Mr Dunday I posted the answer to this on the other thread sorry. So I've just copied it over. For the research on origins of life - go look for yourself. There is too much for anyone here to go through it all with you. But it is incredibly easy to find yet you don't seem to have bothered. Anyway here was my original answer to your points.Start with why you think life could just happen as the scientists say. I say it was creation.A cell needs to be complete to function, and the scientists say there was no 'evolution' in the origins of life.
Cathy wrote:Mr Dunday you are looking at this the wrong way, in a way that does show a lack of understanding of science.
On several ocassions you were asked to define what you meant by life. When you were saying life comes from life and the same question is pertinent now you are talking about the cell.
The reason you were asked to define life is that life has many different features. For example reproduction, excretion some kind of metabolism. Children here learn that very early on in a simplified from using the mneumonic MRS GREN to help them. Obviously learning a more sophisticated version later on should they consider taking biology further.
Now no scientist thinks living cells just appeared. Because that would be highly improbable. What they look at is the many features that make up the simplest living things and look to see which are most likely to have appeared first (current research is most interested in metabolism or SIMPLE replication - not of cells). Some scientists look at that. Now in this search for the first features of early life, there are many interesting hypothesis.
They are not 'designing' life in that research as you've suggested earlier when trying unsuccessfully to defend the religious view that is ID. They are trying instead to repllicate the early conditions of life and the chemicals that would be present. I suggest you read some of that research.
Others scientists look at how a new feature could have arisen once some features are in place or how very simple things could have evolved - adding to the features that would eventually lead to life. Others look at how single cells could become groups of cells or how smaller simpler cells could join together to form more complex eukaryotic cells via something called endosymbiosis. I'm trying to simplify this as much as possible for you cos if you've been on creationist sites your understanding of biology will have been warped and mangled.
Do you understand the point I'm trying to make? For all stages to happen simultaneously to give a cell is unlikely. But each step is far more likely and did happen as we do have life. It is a slow building bit by bit process not a magic wand shove it all together and there you go one. It does not preclude a God, merely makes him clever enough to understand chemistry. Though creationists on the websites you frequent do preclude a God by making him dependent on their simplistic understanding of the world and too stupid to understand chemistry.
And not knowing is not an issue. 200 years ago we didn't know how the blood circulated or what the pancreas did. That wasn't a reason to stop looking and say blood must towed around by magic fairies. We kept looking till we found it. And 300 years ago we didn't even know the cell existed let alone what it did. That doesn't mean it didn't.
Not knowing is what science thrives on. That is science. If creationists had been around 300 years ago they'd have been saying 'cells - impossible and cos you don't know they exist yet thats a real problem for evolution'. That is the argument you are using now. Sounds stupid doesn't it.
Secondly your Harley example is not very good. Firstly cos machines are very different to living things. However leaving that aside, I understand the analogy you are trying to make. But it doesn't work I'm afraid.
For it to work as you want it to ie to support the notion that only a designer can come up with something complex like life, someone at the very start of human innovation, hundreds of thousands of years ago should have designed and built the Harley or something equally technically complex from scratch without calling on prior technologies, science and inventions. That did not happen.
The Harley is the culmination of years of innovation, invention, scientific discovery, earlier models and so on. The Harley in its current form couldn't be built till someone had developed ways of extracting and working metals, refining and improving them. That process has been 'evolving' for thousands of years.
It couldn't be built till someone had understood how to use power to turn wheels and then developed that power from steam to petrol - again over hundreds of years. The steam engine is just someone co opting a kettle to turn wheels rather than make tea after all.
In short the Harley is something that slowly evolved over time from tiny improvements to simpler things like carts and from using simpler pieces of knowledge like steam to petrol that gradually came together stretching back to the wheel. The Harley is just an improvement or change or adaptation (or not) on something, which was in itself an improvement. A little bit like the bacterial flagellum which can be traced back to a simple pore or blood clotting or a myriad other things that desperate IDers lie about.
Now sorry if this has sounded over simplistic and patronising, but spending any time at all on creationist sites (and your arguments are straight from them Mr Dunday - including the Harley one) does rot critical faculties so I've gone back to very, very basic
Not really if you're looking for origins of life - it doesn't have to be as it is now! That is an argument ripped straight from the ID websites and is stupid.I say it was creation.A cell needs to be complete to function, and the scientists say there was no 'evolution' in the origins of life. Then there is a problem because, RNA is required to make proteins, yet proteins are involved in the production of RNA. This is a catch 22 situation.