What is the evolutionist's point of view on how life came to be on earth?
916303
click here for 2 different point of view:http://www.nwcreation.net/articles/howlifebegin.html
471771
Sure, that's what God is. Continual evolution. Just look at the past few hundred years. Have not humans evolved with our discoveries and ways of thinking? I dont think you could just say that is made from order and chaos. It is creative. Life is creative and evolving, therefore God made evolution so humanity can continually change and improve itself.
341923
And that's only the pick of the Iceberg...There are many more issues that goes in other directions than with the Theory of Evolution.  In Scientific-historical terms, we still think that the Earth is flat and that it is the center of the Universe.  Your question has a great value for the Genius curious minds that doesn't stop in the established Scientific Dogmas. You're getting somewhere...
113540
I also feel that both theories can exist together.  Evolution does NOT answer where and how life began, and where and how our humanity began.  Yet, the physical evidence of evolution is undeniable.  \n\nI'm agnostic, but feel that there is something more than chance that led to our existence.
20811
Creationism and evolution are unrelated theories, describing entirely two different things. Creationism says that god created the universe and life on earth.\n\nEvolution says that once life started on earth, however that may have happened, certain natural processes started taking place in which new species evolved. This is undisputable and supported completely by the fossil record. HOW the new species came about has not been completely shown and is a matter of much contention among scientists. It is possible that some supernatural force is behind it, but we will likely never know.
1057388
Genesis 1: 1 states: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."\n\nThis statement has never been disproven.  Therefore the answer to your question is that the universe as we know it is a creation of God.\n\nJust as a sidenote, if the theory of evolution was true,then why don't we have evidence of the continuation of evolution.  Seen any talking monkeys lately? Fish coming out of the water and walking around on the shore? How about alligators and crocodiles? They have been the same for thousands of years...does that mean that they have evolved to a state of perfection? I dont think so.\n\nBottomline is "If you believe in a higher being, i.e. "God", then you have to believe His word. Otherwise it doesnt really matter does it?"\n\nHave a great day!
427234
The Book of Genesis deals with the fact that God created the earth. It was written in a manner that could be understood by primitive wandering cultures. Now we can say that the Bible is wrong about creation or that science does not have it right as far as creation is concerned. I don't agree with either point. I believe the best way to look at this is God created everything. How God did this, is still a mystery to we humans that are His  one of His creations.\n\nEvolution is a theory that is still listed as unproven. This means that Evolution is our best guess at this time with the evidence we now have of how our world and the life within it came into being and now exists. It does not mean that it is the way it happened. As with the Bible we have to live in faith.
1035063
No evidence of God, this is the point.  It's about belief despite there being no proof.  \n\nI don't believe in God but I don't think that even if there was one anyone could prove the existence..\n\nUsing the human body as 'evidence' is just farcical - yes, it did happen through evolution - look at all the mistakes along the way!  Look at all the barren planets and planetless suns if you want proof that life isn't premeditated - it takes a lot of chances to come together to create life, not a 'creator'.\n\nBesides, if there is a creator I don't think much of 'his' design - bit faulty.  Too prone to disease, accident and mental disorder.\n\nYES I BELIEVE DARWIN as do most sane people.  It's ludicrous to expect people actually to believe that some creator built a world in seven days - here we have actual proof, not stories, of what happened.  Besides, for those of you who seem to think that the world was made by God, who made God?  You're question (which you seem to think is so unanswerable) about 'do you think you just popped into being' should be turned to 'God' - so 'God' just popped into being, hmmm?  The earth developed by itself - it was not created.
530502
Ok, your question is very interesting and i think many people are thinking that you are jocking or crazy. Ok I will explain you some points:\n\n1.Fracis Crick, co-descovered ot the DNA structure says" The ADN structure could not have evolutioned in the earth in only 300 million of years, is very structured and developed to have been evolutioned in the eart in so short time."\n\n2.Probably the most certain theory about the origin of the life and the species in the earth is the Creation theory. This theory dont have contradictions and is very complete and let us explain everything about the origin of the life in the earth.\n\n3.There are a lot of evidence that the brain from the monk until the brain of the sinhantropus neede 15 million of years, but the brain with the homo sapiens appeared only 1 million of years after. This so Big Jump is impossible and the expert are not agree about what happened.\n\n4. The conlcutio is: We are aliens, because our DNA and our life is not from here, a Super Natural being created us, and this Being is our God. Now from the scriptures we can find many references about this Super Natural Being in the Bible and to him we should to feel respect because he has been with us from the fundation of the world.\n\n5.For this reason I think we are aleins and many reincarnation theories think that we have been in other lives in other planes and here is only one more that the planets where we can learn. For example, The asteroid belt, is considered by some clandestinity groups like a planet that was destroyed between the war between two races that are living in this planet today and they are having the same problems like there. Hopefully the eart will not finish like Traya de Maldek.\n\n6.Many conspiration theories says that the earth have a alien reaces from Z-Reticuli, and they are sharing technology with the American Goverment and it´s probably is a fact, but may be are rummors, the time will show us the true.\n\n7.And Like a Christian I think our Lord Jesus Christ is the most super natural being, our Master and opur Love, our example to Live and may be we will understand everything anbout this world because may be, like a old friend said me one day "The true is a Mirror Broken in thousand Pieces"
483713
I wouldn't say that I'm anymore intelligent than someone else, but I did want to answer your question, so....\n\nYou are confusing the theory of evolution (diversification of species) with the theory of abiogenesis (life from natural compounds).  That's okay, many people confuse the two.\n\n1.  How did life get from soup to single-celled organisms?  From wikipedia, "J.B.S Haldane suggested that the earth's pre-biotic oceans - very different from their modern counterparts - would have formed a "hot dilute soup" in which organic compounds, the building blocks of life, could have formed.\nIn 1953, taking their cue from Oparin and Haldane, the chemists Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey carried out an experiment on the "primeval soup". Within two weeks organic amino acids, the basic building blocks of life, had formed. While Miller and Urey did not actually create life; they demonstrated that a more complex molecule — the amino-acids — could emerge spontaneously from simpler chemicals, in the presence of an external energy source in an atmosphere largely devoid of oxygen (the experiment involved shooting a spark, representing lightning, into their flask of supposedly primitive earth-gases)."\n\n2.  How did the original cell eat and develop asexual reproduction?   You are putting the cart before the horse.  In order to get to the cell stage, self-replicating molecules had to exist first... i.e. reproduction & "nourishment"  was occurring well before the cell stage.  Also, what are you referring to with "nourishment"?  For a self-replicating molecule, nourishment would consist of other molecules that it could combine with to form more of itself.\n\n3.  In the "soup", how did primordial cells develop resistences?  Resistence to what?  I don't understand this question.  To the environment?  To viruses or bacteria?  You need to elaborate here, I'm sorry.  I think it ties into your next answer, but not sure.  Please read my answer to #4.\n\n4.  How did it evolve everything it needed if it wasn't in it's DNA?  Can you give an example?  Hmm.  I'm trying to understand how you are approaching this question.  Let's say you have 100 little cells, each a little different.  5 cells can withstand a higher water temperature than the others because of a mutation they have.  One day the temperature goes up and kills off the other 95 cells.  That only leaves the 5 with the mutation.  They scamper off and reproduce like crazy... the cell strain has just evolved a little.  Now repeat this a gazillion times with a dynamic interacting environment and there you go.
993128
The origin of the first life form is actually indeed unclear.  What makes this so difficult is not that one cannot envision molecules that replicate themselves by having certain enzymatic activities.  Rather, if all recent life forms go back to one ancestral species, how did all those parts shared by recent species come together?   (For example, cell membranes, organalles, the nucleic acids etc.)\n\nNow, you are absolutely right that there is an assumed parent species, an ancestor to all other species on the planet.  But science does not show at all that life cannot derive from non-life.  Quite on the contrary, science would suggest, since all the individual parts of which living cells are composed are by themselves not alive, life must emerge from the higher-level organization.  The idea is the following: the properties of the parts of a system do not predict the properties of the whole.  Take water, which is composed of two gases.  Nothing in the properties of either gas suggests or makes predictable that H20 is a translucent liquid with a density anomaly.  The same holds true for biological systems.  Life seems to emerge at one point of complexity as a property of the union of non-living parts in complex systems such as cells.  How that happens is unclear.\n\nNow, I am not familiar with the theory you mention.  As a biologist who has focused much of his work time on evolution, I cannot say that this is a commonly held opinion.  But your question is a very good one:  If that indeed were the case, don't we just push the point of origin one level backwards?  Some scientists opt for the pansperm theory, according to which life came from out of space.  Not to wory, I am not talking UFO's etc.  Rather, amino acids and nucleic acids have been found in space.  The idea comes in two major flavors, namely one, that life originated on earth from these parts that were brought to the surface of the planet by means of meteors and then came together to form life.  The other flavor is that this happened on another planet and that the living cells were transported by meteroites to earth, which likewise would push the problem of the origin of life backwards, just as the "other dimension idea" (which to me seem rather strange and unscientific).
1035417
Interesting answers so far.  I will add my arguments for fun.  Those who believe in literal Creationism have a few problems answering this simple test.  We can clearly prove that light from distant galaxies have arrived at our location.  That process in the current state of the universe takes billions of years.  So there are two options:  1) God has created the whole ball of wax, and made it look like it was very old,  or 2) God (who is not limited by time anyhow...) created the universe over millions and billions of years.  Why would God deceive us?\n\nAfter you use your brain (created by God to think critically) you hopefully will come to the conclusion as to the age of the world.  Once that is established, many of the questions regarding evolution can be placed in similar context.  Would God evolve hundreds of thousands of species, yet pull man out of a hat a few thousand years ago?  There is no conflict in this view with scripture if you read it to get the message intended.  Scripture is the guidelines for experiencing God, communication with God, not a systematic description of the Universe.\n\nA case in point, in Genesis, before Eve, God gave Adam the job of naming all the plants and animals.  Is that not science?  Of course Adam became bored with that and wanted a woman...  Science, though a holy endeavor, is no substitute for the love of a good woman.\n\nFaith hinges on the unknown.  Once something is known, some portions of what you believe may change.  But, that is peripheral to the core of Christian belief.  For the Christian, faith should be exercised to promote life, not argue about science.  And for science, it is validated only to that which is observable.  Those who try to use science to disprove the existence of God, do not understand science.  At least this is my opinion, for what its worth.
1003027
Sir Arthur Keith (Evolution Expert) himself said it best: "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We [evolutionists] believe it because the only alternative is special creation [God], and that is unthinkable." \n\nWhat proof do we have of evolution? None at all.  One responder said you were "simplistic"...another cited the "proof" of amino acids.  Any honest/knowledgeable inquirer would recognise that those were VERY simplistic answers.  He wrote "Next comes single cells...".  Wow!  That was an easy transition...and where/how does he maintain the possibility of that? Those do nothing to support their theory, but I guess its all they've got.\n\nWhile we struggle to find the elusive "missing link", in reality there are missing links between every species. How does DNA suddenly decide to produce something other than it is programmed for? Where did those first single celled creatures come from? Where did the matter for the "big bang" come from? \n\nThere is no proof that you are reading this letter as a result of an explosion 14 billion years ago. The evolutionist accepts that origin by "faith", just as the believer accepts our Creator by faith.  However, the current scientific evidence does not support evolutionary theory, rather, it refutes it.  Why does is live on?  Because in the effort to find the origin of life outside of God, its all they've got.
589476
The theories could very well be true, unless proven otherwise. If you are looking at it from the theological point of view, then consider this:\n\nThe original ingredients for the single cellular organism from which all life on earth originated must have been placed there by some greater power. Maybe from time to time that power guided evolution to humanity, and maybe later that power will guide evolution to some beings better than us?
811541
I don't say that evolution does not exist, I say that however life came to be, God put it there. In other words, if there is evolution, God started it. Maybe there was a Big Bang, but God started it. That's all.
529829
God and evolution are not an antithesis.  God spoke life into existence but he also placed within each creature the ability to adapt and evolve.  \n\nI do not believe there is life out there. However, even if there were it wouldn't change my belief in Christ.  I'd say what a wonderful Creator we have and move on.
344626
So atheists:  Where did the evolution come from? Where did the cell come from? Where did molecules come from? Where did the "BIG BANG" come from?