DNA Was Designed By A Mind

Who said it can only be one?

Setanta wrote:

By the way, no one said that there is geological evidence of the environmental conditions of our planet at the time that life arose. This is just another of your strawman arguments, this is just another red herring.

I guess that the presence (or non-presence) of oxygen is not an environmental condition then.

And I guess that citing arguments involving volcanoes, red beds and diamonds are not intended to be geological evidence.

btw you keep complaining about not having access to the context of Dr. Lozcano's remarks, but Pauligirl posted a link.

parados wrote:

Who said it can only be one?

How many different times did life self generate, parados?

Is life still self generating today?

Information on geological and atmospheric conditions prior to the formation of the first cells.

Geologic evidence of cellular life occurs around 3.5bya in Pre-Cambrian stromatolites in the Siyeh Formation, Glacier National Park. In 2002, William Schopf of UCLA published a paper in the scientific journal Nature arguing that geological formations such as this possess 3.5 billion year old fossilized algae microbes.

This leaves approximately 1 billion years between the earliest physical evidence of rocks/water and the earliest physical evidence of cellular life.

During this period of time, some natural process occurred which evolved inorganic chemical processes into organic replicative cells.

Since we have some geological evidence (zircons) of environmental conditions of our planet at the time of the emergence of living systems (see link at top), it's clear that Antonio Lazcano quote that "No geological evidence of the environmental conditions of our planet at the time of the emergence of living systems exists..." is not accurate.

This however is not surprising given the context of his original quote, which wasn't focused on that. Antonio simply wasn't trying to use a scientific level of precision when writing an introduction to a book.

If you were Lyn Margulis, would you have allowed a scientifically fallacious statement to inhabit the Foreword to your book?

Putting yourself in Margulis' place for a moment, what purpose would it serve to allow a well known scientist make a false statement in the Foreword to your book, ros?

real life wrote:

Putting yourself in Margulis' place for a moment, what purpose would it serve to allow a well known scientist make a false statement in the Foreword to your book, ros?

I don't know. You'll have to ask her.

Maybe she was more concerned with the overall context rather than the precision of a portion of a sentence.

But the point of all this is that we do have a certain amount of information on the environment of the earth prior to the advent of cells. Granted there isn't a whole lot of information, but there is some.

I'm not asking her I'm asking you, because you said you would allow it.

My question is since you would allow it, what purpose would it serve when you did so?

Do you think Dr Lozcano knowingly made a false statement, or that he is just sloppy when discussing the subject that is his life's work?

So is he sloppy, or intentionally dishonest?

And if you're going to rely on him, real life, you might at least try to get his name right. It's Lazcano, not Lozcano. Sheesh. Does this mean you're sloppy? or intellectually dishonest?