Jack, first life wouldn't have to be as complex as today micro-organisms, but it WOULD have to be incredibly complex (by far more complex than any single evolutionary adaptation).......and it would have to have formed within a relatively short period of time.
I don't consider half a billion years a short period of time at all.
I forget, how many of just the right amino acids would have to combine in just the right way to make a single protein molecule? At least dozens, if I recall correctly......and then at least dozens of full formed protein molecules would then also have to combine in just the right way.
We don't know. Current estimates suggest that somewhere between 60 and a 100 are required, IIRC (which I may not). Note however that this isn't 'in just the right way' - there is not only one answer that evolution need hit, but several. Note also that amino acids do not just randomly connect, but preferentially connect in a manner that may (or may not, to be fair) have aided the process. Finally, note that some organic compounds (such as lipids) have properties that lead them to spontaneously form cell-like structures.
And, once more, the origin of life is irrelevant to Darwin's theory - he does not deal with the origin of life.
We both know this is nothing in geographical terms........especially when you consider that the following 3.5 BILLION years of evolution couldn't produce anything more complex than a sponge of jelly fish
Crap. Half a billion years is a decent length of time in any timescale.
The DNA of the organism would have to have certain info encoded on it that was placed there just at random.........like how to duplicate itself, how to metabolize........it's like a book writing itself.
DNA? Current hypothesises do not suggest there be any DNA in the first replicators. And it's not like a book writing itself at all.
Maybe there wasn't just one combo of protein molecules that would have gotten the job done, but it's certainly one of a short list.........wouldn't you agree?
Maybe, maybe not. We don't know. Perhaps 1 in 1011 - which is well within the bounds of possible random assembly.
We have no reason to think that amino acids have natural affinities which favor the creation of life.......and, even if they did, that can't be just a coincidence. Either fact, whichever proves to be true, speaks of intelligent design.
It would speak of no such thing, at all.
If lipids are organic, and therefore made by life, I don't see how this aids the theory of life springing from non-life.
Lipids will form spontaneously in the conditions believed to have been present on the early earth, and in some numbers.
This is true, but materialists do, and for all intents and purposes, in this day and age, evolution and materialism are practically synonyms.
MAXIMUM of half a billion years.........for something to happen that has an incredibly slight chance of happening
We don't know what the chance is, but across the earth and with half a billion years even unlikely things can be very likely to happen (see below).
DNA or RNA, there's still a basic amount of info that they'd have to possess.
Who said anything about RNA? The simplest replicator is likely to be much simpler.
You did do the math, didn't you? One in 1011 is one in a TRILLION........and that's for the formation of ONE protein molecule..........and then we'd still need, what was the number you quoted? 60 to 100 of those to coincidentally combine in a sequence which produces life........
What are you talking about, for one protein? I'm talking about the arrangements of amino acids that produce a replicator.
Yes, I did the math. Suppose our something has a 1 in 1011 chance of happening in a given trial. Now, suppose that there are one hundred sites on the earth at which it can occur and that a trial occurs once every 3.65 days (which are extremely conservative guesses. In half a billion years that's 102102(5*108) = 5*1012 trials. That makes the chance of our 'unlikely' event happening at least once during the course of the journey very close to 1.
What is a lipid, anyway? Because I've never heard of anyone coaxing chemicals into forming anything more complex than an amino acid before.
A lipid is a fat or oil, essentially. They can be significantly simpler molecules than an amino acid.
Indeed. I understand mitochondria have a slightly different code, which substantiates endosymbiosis as the explanation of their origin.
It's not just mitochondria, there are about sixteen known varients.
But the fact that the standard code is shared by almost every organism is a pretty powerful argument for common descent.
Not only that but the coding pattern itself seems to have been shaped by natural selection - in that of the possible codings the ones which are used have a high 'fault tolerance' in that errors will tend to produce either the same amino acid or a similar one.