There are scientists all over the world who have said time and time again that the formation of even the building blocks of life is thermodynamically unfavorable and require a perceived selective advantage in order to form. I don't believe that you can apply natural selection to chemicals. So right out of the gate there are problems for the evolutionist.
And from a favorite website of mine:
In the pantheistic world view of the evolutionist, the fires of destruction are the wombs of life. Radiation, asteroids, collisions, and other devastating agents are our friends: they gave us the beautiful web of life we have today. Wonder how they feel about terrorism.
FRegards, MM
They obviously have some of the capability to sustain these soulful attributes.
??? Sure you can. There is some arbitrary number of pathways a chemical reaction can take, but depending on the local conditions, most of the reactions will only happen down one or two pathways. When you throw a bunch of organic chemicals together, you get many different end products. But the environment will favor certain molecular interactions over others and so the probability distribution will be highly biased. The environment that the chemicals are in acts as a filter for which reaction pathways they are most likely to take. ("evolution" is actually a systems dynamics concept in math, and not just applied to living things. It is used in many other fields, but without the hubbub of biology.)
Incidentally, this is the essence of the flaw in the "statistically impossible" argument re:complex molecular synthesis. The synthesis pathway probability distribution is extremely irregular in the real world, while the assumption in that particular fallacy is that it is perfectly flat. Bad assumption, bad conclusion.
The "building blocks of life" (amino acids) have actually been found in interstellar dust clouds. They appear to be quite common.
Neither physical laws nor statistical zero have ever been a problem for FR travel-in-packs evolutionists.
In the present case, we're talking about photochemistry, in which there's an external source of energy.
I don't believe that you can apply natural selection to chemicals.
This is in fact the basis of the relatively new field of combinatorial chemistry, in which you create conditions under which scores or even thousands of different molecules are formed, and then use some other chemical system to select those with the desired properties. So, for example, if you want to desgin a new analgesic, you choose 5 or 6 elementary building blocks, put them together in every possible combination, and then expose the mix to a pain receptor, isolating the compound or compounds that binds.
I don't want to sound like I'm flaming you, because that's not my intention, but this is truly one of the most absurd and idiotic statements I've ever read.