Confused help me out.....

[vargo]

The irreducible complexity problem would be solved by enzymes evolving into cells. Natural selection pressures favor an active site of a protein, so even the chemical reactions can end up competing for available resources. An enzyme molecule that can better attract the friendly to it molecules would have a higher survival rate. RNA and other catalytic molecules can likewise have a higher survival rate this way.

My question is this; if this is true, why haven't we seen life being created this way over and over? Why was it just a one time event?

[Eleas]

The irreducible complexity problem would be solved by enzymes evolving into cells.

Untrue. The "problem" is wholly rhetorical in nature; it exists nowhere else.

[Surlethe]

My question is this; if this is true, why haven't we seen life being created this way over and over? Why was it just a one time event?

Because single-celled organisms effectively take up that niche?

[Admiral Valdemar]

It only has to happen once. Tell me why we don't see piston-engined fighterplanes anymore. Probably because jet fighters surpassed them in ability and no one goes for second best. Even the most basic prokaryotes will outdo the proposed protobionts thought of today.

[Wyrm]

My question is this; if this is true, why haven't we seen life being created this way over and over? Why was it just a one time event?

Because organisms today are very efficient at scavanging the types of prebiotic chemicals that would form totally new life. Plus, the environment where abiogenesis occurs is not the environment today; far too much oxygen.

[Rye]

My question is this; if this is true, why haven't we seen life being created this way over and over? Why was it just a one time event?

Atmospheric oxygen as it stands is toxic to the formation of early life, plus, as has been said, the seas are already full of organisms that already utilise the same sorts of chemical reactions that protolife would.

It's also possible it did happen a few times in early earth history, just that it was killed off, outcompeted, or some sideways transmission occurred and produced one overall lineage.

Alternatively, it's just a really rare event. Something being rare doesn't make irreducible complexity a more valid idea.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

The irreducible complexity problem would be solved by enzymes evolving into cells. Natural selection pressures favor an active site of a protein, so even the chemical reactions can end up competing for available resources. An enzyme molecule that can better attract the friendly to it molecules would have a higher survival rate. RNA and other catalytic molecules can likewise have a higher survival rate this way.

My question is this; if this is true, why haven't we seen life being created this way over and over? Why was it just a one time event?

Simple, because any life more primitive than the level represented by bacteria and archeans is sufficiently inefficient that the latter will curbstomp it in any competition for resources. And it's been mentioned that free oxygen is quite destructive to organic materials that aren't incorporated in organisms who evolved to cope with free oxygen. Pre-life Earth was had almost zero free oxygen anywhere. In fact, the atmosphere was toxic to us contemporary aerobic metabolism sorts.

[Darth Wong]

Is vargo really so dense as to not understand the enormously increased difficulty of abiogenesis in an already-competitive environment? It sounds to me like he's either been taken in by idiot creationist propaganda or he's a creationist himself who is trying to appear reasonable by phrasing creationist bullshit in the form of a question rather than a bald-faced claim.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Simple, because any life more primitive than the level represented by bacteria and archeans is sufficiently inefficient that the latter will curbstomp it in any competition for resources. And it's been mentioned that free oxygen is quite destructive to organic materials that aren't incorporated in organisms who evolved to cope with free oxygen. Pre-life Earth was had almost zero free oxygen anywhere. In fact, the atmosphere was toxic to us contemporary aerobic metabolism sorts.

That remains the case with many anaerobic organisms too where they will quickly die off if exposed to air. Facultative anaerobes can get around this, but they are, naturally, a more advanced organism than a simple anaerobe or anything we imagine started in the primordial soup (or sludge, whatever you view it as now). When you have advanced technology a certain way, you don't go back. The only way I could see this point being contested is by having someone ask why bacteria still exist, to which you must respond that bacteria are probably the most perfect organism around and won't be surpassed by mammals, so cannot be made obsolete (except through genetically engineered microbes that could do stuff not naturally selected for; such is the danger of GE organisms, there are no recalls).

[vargo]

Is vargo really so dense as to not understand the enormously increased difficulty of abiogenesis in an already-competitive environment? It sounds to me like he's either been taken in by idiot creationist propaganda or he's a creationist himself who is trying to appear reasonable by phrasing creationist bullshit in the form of a question rather than a bald-faced claim.

Hey I'm not tying to pick fights here, I'm hoping to understand more about ID/Evolution, I believe in Evolution, and I'm not a creationist. I sometimes stumble across information, that I don't understand.
This forum at times explains things in more in a "Layman terms".

I do not claim to know everything, I try to find information on my own, but like said I come across something's that need more explanation. And I feel this forum is a very valuable source of good information.

Thanks to you Mr. Wrong.
I used your website so many times for good references and I use your site to help me along with some Creation arguments.

Please don't ridicule me for joining the game late. Please allow me to catch up

[Surlethe]

Hey I'm not tying to pick fights here, I'm hoping to understand more about ID/Evolution, I believe in Evolution, and I'm not a creationist. I sometimes stumble across information, that I don't understand.
This forum at times explains things in more in a "Layman terms".

Just a little point here: evolution is not something one must "believe". It requires neither more faith nor more belief than going about everyday life, precisely because the theory of evolution is a product of the scientific method, which (in a somewhat degenerate form) is precisely what people use daily to function.

[Darth Raptor]

The notion that life cannot come from non-life is practically a law of biology. In order for abiogenesis to occur, you need conditions drastically different from modern Earth. You need a planet that's virtually unrecognizable. After all, oxygen is a highly corrosive gas- and any organic macromolecules to form today would be promptly eaten by the extant organisms.