derrick09 wrote:Hello again, here is another add on question to the questionnaire (I swear this is the last one)...
What is your most convincing theory for the origin of life?
From what I've studied thus far the best answer I could give would be that it started either with a primordial soup in oceans or lakes, or that it came from somewhere else in space via a meteor or asteroid, or that it started in volcanoes. Let me know if you would like to elaborate on these or add something completely different. Thank you all for your time and responses.
Unfortunately people fail to read the science books that talk about the origin's of life.. Although they don't call it abiogenesis anymore, it is still clearly being taught in biology classes along with evolutionary theory. Darwinian evolution is the philosophical glue that holds it all together (supposedly). This college Biology book below called "Biology: Concepts and Connections" (copyright 2008) explains very clearly the origin and evolution of microbial life through prokaryotes and protists. If want you to purchase this book then read the various sections on "The Origin of Species" and the "The Origin and Evolution of Microbial Life:
This is clearly an evolutionary process from the books perspective. The whole chapter devotes itself to evolution and how life arose from nonliving matter… Evolution IS being used by scientists to explain the origins of life.. Plain and simple.
“Similar experiments using various atmospheric conditions have also produced mixtures of organic compounds. Scientists now think that the composition of the atmosphere of early Earth was somewhat different from what Miller assumed in his historic first experiment. There is growing evidence that the early atmosphere was made up primarily of N2 and CO2, and so far, Miller-Urey-type experiments using such atmospheres have not produced organic molecules. Still, it is possible that small "pockets" of the early atmosphere-perhaps near volcanic openings-were similar to those used by Miller.
Alternatively, submerged volcanoes and deep-sea hydrothermal vents-gaps in the Earth's crust where hot water and minerals gush into deep oceans-may have provided the initial chemical resources for life. Such environments are among the most extreme in which life exists today, and some researchers favor the hypothesis that life may have begun in similar regions on early Earth.
Miller-Urey-type experiments demonstrate that the abiotic synthesis of organic molecules is possible. Support for this idea also comes from analyses of the chemical composition of meteorites. Fragments of a 4.5-billion-year-old meterorite collected in 1969 contain more than 80 amino acids. Remarkably, the proportions of these amino acids are similar to those produced in the Miller-Urey experiments.- ”Biology: Concepts and Connections" (copyright 2008) Pg. 295.
My anthropology book, called the “Essentials of Physical Anthropology” clearly says on pages 45 that all life on earth can be traced back at least 3.7 billion years, in the form of prokaryotic cells.. Structurally more complex cells appeared approximately 1.2 billion years ago, and these are referred to a eukaryotic cells in which all species arose from early prokaryotes over the course of time.
Recently in testing of clay catalysis hypothesis, David Deemer from UCSC, added a mixture of proteins, DNA and cell membranes to a little hot puddle (Kamchatka, Russia). “The “soup” ingredients largely disappeared in a few hours as they were stuck to the clay and couldn't assemble.” Science (2006) 311: 1081.
Darwin recognized how serious the Abiogenesis problem was for his theory, and once even conceded that all existing terrestrial life must have descended from some primitive life form that was called into life “by the Creator” from the Conclusion from his book “Origin of Species."
Now Darwin did pose philosophical and theological questions for the origin's of life. Science books such as "Biology: Concepts and Connections" are trying to give ultimate explanations for the origin of life and clearly omit any intelligent designer from the books thus trying to pass off a philosophical/theological question as science or their science. And we can see this science is atheistic or atheistic evolution as opposed to Darwin's theistic evolution.