Re: Abiogenesis and evolution


swayser wrote:
> PerfectlyAble wrote:
> > swayser wrote:
> >
> >>I've been involved in a debate with one Mr Grey about evolution. Here's
> >>his position. Evolution doesn't deal with how life started on this
> >>planet. But evolution HAS to explain it. If non living material some how
> >>comes alive it has evolved from non living matter to living matter.
> >
> >
> > I have to disagree with Grey. Obviously chemical reactions
> > behave? in a similar way to evolution. i.e. certain
> > reactions being more vigorous will favor fitter
> > molecules. Reading what Darwin said as that which
> > survives is better fitted, that which does not is
> > less fitted. Obviously that can apply to planets,
> > molecules and even organisms. Now eventually
> > somewhere a soup of complex chemicals would eventuate
> > where the evolutionary pressure would favor those
> > chemicals (and chemical reactions) that altered their
> > own environment in their own favor. The chemicals
> > dont have to have a desire to do so, they just need
> > to have the chemical arsenal that favors them and
> > favors their continued existance (for long enough
> > for more able molecules and then organisms to
> > come along). We can see from evolution as it happens
> > today that mutation and genetic mixing are chemical
> > reactions that have no obvious linkage/dependance to
> > higher thoughts/desires (i.e. eggs can be fertilised
> > outside of the body). Our genes change chemically
> > just as it first started in the primal soup.
> >
> But then how do you explain why biologists have failed in every attempt
> to create anything which even remotely resembles life? What you say
> sounds logical but really isn't. All the chemicals and cell organs and
> functional elements must all cone together at the same time with an
> energy source. Something like that doesn't happen.

What! Are you completely devoid of eyes! Animals are
popping into existance all the time from the raw
materials as stated in DNA. Follow the recipe dear chap
and you get another you, called a clone! That database
has been shown to accumalate, we see this in the
fossil record, we even snip and snap together pieces
of the stuff to make new organisms. Every single step
is measureable and repeatable. Biologists have already
started mapping out primal chemical soups to grow
more complex molecules but obviously its hard since
those fitter molecules quickly overran the soup
(and its hardly a priority given all the potentials
evolutionary biology is uncovering!)

>
> Maybe everyone reading this debate should read the contents of the site
> these links point to explaining a little about the most basic creature
> on the face of the earth, the amoeba. This couldn't have come into
> existence by some accident.

People used to say man could never fly. That the moon
was made of cheese. But people showed that in theory
it was possible to fly, even travel to the moon, and
people have shown that it is very possible that
organisms did appear by the accumulation over time.
The universe is a massively big place, it is statistically
possible for life to appear somewhere, sometime, because
the universe is so massive. It appeared here and we
are the products.

You maybe too weak to deal with the fact that your life
is meaningless on the scale of the universe, I can
understand that, even empathise with your situation
but you cowardice in reaching for "it's too hard"
to understand it therefore it must have been Gawd
is a joke! You wouldn't put a child into the care
of a stranger just because you didn't know them,
yet you give your life to a theology that history
has proven time and againg to be wrong. e.g. when
doctors dugup the dead to get corpses to study
medicine the churches condemned them. Your beliefs
were only relevent then because there were enough
of you to *almost* matter, the doctors still
raiding the dead to learn and thank GOODNESS they did.
Now doctors don't need to because people donate
their bodies to science and the preists be damned!

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Abiogenesis and evolution
    ... Evolution doesn't deal with how life started on this planet. ... If non living material some how comes alive it has evolved from non living matter to living matter. ... somewhere a soup of complex chemicals would eventuate ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Evolution does not get started until there are replicators.
    ... Prior to DNA was RNA and prior to that where self catalysing reactions ... the right conditions and the right chemicals. ... But once life got started, and it's not a magic point as it's hard to ... no evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Abiogenesis and evolution
    ... Evolution doesn't deal with how life started on this planet. ... Chemicals so complex that we can't duplicate them in a chemical factory. ... If your interested in learning about how and why you nervous system does what it does I found this site which is pretty good. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Abiogenesis and evolution
    ... >>>I've been involved in a debate with one Mr Grey about evolution. ... Evolution doesn't deal with how life started on this ... Chemicals so complex that we can't duplicate ... >>>Lisp were programming languages which were designed to mimic peoples ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Abiogenesis and evolution
    ... Evolution doesn't deal with how life started on this planet. ... If non living material some how comes alive it has evolved from non living matter to living matter. ... somewhere a soup of complex chemicals would eventuate ...
    (alt.politics)
Loading