--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@...> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" <compost1uk@> wrote:
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"
> > <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote:
> >
> > > All life on this planet is descended from one cell, a
> > > hybrid between two types of bacteria - which is all there
> > > was for billions of years - there would be no complexity or
> > > consciousness without that one chance event. That is as hard
> > > a fact as you'll find, religious types can sit around
> > > dreaming otherwise till the cows come home.
> >
> > Well in my (limited) biochemical understanding, bacteria are
> > themselves made of cells. I believe that they have a few
> > million nucleotides of DNA.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteria#Cellular_structure
> >
> > Surely the question is how did such complex biochemical
> > machines as these come into existence from 'random stuff'?
> >
> > Darwinian evolution, whatever its other merits, is not going
> > to explain the origin of life. We need a chemical, physical
> > theory for that. Darwinian evolution *presupposes* an accurate
> > inheritance mechanism. The mechanism needs to be one that is
> > sufficiently reliable to further the line, but sufficiently
> > fallible to allow the odd random mutation. The balance of
> > accuracy to error probably needs to be rather finely tuned.
> >
> > I think I'm with the Robin/Nagel camp (but also impressed by
> > Michael Behe, James Le Fanu and David Stove): It beggars
> > belief that from a chemical mush there could spring ready-
> > formed (and sufficiently robust) a biochemical inheritance
> > mechanism capable of carrying the weight of a Darwinist
> > process.
>
> So you think that because something seems unlikely it must
> have some sort of outside help?
Certainly not. I didn't suggest that, did I?
I am saying that the claim that we have an understanding
of this seems false. Do you see the difference?
> Seems to me that just
> pushes the start point back to some (presumably ineffable)
> "other" thing. Doesn't help really. Especially as the universe
> seems full of just the sort of organic compounds with the
> requisite *potential* for complexity that life would need,
Here is a *scientific*, not religious, or metaphysical question
I am asking: What is the exact process whereby chemical structures
("sand" if you like) originally developed the capability to
reproduce? And in a way that would support Darwinian evolution?
As far as I know, the answer to that is "We just don't know".
If that's the case, that should rein in at least some forms
of naive *scientistic triumphalism*. And that's something that
can only be to the good for genuine, critical Science.
> but chance still played a massive part, it took billions
> of years before the accident that allowed for the evolution
> of complex life, why would a creator leave that potential as
> a maybe? Why not do it straight away - but I can say that about
> the evolution of consciousness too. God was really playing dice
> around here.
>
> You can't say that something must have supernatural help because
> you don't currently understand it can you? Paley said that about
> the eye and look how wrong he was!
>
> > How does goop get to beget and have kids? Or am I missing
> > something?
>
> Nope. But we are all made of sand. I think the big problem
> with consciousness is going to be accepting that that is
> all it is, the old habit of thinking "It's so amazing so it must
> have been designed by something even more amazing" is a tough
> one to break, it's Darwins great gift.
>
