tdidymas
Newbie
- Aug 28, 2014
- 2,770
- 1,120
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
You may be right in my not being much interested in researching the abiogenesis idea, because I regard it as atheistic mumbo jumbo. Nevertheless, I took some time in googling OOL and came up with this article: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsob.120190Since this is the science section, I will correct some of your scientific errors.
A cell with 3 billion years of evolution from its ancestors has complex biochemical systems -- so what? That doesn't seem strange at all.
1. 1 in 10^79000000000 is not a "fact". It is an unjustified calculated guess. It is built around (false) premises about spontaneous generation randomly from nothing at all.
2. James Tour is *NOT* a biologist of any kind. He is a (well regarded) synthetic organic chemist who make nanomachines.
It really isn't if you don't frame it as "yeast cells arise from nothing" or some similar generation of modern single-celled lifeforms.
The "evidence" against it seems only to be these "big number probability" calculations with no basis in reality.
Significant progress in origin of life research in recent decades. Much has been learned about natural processes making all of the needed building blocks of simple life forms.
In rejecting the evidence from recent progress in OOL research are you then suppressing the truth in the matter?
in which it says "...the process of abiogenesis was governed by underlying physico-chemical principles..."
Now, just exactly where did those principles come from? Since no one ever gets order out of chaos, nor does anyone get a governing principle from randomness, someone will have to explain how such a principle came into existence.
To volley back to you, can you please read chapter 3-5 of this book:
and then tell me exactly what you think is wrong with either the information or the logic concerning the fine tuning of the universe?
Upvote
0