 4 RNA nucleotides in forming *secondary and tertiary structure are less specialized. Hence, the lack of chemical diversity among the 4 RNA nucleotides, often cited as a disadvantage for developing efficient catalysis, allows for comprehensive conformational flexibility, leading to the intersection of ribozyme folding [possibilities; "networks"] and making RNA an attractive biopolymer for the birth of new functional folds in early evolution."
(