What do you think happens after death?

[Teuthida]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Teuth, thanks for repeating my Intro to Bio class from 10th grade.

As part of this conversation, lets also consider the idea of infinite complexity. If it is true all life began as a single celled organism, that is certainly far more basic than we multi-celled organisms, but is it really simple? Even a single cell is a home to thousands of processes, actions and reactions. All of which controlled and cobbled together by DNA, a blueprint so complex that we still have yet to decode it with all our tehnological might.

So, if evolution started with a single cell, who designed the single cell, or as is often the argument was that just a happy accident? If it was, how can you consider an accident in scientific equations, experimentations and thought and not the equally nebulous idea of God?

As for the self-replicating amino acids, yes I understand we've been able to do so. We've been able to design, control and create the results. To use an term misused by those on both sides of the discusion, there is an "intelligent design". The same case could be made for God if the universe was his petri dish. To my knowledge we've yet to observe this take place as a natural occurence or seen that the replication would lead to anything more even in a controlled environment, but I'll admit to not reading much on the subject.

Heh, I was about to suggest you just reading a bio text book.

Yeah, I don't believe scientists ever created an actual one culled organism. There could be a multitude of variables from the Earth's heyday they didn't do right. Ah yup:

There is no truly "standard model" of the origin of life. Most currently accepted models draw at least some elements from the framework laid out by the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. Under that umbrella, however, are a wide array of disparate discoveries and conjectures such as the following, listed in a rough order of postulated emergence:

1. Some theorists suggest that the atmosphere of the early Earth may have been chemically reducing in nature, composed primary of methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), water (H2O), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbon dioxide (CO2) or carbon monoxide (CO), and phosphate (PO43-), with molecular oxygen (O2) and ozone (O3) either rare or absent.
2. In such a reducing atmosphere, electrical activity can catalyze the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.
3. Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can spontaneously form lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane.
4. A fundamental question is about the nature of the first self-replicating molecule. Since replication is accomplished in modern cells through the cooperative action of proteins and nucleic acids, the major schools of thought about how the process originated can be broadly classified as "proteins first" and "nucleic acids first".
5. The principal thrust of the "nucleic acids first" argument is as follows:
1. The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis)
2. Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity might have resulted in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. The first ribosome might have been created by such a process, resulting in more prevalent protein synthesis.
3. Synthesized proteins might then outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer, relegating nucleic acids to their modern use, predominantly as a carrier of genomic information.

As of 2009, no one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach"). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be short on specifics. However, some researchers are working in this field, notably Steen Rasmussen at Los Alamos National Laboratory and Jack Szostak at Harvard University. Others have argued that a "top-down approach" is more feasible. One such approach, attempted by Craig Venter and others at The Institute for Genomic Research, involves engineering existing prokaryotic cells with progressively fewer genes, attempting to discern at which point the most minimal requirements for life were reached. The biologist John Desmond Bernal coined the term Biopoesis for this process, and suggested that there were a number of clearly defined "stages" that could be recognised in explaining the origin of life.

* Stage 1: The origin of biological monomers
* Stage 2: The origin of biological polymers
* Stage 3: The evolution from molecules to cell

Bernal suggested that evolution may have commenced early, some time between Stage 1 and 2.

So keep on believing there was a God factor until they finally (if ever) figure it out.

Now I'm off to draw comics!

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Teuthida

Heh, I was about to suggest you just reading a bio text book.

This is a common misunderstanding from many atheists about those that consider God as an alternative. My questions don't come from having not been educated on the matter, there are many biologists who who will point out the flaws in how we treat evolutionary theory, they come from formal and independent study and questioning things, and then treating unproven scientific assumptions with the same skepticism you would treat religious assumptions.

On a side note, besides a few college courses on biology, much of the exploration that led to to question assumed scientific fact has come from independent study. Also, I have not attended church since I was about 8 years old, but have looked to find my own way philosphically and spiritually as well. I think this has helped me remain objective and avoid indoctrination from either perspective.

So keep on believing there was a God factor until they finally (if ever) figure it out.

I'll admit those were some very well written and reasoned guesses you quoted... but they still remain guesses.

Also, I don't remember ever stating as part of this discussion that I believed there was a God factor, I merely said I'm open to the possibility and I have presented the contrarian point of view. Normally I'd say keeping one's options open would be considered a reasonable scientific practice when nothing has yet to be proven. But it seems blinders are the rule of the day when it comes to what can and cannot be considered.