Explaining the origin of first living organism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter farukmert
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Organism Origin
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the analogy of building a structure without a ground floor to critique the theory of evolution, particularly its lack of explanation for the origin of the first living organism. Participants argue that evolution describes the process of change in organisms over time, not their initial creation. The analogy is deemed flawed, as evolution does not require an explanation of life's origins to function as a scientific theory. The conversation highlights that while the origin of life is a separate area of inquiry, there are scientific theories, such as prebiotic chemistry and the RNA world hypothesis, that explore it. The debate touches on the nature of scientific theories, emphasizing that they can be testable and disprovable, unlike the analogy presented. Overall, the discussion underscores the distinction between the processes of evolution and the origins of life, asserting that both are valid areas of scientific exploration.
farukmert
I ask for a brief answer; can you build a building without ground floor? you cannot. how can you build a theory without explaining the origin of first living organism? Give me a logical answer
 
Physics news on Phys.org
farukmert said:
I ask for a brief answer; can you build a building without ground floor? you cannot. how can you build a theory without explaining the origin of first living organism? Give me a logical answer
Because it's not necessary, trying to compare the two is nonsense.
 
farukmert said:
I ask for a brief answer; can you build a building without ground floor? you cannot. how can you build a theory without explaining the origin of first living organism? Give me a logical answer

because evolution only addresses what happens to an organism since the creation of life on earth. it is looking at the progression of life and the system that makes it operate, not how the organism got here.

you can insert god, space aliens, or anything else you like, but evolution does not care.
 
Last edited:
doe snot?

That and evolution isn't a physical structure. That kind of kills that comparison.
 
Even though the challenge is specious, I'll point out that I've seen a lot of buildings without a ground floor. And that's not even counting tree-houses.
 
good thing there is an edit :-D
 
farukmert said:
I ask for a brief answer; can you build a building without ground floor? you cannot. how can you build a theory without explaining the origin of first living organism? Give me a logical answer
Silly and flawed analogies are just that, not science.
 
Creation?
 
farukmert said:
I ask for a brief answer; can you build a building without ground floor? you cannot. how can you build a theory without explaining the origin of first living organism? Give me a logical answer
You are right!

I cannot believe I ever believed in science, thanks for sheding some light :rolleyes:
 
  • #10
farukmert said:
I ask for a brief answer; can you build a building without ground floor? you cannot. how can you build a theory without explaining the origin of first living organism? Give me a logical answer

If that is the best argument you can come up with, please give up and leave us alone now.
 
  • #11
farukmert said:
I ask for a brief answer; can you build a building without ground floor? you cannot. how can you build a theory without explaining the origin of first living organism? Give me a logical answer

Evolution is how something evolves, not how it FIRST got there... A change in the DNA of a population.

It explains the process, and it makes perfect sense.
 
  • #12
Well, it looks like every who has replied here has a good grasp on it. The origin of life is not part of the theory of evolution. Evolution is how species change over time.

Trying to rebut evolution because we don't know how the first organism came to exist would be like rebutting the law of gravity because we don't know how the universe began.
 
  • #13
I'd like to point out that we have some good leads on how the first organism came to exist. Searching on PubMed with words like "Prebiotic chemistry" "RNA world" "origins of life" yields a wealth of reports.

Of course, I generally agree that this is a different area of scientific inquiry ... with the caveat that "survival of the fittest" could apply as well to self-replicating RNA molecules as it does to living organisms. It is possible that evolutionary processes may arguably predate life as we define it.
 
  • #14
farukmert said:
I ask for a brief answer; can you build a building without ground floor? you cannot. how can you build a theory without explaining the origin of first living organism? Give me a logical answer

I thought we already have a theory on that... but not really anything to do with Evolution.
 
  • #15
farukmert said:
I ask for a brief answer; can you build a building without ground floor? you cannot. how can you build a theory without explaining the origin of first living organism? Give me a logical answer
Heard of Electronics ?

It explains every detail of the working of your computer but guess what ... it doesn't tell you the name of the worker in an assembly plant in Indonesia who mounted the fan in the back of your case.
 
  • #16
Pengwuino said:
I thought we already have a theory on that... but not really anything to do with Evolution.
Does it have a testable prediction that would allow us to disprove it?
 
  • #17
pattylou said:
Does it have a testable and disprovable prediction?

Your the biologists! What are you asking me for :-p

Isnt the theory like... something hits the Earth with this atom (florine?) and it combined with the other atoms necessary for life and after a while, life was created. Guess it doesn't really predict anything other then life is possible elsewhere.. and unless you want to start pelting planets that looked like Earth from waaaaay back then with meteorites, i don't think its realistically testable.

Scientific enough for you? Geez!
 
  • #18
Pengwuino said:
Your the biologists! What are you asking me for :-p
Isnt the theory like... something hits the Earth with this atom (florine?) and it combined with the other atoms necessary for life and after a while, life was created. Guess it doesn't really predict anything other then life is possible elsewhere.. and unless you want to start pelting planets that looked like Earth from waaaaay back then with meteorites, i don't think its realistically testable.
Scientific enough for you? Geez!
Nah, that's great! Yes, it has a testable prediction. We ought to be able to disprove it.

I thought you were alluding to God and creationism. :biggrin:
 
  • #19
pattylou said:
Nah, that's great! Yes, it has a testable prediction. We ought to be able to disprove it.
I thought you were alluding to God and creationism. :biggrin:

Pff, typical :rolleyes:
 
  • #20
Gokul43201 said:
it doesn't tell you the name of the worker in an assembly plant in Indonesia who mounted the fan in the back of your case.
I'm not entirely convinced that there is a fan in his case.:-p
 

Similar threads

News Is organic food really linked to a lower risk of cancer?
Replies
4
Views
2K
News Sydney Brenner: Pioneering Biolgist Who Developed C. Elegans Model Organism
Replies
1
Views
2K
How Can We Deal w/ Volatile Organic Compounds in Homes?
Replies
10
Views
2K
Have you ever revisited your childhood home and found it unrecognizable?
Replies
3
Views
2K
ArsTechnica Article on Backing Up Your Stuff via BeeStation
Replies
6
Views
2K
B PV cell charge separation by an external electric field
Replies
13
Views
2K
The actual prospect of autonomous cars?
Replies
40
Views
3K
Has this Twitter account been hacked?
Replies
12
Views
2K
Judge gets scientific method better than scientists
Replies
6
Views
2K
Meet the xenobots - reconfigurable organisms
Replies
2
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top