@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
Honestly, I don't think that this discussion belongs here. But hey, when did that ever stop me or anybody else on a2k?
I know this will come across as smug but wonder whether you guys are that well informed about the actual academic field and ideas involved. I suspect you have been exposed to a vulgarisation of the theory(ies) that was perhaps a bit simplistic and more ideologically uniform than is the case among scientists. You've been exposed to the hardcore materialist version of evolution frequent on forums and blogs, used in polemics against creationists. But within specialists of biology there are many different takes and nuances on evolution, as there should bebe. And the current theories are widely seen as unable to explain the appearance of life itself, as well as unsatisfactory to account for the emergence of some organs if memory serves. And of course quite a few biologists believe(d) in God....
In short, neo-Darwinism explains very well how species x comes from species y. But it can't explain how the "first species" (if that means anything) came to be. All bets are off on the origins of life. It's not even the TOPIC of evolution per se.
Let me try a metaphor or comparison: the emergence of life is to evolution what the big bang is to the expansion of the universe. We can observe and understand the latter, but we struggle to even conceptualize the former.
Here is the thing, we can produce RNA in a sterile environment through a process of having the base four chemicals that make up the combinations of aminoacids.
It has been done several times. But this gets swept under the rug even though it points out one very important aspect. These chemical combinations can naturally combine when subjected to water, evaporation, sunlight and time.
This means there is only one step away from RNA forming DNA. But if RNA is easily formed through a sterile process then it's really a common chemical interaction. Much like oxygen loves to share electrons with hydrogen.
