quoting BJK:
"my guess is they will find some combination or sequence " Texas Songwriter: "Your statement seems to be a series of faith statements."
What are you talking about?
Did you never go to school?
Did they never show you a dictionary?
Which dictionary in the whole wide wonderful world told you that my word "guess" means "faith"?? "Guess" means guess -- go ahead, look it up!
Texas Songwriter: "How does a chemical, or multiple organic chemicals organize into a cell.
I mentioned before that about a dozen different hypotheses have been proposed (including panspermia) for how that might have first happened.
None are confirmed, so nobody knows for sure.
However, a lot of work has been done, and I've read where scientists are today far beyond the old 1952 Miller-Urey experiment:
Texas Songwriter: "Your reference to extraterrestrial life infers ID, but seems to leave that notion hanging out there like a matzo ball."
Pal, I merely reported the fact that various ideas on panspermia are among the hypotheses proposed for origin of life on earth.
So far, the only actual evidence of it is some more complex organic molecules found on comets.
That would suggest that nearly all the real creative work was done here on earth...
Texas Songwriter: "The complexity of the simplest cell is so complex that man has never yet been able to develop such a primordial cell.....and that is with intelligence applied, yet you seem to want to rely on blind luck, happenstance, and hope."
We can be certain that the full complexity of today's simplest cells did not evolve overnight, or on a time-scale equivalent to the lifetimes of today's scientists!
Rather, it must have happened in many, many small steps over not just millions but billions of years.
Doubtless, we would not even consider the first "cells" to be fully alive, since they wouldn't have reproduced using DNA or even RNA.
quoting BJK: "...those first 'cells' were in a reduced atmosphere so that there was no oxygen available to drive those enzyme systems..."
Doubtless those first cells were anaerobic, of which there are still many descendants surviving today.
They prove that life can survive on just about any energy source available.
As for complex enzyme systems -- you can be certain they were not there in the beginning, but must have evolved slowly, slowly over millions & billions of years.
Remember, when the "Cambrian Explosion" started, the earth was already nearly four billion years old.
Texas Songwriter: "Your schematic of the invagination of a select portion of ectoderm which invaginated, becomes sequesters and then takes on a completely different functional form ( light sensitivity, sight) with just the good luck to develop a lens."
"Good luck" or God's good planning, the process is still the same -- descent with modifications and natural selection result in increasing complexity and sometimes diversity.
The point of the schematic is to show that our sophisticated eyeballs were preceded by many others less highly engineered.
Texas Songwriter: "Ontology recapitulates phylogeny".....the old lie of Ernst Haeckel and fraudulent drawings of embryos."
In fact, there's more truth in it than you care to admit.
Haeckel's drawings were wrong, but the basic idea, not so far off -- many creatures have similar early stages of fetus development.
Texas Songwriter: "We know these are fraudulent, yet public school books still lie to young students to inculcate this nonsense."
Here is our current understanding:
"The Haeckelian form of recapitulation theory is considered defunct.[23]
However, embryos do undergo a period where their morphology is strongly shaped by their phylogenetic position, rather than selective pressures"
Goodness gracious. What got your stinger out? We're just talking…we are not going to settle anything tonight.
Did I ever go to school? Yes., I went to school. Did they never show me a dictionary? Yes, they showed me a dictionary. The dictionary does't tell. Words are defined in those which I have referred to over the years. …….."Guess" means "faith"…..I would agree with those two words are not synonyms.
A dozen or a bakers dozen…perhaps a little hyperbole, but that is OK. I understand your assertion. But Panspermia….really….panspermia?…..Even Fred Hoyle disavowed the theory as hokum…..but you can give it consideration….we are just talking. You are correct….none of your proposed hypotheses to consider have been confirmed….or even have any scientific evidence to support such nonsense.
As you know, since you brought it up, the Miller-Urey had false assumptions and as you must know the assumptions in primordial atmospheric conditions have been discarded. As I am sure you know borrowed from the Oparin-Haldane model of the atmosphere with methane, ammonia, water and hydrogen Geochemists have ruled out the presumption of such an atmosphere. But as you know these cursory amino acids rapidly degenerated to cyanide and formic acid in the reduced atmosphere which most certainly was present…..hardly a precursor for life….two of the most deadly chemicals to cells. So, Miller-Urey really can only claim to be one of the first attempts, but failed to elucidate any pertinent information on origen of life.
Pal, you did mention panspermia as an option….throwing it out there for the uninitiated. But, Pal, you might as well have been mentioning little green men from Mars, Pal. It was a senseless comment.
You say, "It must have happened in many, many small steps over not just millions, but billions of year." Do you not see that such an assertion is a statement of faith. You do not knows your statement is warranted, true belief. You simply assert this as your belief….you have faith that this is how it happened. Get it, Pal? Your next sentence, regarding enzymes 'evolving' over billions of years, is a statement of faith. If your purported hypothesis of panspermia were to be warranted, then billions of years would not be necessary, would it, PaL?
Good luck" or God's good planning, the process is still the same -- descent with modifications and natural selection result in increasing complexity and sometimes diversity.How do you know this statement is true? You make the assertion, but what is the epistemic explanation for your making such a statement?
The point of the schematic is to show that our sophisticated eyeballs were preceded by many others less highly engineered.
Who was the engineer? Dawkin's mindless, pitiless, pointless universe? Are we anthropomorphizing matter and energy?
In fact, there's more truth in it than you care to admit. Haeckel's drawings were wrong, but the basic idea, not so far off -- many creatures have similar early stages of fetus development.
Current literature in comparative embryology has made crystal clear that Haeckel's drawings were fraudulent. Even atheistic embryologists, who would wish his drawings to be correct, had completely discredited his drawings. His 'science' was presuppositional and he wanted his drawings to be true, but they were deceitful. Wikipedia is not the kind of authority which I reference.
If Haeckel's drawings were true, the statement that "In fact, there's more truth in it than you care to admit. Haeckel's drawings were wrong, but the basic idea, not so far off -- many creatures have similar early stages of fetus development. It sounds like a statement which would be made by Dan Rather….."false, but accurate".
So, Pal, we are just talking. Chatting. Discussing. I am not angry. Relax a little, it's not your style.