Evolution in the VERY beginning

As you might find in lots of other places here at EvC -- the utterly correct answer to how near-enough-to-"living" things arose is : "I dunno".However, we have a lot of clues as to how simple replicators could possibly arise and some hints of how cell-like structures might form. Why on earth would you pick "NOTHING" as a starting point?
It is obvious that one can construct scenarios where something like "living" things could arise on their own on an early Earth.The challenge is to nail down one or a few detailed pathways. There are good hints but nothing firm enough yet. Picking a specific path and saying "That's it!" is probably going to remain impossible. We are 4 billion years from the event and it involved some comparitively simple chemistry.If you are talking about the origin of matter and the Earth. That is, again, a separate topic. This forum is about life arising on a suitable planet not the formation of stars and planets.If you don't like the idea of something from "nothing" then you can decide God made whatever came before the big bang. Just be ready to toss your idea out if the cosmologists resolve that one too. You can see lots of discussion on the big bang in the appropriate forum. -- This ain't it!If you could prove that something can't come from nothing without a creator and you could prove that there was 'nothing' as a starting point you would make absolutely no difference to any discussion of evolutionThis message has been edited by NosyNed, 09-28-2005 11:33 PM

The topic here is "evolution in the VERY beginning". If you go back to "nothing" you are before the beginning of evolution; way before!It isn't conducive to coherent discussion to be unable to focus on one area at a time. It is very useful to find the right boundaries of inquiry. If you have trouble with this concept you will have a heck of a time getting your head wrapped around anything of any complexity.Evolution happens to have very easy boundaries. It only discusses 'living' things. It isn't intended to discuss anything else.(Note: 'living' is a bit tricky mind you. No one has defined that very well as far as I know. It's a bit of a "I'll know it when I see it." thing. Of course, this isn't totally true since there are differences of opinion when some of the "greyer" areas are encountered.) Obviously no one expects life to arise from nothing. I can't figure out what you are on about here. It is however, clear and agreed to by all that life arose from something other than nothing.Once there was an earth without life. I and the Bible both agree on that. Then at a later time there was life on earth. We both agree on that. The details are under some minor dispute.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 09-29-2005 12:25 AM

As others have said we know that we don't know how life got started. Even that we may never to able to pin it down to one particular method. However, the research mentioned in this and other threads suggests that we will develop a pretty good understanding of the origin of life over the next few decades.I don't have a problem with "I don't know."However, you should note the absurdity of making a statement like "Given the reality of the improbability of the event," for an event that you don't know (as you had just said) anything about.You've been asked to support your statment about the probability of the event. In these discussion that means you either support your claim or you politely retract it. You can supply the numbers to Jacens(I think it was) who is one of the resident math geeks.

The guidelines require you to support this number. Since I've seen a few of these calculations I'm pretty sure it will turn out (as other posters are hinting at) to have nothing meaningful to do with the origin of life. If the calculations are actually meaningful at all -- they usually are not.After you show the details and they are dismantled you can appologive for being hasty and being fooled.