(May 31, 2014 at 9:40 am)Chas Wrote: The conditions then were radically different than the conditions now.
For instance, there was no free oxygen in the atmosphere or dissolved in the oceans.
The conditions now are not suited to abiogenesis - organic molecules that form will get consumed or broken down.
There is no drive toward complexity per se.
If you start with single-celled organisms, where is there to go except more complex?
Many organisms are very simple and have been so for billions of years.
Hi thanks you got what I meant. Yes I have heard and considered that argument. But haven't scientists duplicated the conditions and made "primordial soup" and flashed lightning at it and it just hasn't happened? It's an area of research I am very interested in. Why can't we make new life? It should be easy
If there is no drive towards complexity why are we not still one celled organisms? They are extrordinarily successful. Things don't change unless they have to. Why did we not stop at being insects? They are all over the planet and incredibly adaptable. It's quite incredible really that we have evolved arms and legs and brains to be able to manipulate our environment. I am not a creationist but it does look like evolution has an objective. I believe it is a question worth answering.
It's not immoral to eat meat, abort a fetus or love someone of the same sex...I think that about covers it