“Organisms are far more complicated than the things that physics and chemistry are usually focused on.”
Therefore God?
Can you read? I mean, really, can you read?
Therefore it’s impossible to guess what an organism is like without evidence of what that organism was like. As I said, several times.
Can you tell us? How about something much easier for which there is some, slight evidence available? What was the common ancestor of human beings and mushrooms like at the time those two lines of descent diverged? Go on, show us how easy it is to reconstruct an organism from far more recent time and with genetic evidence of shared physical characteristics to give you help in determining that. Go on, give us detailed information about its physical structure, its reproduction? Don't just assume that it reproduced like MODERN fungi, which are the produce of as many hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary change as we are. Tell us about its habitat in any but the most generalized speculations, including how it interacted with it.
Or tell us, since the evidence of the common ancestor of us and the fungi is known about primarily because of genetic evidence, did the original ancestor of us all have genes? Did it? How do you know it did and where did those come from? Did they form spontaneously, assembling from non-living matter? Oh, and, what about that cellular chemistry and physics that we know is necessary for those genes to do anything? Did that just happen to come together by random action in the first organism? I wonder what the chances of that happening are. I suspect it would have been the most incredible instance of the most infinitesimally small probability of an event happening in the history of the Earth, perhaps in the universe. I suspect if it were possible to calculate those improbabilities, it might rival the figures given for the "fine tuning" of some of the relatively less complex aspects of the non-living universe. That is an enormous problem for the assumption that modern life is relevant to the original organism, the common parent of all life on Earth. That modern life is the only kind for which we have actual physical evidence, from many hundreds of millions of years after the presumed first organism to have arisen. That is an even more enormous problem for the atheist trying to sell your model "original" organism with genes, the genetic mechanism and physical structures necessary for them to work.
Or is it, as I suspect, that the original form of life was far different from what we know from far, far on in evolution and those large, interacting molecules and physical structures are the product of millions of years of evolution?
And don’t forget the containing structure, if there was one. It would almost certainly have been necessary to contain the chemistry you so casually assert, to amass the concentrations of molecules essential for reproduction. Miller and Urey's experiment had a containing vessel, a rather complex one but hardly as complex as a containing membrane for even a one-celled organism. How did that form in, one imagines, one of the most complicated actions inert molecules may have ever performed all by themselves. And don’t forget the implications of reproduction, a membrane that would have had to split and heal itself during reproduction, successfully the first time. And what about consumption of nutrients and metabolism? Go on, tell us how that happened spontaneously, by chance. And what about the probability of it? If you're going to assert its probability, you'd certainly have to have some mathematical estimate of its probability. How do you calculate a probability of an event like that? I know your hero has claimed to do that but he's kind of bad at thinking things through. I mean, have you read about his lapses of mathematical logic in his "first bird to call out" nonsense? It's part of the same series as the one you object to.
You could avoid the problems of your complex proposals, and the abiogenesists seem to come up with new complex scenarios more often than some of the more contentious religious sects spawn new denominations, by admitting that they are all based on absolutely nothing but speculation and ideological desire to nail your imaginary coffin for God shut. It is not science, it's making up creation myths with chemistry and physics. I suspect that most experienced biologists might be amused by the simplistic assumptions you guys make about living beings in their far greater complexity than you'd like to consider. Don't expect anyone to be impressed except those predisposed to accept a superficial and very unstable castle built on sand, one which will fall down frequently, discrediting the effort, in the end. You should just admit the ultimate atheist quest was foolish and ill advised to start with.
I hope you don't try to pull out the old Razor in this argument because your favorite scenario wouldn't stand the first cut with it.
Update: I have learned one thing in my latest brawl over the entirely evidence free "science" of the one and only, real, living organism that constituted the presumed first ancestor of us all, by us meaning all known life on Earth. The near frantic desire to forestall any possible fact that leaves the question open to the non-scientific conclusion that it is possible that there was a creator and that evolution was the means that the creator made the diversity of life on Earth is a good indication that the motives of the effort are founded in ideological materialism and not in any evidence of what that unknown, entirely unique being not born of life, not born of another living being was, actually like. Given the myriad possible forms that life took, given the myriad of ways in which it may have assembled and began to live, with its entire and vastly cand, up to that point, unprecedentedly complex coming up with the one and only right description could only be done by an act of extraordinary, even mystical, insight.
The thing I've found the most astonishing in this is how some actual scientists convince themselves that the treat and glorious quest to wrest the creation of life from God is a simple little thing for which a merely plausible seeming story will suffice. Well, it won't. Such "science" will never produce knowledge that is reliable. It will be less stable than psychology. At least we know something about what the animals psychologists are alleged to study are like. And see what nonsense that field has generated.
No comments:
Post a Comment