Re: Abiogenesis and evolution

PerfectlyAble wrote: 
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!

Clones just happen? That will come as news to the biological scientists who did it. And cloning is reproducing the same animal from a being already alive. That isn't the creation of life from matter. There is a sperm or ovum from creatures already living. Didn't you know that? If you didn't I suggest you withdraw from this debate. Answer this post and then I'll deal with the rest of your post.

Let me ask you this. Do you think Jurassic Park is history or science?

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: The Grand Unified Theory! C and C Please!
    ... classical and living worlds ... This is an abstract description of how evolution ... :> of "Life" comes to mind. ... All the primary variables are complex. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: History Channel special on astrobiology
    ... evolution is only concerned about life after abiogenesis makes no sense at ... were living things has nothing to do with evolution. ... that abiogenesis is ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Creationist Claim
    ... have created life, and therefore God must have created life. ... chemically (not using living organisms or their products) produce many ... different solutions of simple chemicals are washed sequentially ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: History Channel special on astrobiology
    ... evolution is only concerned about life after abiogenesis makes no sense at ... Evolution is what *happens* to living things. ... a god whose act of creation and imagination stops with the slime. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Creationist Claim
    ... have created life, and therefore God must have created life. ... chemically (not using living organisms or their products) produce many ... derived from living organisms. ... possible to produce some of the smaller chemicals by direct synthesis, ...
    (talk.origins)