https://www.facebook.com/TheSkepticSun/videos/718881031647822/

Theory of evolution says matter combined with energy can create life. Guy takes a jar of peanut butter and says, here is matter. When it's exposed to light it doesn't create life, fortunately. The entire food industry is dependent upon matter not turning into life when it's exposed to energy.

Uh, how many bacteria are in the peanut butter?
They're alive. And there are 10 times more of them inside of you than there are human cells. If it wasn't for bacteria, we couldn't digest the peanut butter.

What about viruses?
Are they alive? Science can't give us a definitive answer. But they do have DNA and RNA inside of them, even though they cannot reproduce on their own, they know how to reproduce really well, and evolve. The fact we can't "cure" the common cold virus, because it adapts too quickly to changes, should be ample evidence of that.

Life from non-life?
If a virus contains all the DNA code necessary to create life, yet isn't really alive, couldn't it be like a tiny sperm, which combined with another half of a DNA double helix from another virus, create life from non-life?

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Theory of evolution says matter combined with
> energy can create life.

Well, no...
The "theory of evolution" explains how life (once it already exists in some form or another) changes over time.
It says nothing whatsoever about how that life came to be.

The field of "biogenesis" tackles finding out how life came to be. Not evolution.

So the premise is rather silly right from the get-go -- the guy doesn't even know what evolution addresses.

Just to clarify, that wasnt my argument, it was the premis of his argumentvagainst evolution, which was novel onevto me.
I thiught i had heard, read every stupid argument against evolution ever made but like Einstein said, "only two things in the universe are infinite, human stupidity and the universe itself and

Yeah, I know.
It was his premise I was pooh-poohing :)

We were discussing mitochondrial DNA (16,569 "base pairs"; Ha! I remembered!), and he told me what new stuff he'd learned in order to "bring himself up to speed" on the current state of the science in human DNA. In other words, he did his homework for his presentation.

He looked me right in the eye and said they had come up with some really strong evidence for the "extra-cellular" origins of mtDNA; that they'd discovered a bacterium (I believe) that contained the same sequences as ancient mitochondrial DNA, and "way back in the primordial soup" this organism had "joined" with another already capable of self-replication via nuclear--autosomal--DNA.

Mitochondria are the "energy sources" that drive a cell's metabolism, so the effect would've been to "jump start" cellular activity, and the result was the "beginning" of the process of evolution as we understand it.

We walk with giants, honest.

There are more flaws in this argument than there are bacteria in the human body. For example, how would he know upon opening a jar of peanut butter that there is no new life in there? Since many life forms are microscopic.

Here's my example:

Holly Berry, a girl in my seminary class said: "Scientists say that monkeys turn into people. But monkeys are still monkeys when they die. Scientists are stupid."

La Grande, OR, 1972

I'm pretty sure the guy thinks evolution says we came from monkeys. those morons have a strawman for everything.