Linwood,
Firstly, this website demonstrates the unscientific nature of Chemical evolution. Read it through.
http://www.iscid.org/pcid/2002/1/4/mullan_primitive_cell.php , click on the link at the bottom of the paragraph. At least this paper is scientific and technical not just speculation.
The best resource noted above by Ceridwen is so very bad that I didnt read the rest. Here are a few intrinsic problems with his paper.
1. The author posits a "hypothetical protobiont" which would have been sufficiently simple to possibly arise through chemical evolution. This is the state of chemical evolution, when the facts dont fit your theory, make up some more that do. How very convenient! What was the basis for the hypothetical? I suppose it was the fact that the chemical evolution of simple organisms (such as an amoeba) " mind-beggaringly improbable".
2. He says that he wants to "show why it is not possible to do a "probability of abiogenesis" calculation in any meaningful way". How convenient. Still, this did not stop him trying himself.
3. With the help of the non-evidenced "hypothetical protobiont", and his special ability to calculate meaningful probabilities the author calculated the chance that life arises to be 4.29 x 1040 . What number is this anyway? It is
1 chance in 4,290,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. If we assume that this hypothetical protobiont ever existed and we assume that all of its ingredients were swilling around in a bowl reacting once every second then it should evolve once in every 1,359,418,967,221,841,965,168,453,874,819,400 years. Given that the universe is only about 15,000,000,000 years old Id say this was impossible. To get around this figure the author posits tons of amino acids reacting simultaneously. How they got there is a secret he doesnt share with us. The author refuses to let us know where the tons came from. There would be an even higher improbability of this whole scenario if we considered the unlikely hood of the chemical evolution of amino acids in the well-established primitive earth atmosphere. It really is unscientific to posit what he has. I encourage you to check it out for yourself.
I think Hogcaller has done a splendid job of demonstrating the virtual impossibility of chemical evolution. The chance that it arose through random causes is very slim. I think you give this Chance too much of a chance.
orthodox
Firstly, this website demonstrates the unscientific nature of Chemical evolution. Read it through.
http://www.iscid.org/pcid/2002/1/4/mullan_primitive_cell.php , click on the link at the bottom of the paragraph. At least this paper is scientific and technical not just speculation.
The best resource noted above by Ceridwen is so very bad that I didnt read the rest. Here are a few intrinsic problems with his paper.
1. The author posits a "hypothetical protobiont" which would have been sufficiently simple to possibly arise through chemical evolution. This is the state of chemical evolution, when the facts dont fit your theory, make up some more that do. How very convenient! What was the basis for the hypothetical? I suppose it was the fact that the chemical evolution of simple organisms (such as an amoeba) " mind-beggaringly improbable".
2. He says that he wants to "show why it is not possible to do a "probability of abiogenesis" calculation in any meaningful way". How convenient. Still, this did not stop him trying himself.
3. With the help of the non-evidenced "hypothetical protobiont", and his special ability to calculate meaningful probabilities the author calculated the chance that life arises to be 4.29 x 1040 . What number is this anyway? It is
1 chance in 4,290,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. If we assume that this hypothetical protobiont ever existed and we assume that all of its ingredients were swilling around in a bowl reacting once every second then it should evolve once in every 1,359,418,967,221,841,965,168,453,874,819,400 years. Given that the universe is only about 15,000,000,000 years old Id say this was impossible. To get around this figure the author posits tons of amino acids reacting simultaneously. How they got there is a secret he doesnt share with us. The author refuses to let us know where the tons came from. There would be an even higher improbability of this whole scenario if we considered the unlikely hood of the chemical evolution of amino acids in the well-established primitive earth atmosphere. It really is unscientific to posit what he has. I encourage you to check it out for yourself.
mmmm...... I'm actually not so sure about that. I'll admit that chemical evolution is the best natural explanation for life but that doesn't mean it is the best overall explanation for life. I think that it is highly irrational. If you are not convinced by Chemical evolution why do you still adhere to it? Is this just another thing you 'don't know' about?No..none of them are fully convincing but I submit they are far more convincing than ..THE SKY DADDY DID IT !! ..THE SKY DADDY DID IT !!
He said it last year. Nothing significant has changed in the past decade concerning this question.Perhaps the correct question is if I know something he didn`t but that would depend on when he made that statement
So very brilliant scientist who have a copy of life right before them to copy off are finding it "no simple task" to create 'simple' life. If we are not even intelligent enough to copy life, how are mindless forces of nature meant to create it from scratch. Where exactly are you getting this information from - just for reference.Amino acids have been formed in a laboratory environment .
Proteins have been made of these amino acids.
All that is really left to do is to find a way to get these cultures to duplicate it`s own DNA and accept it...this is no simple task however.
Very recently (This year)scientists have "jumped ahead" and found that they can get these laboratory proteins to accept pieces of natural DNA sequences within their own DNA.
I think Hogcaller has done a splendid job of demonstrating the virtual impossibility of chemical evolution. The chance that it arose through random causes is very slim. I think you give this Chance too much of a chance.
orthodox