Fire
Actually it is your theory that species come from nowhere, interms of the origin of the chemicals and theorigin of the means that these chemicals formed life, afte all we do not see examples of life forming out of matter, but rather owing their existence to some conscious source
Species don't come from nowhere, they come from evolution under natural selection. And in fact we do have examples of life forming out of matter as we have a whole planet full of millions of species demonstrating this fact. We simply don't yet fully understand it in so far as we can spark a second 'genesis' in a petri dish.
It would certainly be odd if an award winning David Attenborough nature documentary stated that life owes it's existence to some ‘conscious’ source.
Ever wondered why there is no controversy at all regarding evolution in scientific circles? Because no aspect of geology, paleontology, chemistry, genetics, zoology, biology, Earth science & history, anthropology, climatology, you name it – nothing contradicts evolution. It is the only workable conclusion we can make based on the facts.
there is no evidence of the formation of species microbiology style - ther is evidence of formation of species owing their existence ot a conscious source though ...
Consciousness being the root of evolution is (at best) a mere philosophical notion. Since there is no physical evidence for it, it explains nothing.
I was going to suggest the same about your level of faith in reductionist paradigms
I have no faith. I see the universe the same way science does – the way it simply is.
perhaps, but we don't know how the said chemicals formed into life
You are forming this assertion based on how much reading of biological evolution? I admit I don’t know either, because I have not read up on it to any degree of detail. My general understanding is that it started very simply of course, and the lengthy line between chemical complexity and life, is a very blurred line indeed. So as far as I’m aware, life didn’t just suddenly appear. It’s sort of like asking when a puppy becomes a dog – there is no particular day the change occurs... or if there is, we can't pinpoint it.
erm .... these things are not life, they are the information systems (real and imagined) that life utilizes
The organized complexity of these molecules is what
creates life. Saying they are something life makes use of is just a play on words.
head strong theories - 150 years since darwin first started, thinking cells were mere globs of matter - now after a little bit of investigation nobody knows where to start with such endeavours of replicating life
Darwin was misguided in several of his theories. There were indeed
gaps. But he died without knowing about important parts of his theory, such as DNA and genetic heredity. Going by the daily advances of molecular and genetic studies, I wouldn’t be so sure that science will never create a second ‘genesis’ in a Petri dish
this is a head strong theory - previously it was just a theory (last paragraph) ... and now it just did happen - looks like the theory just evolved (and we are still mystified how ...)
Abiogenesis is a
fact It happened. At some point molecules had to replicate into DNA. There were certainly no DNA molecules on Earth when it was just a ball of fire. Understanding
how it happened is when the theory comes into play.
I could suggest a few science books for yourself too
Please do. I think you will find it difficult to find books within scientific consensus that somehow discredits evolution.
The difference between me and you of course, is that I see the importance of scientific consensus and you don’t. People (like you) who refute evolution despite the scientific consensus, also seem unable to come forward with a workable theory. I think it’s better to be ignorant of science whilst taking it for its word, rather than reject it but fail to present good reason why.
