Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: BMCDA
It is true that the biochemistry in a cell is intimately tied together, as you express it, but not to such a degree that every small change causes the whole system to break down.

Really?! This is inconsistant with what can be objectively seen today in medicine . . . one - small - change --> leads to disease of the cell, and it ceases functioning properly or outright dies.

So the addition of isolated features (which aren't immediately detrimental to the cell) is the way these biochemical systems get more complex. Through other changes those features may become essential for the cell.

Cute. However, wholely and entirely inconsistant with what we understand about the principles of biochemistry and molecular/cellular biology and what can be objectively seen.

So the only problem in this scenario should be the emergence of the first self-replicator(s).

True

Of course if we assume that it must be as complex as most modern single-celled organisms then I concede that it's practically impossible that it could have arisen by chance but I don't see why this has to be the case.

Again true - "impossibility" is this case occurs because the emergence of any life-like "self-replicator" is inconsistant with what is known and objective.

I think it's quite presumptuous to declare abiogenesis to be impossible.

And I, obviously, think it quite presumptuous to declare abiogenesis to be possible.

182 posted on 02/21/2004 8:40:37 AM PST by realpatriot71 ("But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise . . ." (I Cor. 1:27))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies ]


To: realpatriot71
And I, obviously, think it quite presumptuous to declare abiogenesis to be possible.

Yes, because it's certainly not presumptious at all to claim absolute knowledge of biology and chemistry such that you can make the statement that it is utterly impossible.
183 posted on 02/21/2004 10:41:48 AM PST by Dimensio (I gave you LIFE! I -- AAAAAAAAH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies ]

To: realpatriot71
This is inconsistant with what can be objectively seen today in medicine . . . one - small - change --> leads to disease of the cell, and it ceases functioning properly or outright dies.

Where the hell did you study biology? Far and away, most genetic changes are neutral. Even deletion of entire genes usually results in no phenotypic change. Some organisms can double their chomosome set. Some can lose entire chromosomes with no ill effect. You never learned any of this? I am very curious to learn where you are attending medical school.

186 posted on 02/21/2004 11:16:42 AM PST by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson