Originally Posted by
Into the Night
You do bring up a significant problem with the Theory of Abiogenesis. Assuming it to be True for a moment, let's look at what is required for it to succeed:
* It must produce, out of nonbiological materials, biological materials. This must be by random, naturally occurring events.
Organic molecules occur quite often. Molecules are not random. They follow very specific rules.
* The new cell must survive. This is in a world where no cell has survived before. This means that the world around the cell must also, by random naturally occurring events, become hospitable enough to support the new cell.
This is a false assumption. You assume that a cell has to exist before life exists. No such requirement has to happen. Are viruses alive? They reproduce but they are not cells.
* The same thing must happen at least twice. The cell must have something to eat in order to reproduce. The result will be two cells. Now there is nothing to eat but each other. Therefore, independent abiogenesis events must happen much more than twice. Photosynthesis can't be used because that is a complex structure requiring many cells.
Cells don't require something to eat to reproduce. Like all chemical reactions they require energy. But you have assumed that reproduction can only occur when a cell exists. That is circular reasoning. You have used your conclusion to form your assumption.
* The cell must be able to mutate (copy itself improperly). The fuzzy copy must be able to survive as well. Any further deviation means the daughter cell is destroyed. This ability to mutate must be inheritable or the Theory of Evolution cannot take place.
I am unsure what you are arguing here. We have tons of evidence of cells mutating and then passing the mutations on to other generations.
There are a LOT of random events here, that must line up in perfect sequence or there is no life or evolution possible. The odds are so high it would be like winning on every blackjack table in Las Vegas sufficient to break the bank combined.
First of all your statement of odds makes no sense. Second you have presented no math. Random events occur all the time. You are again making false assumptions in that you are assuming that evolution is creating a desired outcome. It does no such thing. Evolution simply takes whatever random event occurs and tests it against the current environment to see if it gives a distinct advantage or disadvantage. The outcome is not the best possible outcome but the best of the limited available choices.
In my opinion, the Theory of Abiogenesis has a lot of problems.
The biggest problem being you don't understand the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. They are 2 separate things.
There is a further argument, regarding the research of possible Abiogenesis. Say we actually DO manage to synthesize a functioning cell in a laboratory from nonbiological materials. Is this evidence of Abiogenesis, or Creation? The cell WAS created by us, after all.
Circular reasoning yet again. You simply assume that if someone gathers the right components and then something happens to the components they they are performing a creation. That is nonsense.
"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."
Bookmarks