iirc i read someplace that they took all the natural ingredients of the primordial soup and hit it with artificial lightning under different temperatures and pressures and it we to no avail...
Posted on 06/20/2009 6:53:36 AM PDT by PurpleMountains
Although most scientific organizations and bureaucracies have yet to recognize this, many discoveries involving DNA and gene research of the last 60 years have confirmed some of Darwin’s theories, (microevolution, all living things are related), while other aspects of Darwin’s theories have been disproved or called into serious question (macroevolution, single tree of life). My opinion of the main reason for the resistance of the scientific community is that the most recent genetic research has also shown how little we know, rather than how much we know, about where the information comes from to construct a living being. When DNA was discovered, science assumed that soon everything would become clear. Just the opposite has happened, and science doesn’t like that.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthegrandchildren.blogspot.com ...
Uh...no.
Actually, scientists have not disproved these or called them into question. Nor do scientists make a distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution."
Since your article is basically a religious article, please don't state your thesis as if it is scientific knowledge that is generally accepted by the scientific community.
Who knows? What we do know is that the “Typing Monkey Analogy” is so ridiculous and False that the author can’t be taken seriously.
Your response has an internal contradiction since I start out by saying this is not yet accepted by the scientific community. I also don’t think you are current about the imlications of the latest gene research.
iirc i read someplace that they took all the natural ingredients of the primordial soup and hit it with artificial lightning under different temperatures and pressures and it we to no avail...
Not to put too fine a point to any disagreement on your contention, I found this article to be more of a mathematical screed. To dismiss the author's premise that current origin-of-life theories need a probability analysis merely because embedded in the article the word "god" was mentioned, or belief in a creator is also theorized, seems a bit obdurate. I found your answer informative, if short, and do not dismiss it simply because it might be construed as egocentric, arrogant and narcissistic.
Of course it was to no avail.
Even the simplest of single-cell organisms have several internal structures devoted to assimilating energy from some source, maintaining life, splitting to reproduce, and then growing back to "adult" size.
For the "primordial soup" theory to work, this would require randomly dispersed molecules to spontaneously organize into these structures and then to somehow, magically, "come to life".
This is even less likely than the likelihood of all the liquid "tea-extract" molecules in a cup of tea magically flowing back into the teabag.
This is obviously just not going to happen; it would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Which, by the way, is the Second LAW of Thermodynamics, not the Second Guideline of Thermodynamics.
Even if all that were to somehow magically happen, how does "sexual reproduction" come to pass?
That would require simultaneous mutations that produce matching "male" and "female" parts which just happen to be physically brought together and than just happen to match up and combine to produce an offspring which can then somehow be nurtured and sustained until it is able to survive on its own.
i agree with everything you said... i thought it quite comical as to ever think it was that easy but i can't remember now who / why it was done or who's money / bias made did it.
ABSOLUTELY...if God permits...
In fact, had any form of even the most basic life been present at the end of the experiment, Miller and Urey would have assumed the experiment had been contaminated and re-run it.
You’re misapplying the Second Law of Thermodynamics in the context of the argument you’re putting forward: in terms of energy, the Earth is not a closed system.
ypu, i prolly did misunderstand what i remember about it since i barely remember it at all, other than did take place with the expected results...
ypu = yup my bad...
Just because energy is available, that doesn't mean it'll be properly applied.
Just because you heat up a lump of steel, don't expect a Swiss watch to appear.
But if God designed the Universe to be favorable to the evolution of self-aware intelligence, absolutely nothing could stop it.
I have no doubt God designed the Universe to be favorable to the evolution of self-aware intelligence.
I also have no doubt He did not just line everything up at the starting line and say “Go”; it was necessary for Him to step in a few times along the way and provide a little bit of an assist.
1) "Evolution must be false and Genesis must be true".
2) "Genesis must be false and Evolution must be true".
We should take a poll.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.