Originally posted by dj2becker I said enough energy to form life from non-life.
Are you telling me that, if a scientist was able to make an experiment
in which s/he could form life from energy and non-living proteins and
so forth (as abiogensis maintains), you would admit that evolution was
a viable and probable theory?
Originally posted by Nemesio Are you telling me that, if a scientist was able to make an experiment
in which s/he could form life from energy and non-living proteins and
so forth (as abiogensis maintains), you would admit that evolution was
a viable and probable theory?
Originally posted by Nemesio Are you telling me that, if a scientist was able to make an experiment
in which s/he could form life from energy and non-living proteins and
so forth (as abiogensis maintains), you would admit that evolution was
a viable and probable theory?
Nemesio
Well, come to think of it, if you can prove to me that the scientist had no intelligence, then possibly it could provide some form of credibility to an unintelligent process such as evolution.
Originally posted by dj2becker Well, if you can prove to me that the scientist had no intelligence, then possibly it could provide some form of credibility to an unintelligent process such as evolution.
What leads you to think evolution is un-intelligent? There is intelligence, not from outside like you wish to pre-suppose, but from internal intelligence, one thing being DNA itself as a form of computer. Life has the ability to internalize changes in environmental stress, thats what give rise to the next incremental change. DNA is a form of intelligence all on its own.
Originally posted by sonhouse What leads you to think evolution is un-intelligent? There is intelligence, not from outside like you wish to pre-suppose, but from internal intelligence, one thing being DNA itself as a form of computer. Life has the ability to internalize changes in environmental stress, thats what give rise to the next incremental change. DNA is a form of intelligence all on its own.
No one will dispute with you that life is intelligent, DNA is found in living organisms.
The point is that it doesn't follow logically that intelligent life is derived from unintelligent non-life.
But it makes perfect sense that life flows from an unlimited source of intelligence.
Originally posted by dj2becker Well, come to think of it, if you can prove to me that the scientist had no intelligence, then possibly it could provide some form of credibility to an unintelligent process such as evolution.
Yes or no. If a scientist was able to make life from primordial soup
(you know, unliving proteins flopping around in a decidely warm
environment with lightning and the whole kit and kaboodle), would
you then believe that evolution was a reasonable theory?
Originally posted by Nemesio Yes or no. If a scientist was able to make life from primordial soup
(you know, unliving proteins flopping around in a decidely warm
environment with lightning and the whole kit and kaboodle), would
you then believe that evolution was a reasonable theory?
Nemesio
First define what you mean by 'evolution'. The term is used to mean many things.
30 Mar '07 15:17
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
Back to Top