What? I'm not aware of any chemists working on something they think goes against the laws of chemistry. They would be rather silly, wouldn't they, since they discovered those laws themselves?
We agree! I thought the idea would be totally absurd too! So obviously the chemists that are working abiogensis don't think it is against the laws of chemistry.
No, I'm just pointing out what the evidence shows to be likely and what the evidence shows to be unlikely. You can deal with it however you choose. You can even put blinders on and refuse to look at it at all if you choose. In fact, I support your freedom to do exactly that.
You agree though - that life can form through the laws of nature? That it isn't impossible? And in the right conditions it might be almost inevitable? All you have to do now, is work out what those conditions are and what the probability of those conditions arising are.
Yeah, but since [elephants coming out amoebas] in itself is magic, don't you think poof sounds much better?
That would be magic, of course. Nobody is proposing that an elephant comes out of an amoeba though, so no 'poofing' required.
No, not RM and NS. There is nothing in those minor changes that could explain an elephant p......coming out of an amoeba. What environmental changes do you ever think could cause that sort of massive change? I have never heard a Darwinist even explain one stark speciation of one vertebrate to another, much less, this.
An elephant did not come from an amoeba, and nobody is saying this happened. As you are well aware, any given elephant came from something that was very much similar to its parents. Thus, any given elephant is very different from its 500th cousin removed, is very different from its 10,000th cousin removed. You know this perfectly well, yet you are choosing to make it out to be more absurd than it is.
You are deliberately misrepresenting the ToE. I suspect its to get a reaction in the hopes of distracting us from the issue at hand. As such, any further misrepresentations of this level of absurdity and I will either do likewise back to you and we can degrade into childishness. Take your 'poof' into the evolution forum, leave it out of here.
What do you mean every single environment? Where are these environments, on earth? You guys won't even explain what you mean by this. We have no unknown environments I'm aware of to even consider. Either early earth was a reducing atmosphere or it was not.
Its perfectly simple. Let me try and explain it once again. What are the chances of Calcium Silicon and Oxygen coming together and forming Slag? The question is meaningless without considering the environment those elements are in, the quantities, and the lay of the land. For instance, in a blast furnace environment its highly probable that CaSiO3 would form. However if I put some calcium and some silicon in an open glass (exposed to oxygen), I would very much doubt they would come together to form slag.
As such, the environment (ie blast furnace) is as important a consideration as the ingredients (Ca,Si,O) in what the expected final outcome would be.
Therefore, in order to know what will happen to our ingredients of life, we need to know what environment they are in. In your probability calculations, what environment are they in? How are they formed? What orders? Is this the only way life can form? If it is, is the only environment that life can form in? Have you explored all possible environments and come to the conclusion that life cannot form in any of them?
This message has been edited by Modulous, Wed, 11-May-2005 07:18 PM
™ Version 4.2