--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <richardhughes...@...> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" <compost1uk@> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" > > <richardhughes103@> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yifuxero" > > <yifuxero@> wrote: > > > > > > http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/questions.html > > > > > > > > > > "Physics does not concern itself with issues outside > > its own domain. For example, the subjects of biology, > > life, and chemistry, as well as the phenomena of mind > > and consciousness cannot be explained in physical terms" > > > > > > Biology, chemistry and therefore life can, indeed > > > are, explained in physical terms. > > > > Is that so? I'm not sure that's the case is it? How > > DOES the inanimate become "life"? > > Good question. > > Chemistry explains the functioning of DNA, which > is the interface between the organic and the > inorganic, looked at one way it's life the other > it's chemistry and how it works is becoming very > well understood. But not perfectly as you point > out. > > Ribosomes, the bits of cells that transcribe the > genetic code into other molecules, have recently > been found to be self-assembling. Which is pretty > amazing, a major piece of the jigsaw. It isn't > finished yet but the picture can be discerned. > Finding out that the bits that make DNA actually > make themselves is good progress. And in Darwins > centenary year too!
Darwinian evolution is an explanation of how living things diversify, adapt and develop. It presupposes reproduction and inheritance. But matter prior to "life" does not have any those properties, no? That surely means that Darwinism is not relevant here. That's why I find Dawkins to be not so much wrong - just a bit tedious. Darwinism seems to shed zero light on the interesting questions of what are the origins of life (and what is consciousness). He slays one religious dragon (a narrow subset of theists who believe that all life forms were "created" ready-formed), but there are many other religious beasts out there which are not so easily made extinct. I suppose die-hard traditional materialists have their fall-back article of faith: The Universe is so darn BIG, and Time is so immense, that in a molecular soup far, far away, and a long, long time ago, a chance arrangement of molecules magicked a very complex, self-assembling ribosomic structure (or whatever). And instead of that delicate, tiny thing being instantly snuffed out, it got a toe-hold, and... here we all are today. And we're wondering at it (but that's another problem). I DO find that hard to believe. But that's no reason to think it false I suppose. > Pretty cool to go from bacteria to animals capable > of discussing themselves in only a billion years. > Mind you it was something like a massive global deep- > freeze three billion years ago that forced the change > from bacteria into multi-celled life. Otherwise we > might be still floating around in the primordial sea > not thinking about anything at all. > > http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2009/January/09010901.asp
