''The one thing that makes evolution such a neat theory, is that it expalins how organized complexity can arise from simplicity,'' as said by Richard Dawkins.
So this highlights my main point, that the simlicity of life, should happen frequently under a telescope, but it doesn't. Not when we want to observe the most simplistic of life, to evolve into a eukaryote.
My notes explain, that Darwinian supporters wanted to hype the early experimenst of Miller and Urey. In 1952-53, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey passed a 60,000 volt electricity through a generated spark into a bottled mixture of water, nitrogen, methane, ammonia, carbon monoxide and dioxide gasses, as suspected by the original goo.
The repeated this experiment over and over again, for a period of several days. After their experiment, they found there containment only held a sludge, and the sludge contained a number of different organic molecules, the kind associated with living things.
Among them, was amino acids, the same building blocks of genetic materials, or DNA. Since then, it has led people to believe that these materials, the amino acids thought to bring life about, but to every scientists surprise, has never been observed. For the theory to work, it required that simple dead molecules are brought into life living, mobile matter. For such a thing to be correct, proteins themselves generated by the DNA of a cell* in a complex order of processes. This process leads to an enzyme.
But no evidence has been provided from these experiments that could create a single enzyme. If life is so abundant, and no chance really calculatable, then such life would be observed frequently, but it hasn't. So then, how could the enzymes form from amino acids if not by chance? I ask you to reconsider your statement that chance has nothing to do with it.
* and therego, DNA is not about being progressive. Even the first single-celled life needed to have DNA, and the factor i gave as a statistic still holds.
