The real evolution creationism debate?

Question

I want to ask this question because I think the "evolution vs. creationism" debate is very misplaced. Obviously 99.99% of "creationist" have little or no background knowledge about evolution. I do, however. So I, as a creationist, would like to put the debate where it should be. My question is this: Once the modern cell was formed it began to evolve using a set of instructions (RNA and DNA) that could be modified to facilitate evolution. Since these nucleotide sequences are common among all organism it can be assumed that they were around in the first cell. So my questions are these:

How did these polymers form in this "prebiotic soup"?

How did these polymers replicate in the absence of enzymes?

What events triggered the change from RNA enzymes to protein-based enzymes and why?

just a sidenote, I'm not asking this question to prove a point, I realize there won't be any hard evidence, I just want to know what people think or what are the best hypotheses that you've heard explaining these events. Was it God that created the first cell, or was there some other event that created the first cell? What do you think?

Answer 1

I wonder how many answers you will get saying that abiogenesis is not evolution. I totally disagree with that. When people talk about evolution they show a minor variation, then expect us to swallow abiogenesis and huge macro evolution.

Also I think most creationists that actually debate or care to talk about the subject do know quite a bit about evolution and it's teachings.

Good question though, I'm anxious to see some answers!

Add on....

Exellent answer Emily. I think that a lot of people that believe in creation know a lot about evolutionary teachings. I loved evolution for 28 years. Now my faith rests solely in creation. Evolution is not a matter of evidence. It IS a matter of faith in the religion of Naturalism, That is the big point I try to stress. I hope I do not make anyone angry.

Also, genesis cannot be interpreted literally with switching days for millions of years or era's. Read it again carefully. The order of the way things were created are all backwards from the evolutionary theory. Either say it was written purey as a story not to be believed at all or take it literally. You can't just put longer times in the Genesis account.

This also holds to the fact that the world IS ALMOST ALWAYS 180 degrees opposite of the bible. In almost everything and in almost every way.

Answer 2

The truth lies on both sides,its outrageous to watch people debate this issue. Did any human witness these events? Think of it like God created evolution. BTW Ask an atheist what they do believe in and you will always get the same answers; nothing or I don't know.Makes you wonder if we stopped evolving in a positive direction.  

Answer 3

Honestly I don't know the answers to your questions.  Don't think anybody knows, not even the leading scientists in that field, as our science hasn't advanced that far.  That being said, I still find evolution to be far more compelling than any of the religious explanations.

Answer 4

Your claim, "Since these nucleotide sequences are common among all organism it can be assumed that they were around in the first cell" is completely invalid.

That the nucleotide system is universal implies only that there is a common ancestor to all modern life, and NOT that that ancestor was the first cell. It probably was not. You claiming that evolution implies the common ancestor must have been the first cell, fully formed magically from the "prebiotic soup" is strawman.

RNA/DNA probably evolved, alongside and in the presence of enzymes, from more basic schemas present before the common ancestor.

Answer 5

i agree with what you're saying, i also think that God made us just as we are (no monkey ancestors). i think God put simple organisms on earth first, which evolved to more complex organisms, but still same species. then the fossil record pretty much proves that species suddenly appeared on the planet and there isn't any interspecies evolution going on. good question though. and yes i think God created the first cell because He created everything : )

hope that somewhat helped

Answer 6

novangelis is exactly correct.  You are not asking about evolution vs. creationism debate ... you are asking about the abiogenesis vs. creationism debate.

The concept of "evolution" involves the following statements.

1. Species change over time .. i.e. they *evolve*.

2. The main driving force for this change ...this *evolution* is natural selection.

3. Huge amounts of time can produce huge amounts of change.

4. Change + time + isolated populations = speciation ... i.e. if two subpopulations of a species are isolated from each other for long enough, the change can be sufficient to erode the ability to interbreed ... producing separate species.

6. Huge change + huge time + specieation = diverging species ... species that continue to get more and more different over time.

6. Organisms have been evolving and branching, evolving and branching for at lease 3.5 billion years.

7. There is sufficient evidence in the DNA of all living organisms to conclude that they *ALL* originated from a single lineage.

That's it.  

Pretty much the entire scientific community agrees with all 7 statements.

If you concede those 7 statements, then you concede evolution.  Period.

If you dispute any of those 7 statements, THEN you're talking an evolution vs. creationism debate.   And then there is no point in talking about abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis (the origins of the first ancestral cells) is NOT part of this schema for various reasons;

A. The mechanism for abiogenesis is NOT natural selection.  

B. Abiogenesis may well have been a purely random occurrence.  Evolution is NOT purely random (again natural selection).

C. Abiogenesis is not established conclusively (the way evolution is) by evidence.

D. Abiogenesis left no evidence of its occurrence or its mechanism, as far as we know.

E.There is no centrally accepted theory of abiogenesis like there is a centrally accepted theory of evolution.

And the bottom line is this.   Any open questions about abiogenesis do not in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER affect the overwhelming confidence that the scientific community has in those 7 statements above.   If God himself, or a group of deities, or a bunch of scientists from another dimension, came down 3.5 billion years ago and started life ... that would not detract in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER from the fact that we are extremely sure that all modern life forms are the result of at least 3.5 billion years of constant evolution and branching, evolution and branching.

So really, it IS important to keep the concept of evolution (which is absolutely rock solidly accepted by pretty much all scientists) separate from abiogenesis (which is considered an open question).  If you want to debate these things intelligently, then keep the issues separate.

Answer 7

For someone supposing to put the evolution vs creationism debate in the correct context you, apparently, don't know what evolution is.

You are asking about *Abiogenesis* - the origin of life on earth.

This has nothing to do with *Evolution* - how life changes over time.

The theory of evolution does not attempt to describe how life began - only how it changes.

Answer 8

Just as a sideline..if one thinks life forming from a pre-biotic soup is "hard " try forming a PERFECT being..what are the odds then..The old dictum that a creation must have a creator argument cannot be applied since creationists tend to short circuit the whole thing by saying well everything needs a creator except  THE creator . Trying to disprove certain points of a theory without supplying any theory that can account for the "holes " in the theroy under question is not science. Creationsits need to get a hold of themselves , larn about evolution before they just attack it because it undermines their ages held beliefs that have NO evidence and are championed by non-scientific circles.....In so far as SCIENCE is concerned ...given that Science is the exploring of natural phenomena underlying the processes in the Universe..there is NO debate concerning evolution.It is at present the only scientific theory regarding the development of animal diversity. Read  about the National Academy of Sciences, The American Assocation for the Advancement of Science, and many many more scientific organizations for the support of evolution in the manner described. Religion is NOT science ( as explained eloquently in the Dover decision ) and thus has NO place in a science classroom. No more than does astrology, shamanism, or metaphysics

Answer 9

I'm not answering the questions you asked per se: I just want to make a point.

I agree that a lot of creationists don't have a background in evolution.  However, I don't believe a creationist needs a background in evolution.  I, for one, am a creationist with a background in evolution (I have a science degree with a biomedical major, I have honours in microbiology, and I'm working on my PhD in microbiology).  I was as much a creationist before as I am now (if anything, I am more sure that creation is the only theory that makes sense).  The point of creation is belief in the entirety of the Bible - not an understanding and rejection of evolution.

What did creationists do before Darwin?  They didn't care about evolution and they shouldn't now.

Have a great day! =)

Update: Here's a shocking revelation for evolutionists: evolution is a religion.  It's the main alternative to creation (a religion) = evolution is a religion in itself.  We believe God created.  You believe evolution occurred.  That's a religion - a belief in evolution.  Shocking, I know. =)

P.S. Thanks, Jim.  Funny we added similar information at the same time!

P.P.S. To set the record straight, throwing in the term 'abiogenesis' is simply throwing around terminology.  Quite frankly, get a grip!  It's the same straw dog as 'intelligent design'.  Intelligent design = creation (just a softer way of putting it).  Abiogenesis = confusing terminology to try and control debates on creation and evolution.  Just face up to the reality and quit the quibbling over and grandstanding for evolutionary terminology!  Debates over terminology are just arguments for debates within debates - just see the wood for the trees.

Answer 10

This is not an evolution-creation debate.  There is no debate regarding evolution.  This is an abiogenesis-creation debate.

You assume that DNA/RNA/protein were present in the first cell by false reasoning.  It can only be stated that is existed in the last common ancestor to all known life on Earth.  It may well be that the development of a genetic code was such a great advantage that all other life failed to compete.

The RNA world hypothesisizes that there was RNA alone, based on the abilty for RNA to have enzyme-like catalytic activity ("ribozymes").  Ribosomes are protein-RNA aggregates.  Amino acids and peptides may have been incorporated catalytically, until a generalized, encoded  system evolved.

Of course, compounds simpler than RNA can polymerize spontaneously.  Formaldehyde can turn into paraformaldehyde spontaneously.  Tholins, complex organic polymers, were found on the surface of Titan.

The key lies in a chain reaction.  Forming a compound which can catalyze the formation of a similar compound more than once in its mean lifetime with result in more and more of that type of compound in any environment.

Answer 11

To those of us who have thought about this, you're not going to prove much of a point.  This part of the debate is separate from evolutionary theory (which has been thoroughly observed and tested), even though it's taught alongside it.  Because of the nature of the problem, it's difficult, -at best-, to study this using science (though I lean toward impossible).

I don't honestly know where the first cell came from.  It's possible your God created it (I mean no offense by using "your", he's just not mine), or an alien brought it and threw it in the early ocean, or it happened the way I was taught in high school and college, or possibly something else entirely happened.  It's just not something, as a historical, one-time event, we can tackle using the methods of science (observe, hypothesize, test).

Amy: I don't think Darwin was misinterpreted.  Not that I disagree with you as to what he believed, but the process of science takes ideas it can observe and test and runs with them.  Also, evolutionary theory has much more to it than simple Darwinism (though his ideas are part of it), or there wouldn't be whole degree programs on it.  I'm not really sure where the idea of abiogenesis in it's current form really started, but I would say it's not due to misinterpreting Darwin.

Answer 12

first of all, darwin was a christian, he was totally misinterpreted. evolution was his theory of HOW god created man. the big question is in genisis, how long was one day. was it thousands or millions of years, or was it just one day. I am a christian, and I believe in evolution. i just believe that it is how god created man.  

Answer 13

Your question about a deity creating the first cell presumes that there are deities.  While there is no concrete evidence at the moment about how the first events leading to life happened, there is no physical evidence whatsoever for the existence of any deities.  Thus, to show that a deity may have created the first life form, one must first show that there are deities.  This demonstration must include a lot of positive physical evidence, not just questions of faith.  Once deities have been shown to exist by the preponderance of physical evidence, then one can ask for the physical evidence that they created life.