Problems with the first life

I have no idea what 'ocationally' means. However taking just 'life can not be created by chemical reactions' this statement is demonstrated false every single time anything reproduces. There is nothing mystical about life; it's just chemistry in action.

Would you care to present the mathematics that leads you to that conclusion? I'm curious to know since we don't have a definite path for the origin of life, I can't really see how you could possible calculate it's probability.

Yes, I do.(Edit: although I would use the term 'originated' rather than 'created')This message has been edited by Mr Jack, 07-19-2004 05:58 AM

Imagination is all very well, but it is a poor guide indeed when it comes to the workings of science. Amino acids we know can from by random chance - experiments such as the Stanley-Miller experiment show it, later experiments have shown that all 20 amino acids used in earthly life can form this way. RNA can be formed from chains of amino acids. Some RNA chains can replicate themselves. That's all we need to start with. From there, the mathematics of how it all comes together places it well within the bounds of probability given the time scales involved.I don't know how long it would take to form such RNA chains in the first place, but the earth is a very big place and given half a billion years. I doubt it falls beyond the realms of possibility. Many lipids will form cell-like structures spontaneously. I imagine early cells used these or similar molecules to form 'proto-cells'. The first 'living' thing already had reproduction that's what makes it 'living'. Self-replicating RNA strands have been isolated in the lab. Again, it's just chemistry, it doesn't need to know anything. All you've provided so far is speculation and personal incredulity. I'd like to see something more solid.

No. No cell is needed. RNA is capable of replicating itself without the presence of a cell - it's just chemistry. Cells possibly originated from the lipid shells that Crash has been telling you about. I'm really not sure what you're saying here.

It didn't. It just replicated itself, and produced by-products. I don't understand the relevance of your question?

Acceptable is what sense?Darwin's theory has been developed on since it's conception, but broadly speaking - yes, it correctly describes the process that has led to the shaping of all life on earth, and yes it is more than capable of accounting for the variety that we observe.

Because 'we' is defined in such a way. Not sure what you mean. There are other primates. The origin of life is not part of Darwin's theory. That aside, the answer to question is that any proto-life that appeared now would be instantly out-competed by the existing and highly evolved life.

Gotcha.First, you need disabusing of the notion that evolution is directed. It didn't set out to create us, it just did. So, why don't we still find earlier homonids around (note: we do find them in the fossil record)? For the same reasons we no longer find every other extinct animal around - either the environment changed in a way to which they could not adapt or they were outcompeted by another species (in this case, us - homo sapiens). Hominids evolved to fill a new environmental niche - big brained, bipedal savanna dwellers - to which we are better adapted. We outcompeted them and drove them to exitinction. History began a very short time ago in evolutionary terms, we wouldn't expect to see significant changes in that time scale. Nowadays we've radically altered the selective pressures on our species so who knows how we'll turn out in a couple hundred thousand years. That's OK, you write much than I can in any foreign language.

Does the fact we cannot produce a complete path from an egg to a skin cell or brain cell imply that we are wrong that it does so? (Answer: no) Why then should the lack of a complete path imply that humans did not evolve from a single organism?Oh, and please use the little red 'reply' button under the post you are replying to rather than the big reply button at the bottom. Thanks.

If there is anything science teaches us it is that proof by analogy is very, very weak proof indeed.You believe in a god without a maker, how is that any less absurd?

Yes, they're all root-squared laws - a fact that follows directly from conservation of energy. I see no reason to conclude that at all. An undesigned universe has to be consistent; a designed one does not. Scientists frequently uses analogy to explain things; science never uses analogy to prove things.

If the universe has originated by natural processes, then those processes must be consistent to produce complexity.If the universe was designed, that designer could do anything they liked. Bad analogy. Styling your hair is imposing order on an existing and unordered object.

That's extrapolation, not analogy.

Exactly, so the ordered nature of the universe does not provide evidence for a designer one way or another. I have no idea what you mean by this.