RE: How did the chemicals for life come together??..
November 5, 2010 at 5:36 pm
(This post was last modified: November 5, 2010 at 5:55 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(November 5, 2010 at 4:54 pm)LastPoet Wrote:(November 5, 2010 at 11:07 am)leo-rcc Wrote: Are you reading the same post as I am? He never said such a thing.
Ok, let me rephrase that, solja easily dismisses any argument that science or we have provided in this forum all this time, if it goes against the possibility of a god(specially the yaweh one), but a random claim from statler he finds it 'fascinating' just because it somewhat supports his belief...
The claim of separate genetic lineages amongst non-eukaryotic organisms is not statler's. It was first made by Carl Woese of University of Illinois and George Fox of University of Houston. Subsequent biochemical and genetic work bears them out. Archaea and Bacteria are different enough so it is questionable if they could have descended from a single functioning organism, but similar enough so that they probably arose in very similar chemical environments. This is prima facia evidence that abiogenesis occurred twice in early hydrothermal environment. It lends no support to intelligent design or creationism.
Sol took the prima facia evidence of the repeated occurance of abiogenesis in nature, and appears to convince himself that it really supports the notion that abiogenesis is too hard to occur even once. But this is his style. He didn't know how evolution was nonrandom, but deemed himself to know enough to assert organisms were too complex to form through evolution. He says philosophy is superior to science because it allows him to assert what must be, but exhibit a total unawareness that science is the most productive field of philosophy there ever was. Sol has the Sol style, and Statler has the statler style.