WLC on why theory of biological evolution is better evidence for theism than atheism

WLC on why theory of biological evolution is better evidence for theism than atheism Sept 22, 2018 12:27:35 GMT

Quote

Post by rizdek on Sept 22, 2018 12:27:35 GMT

Sept 22, 2018 1:52:10 GMT Arlon10 said:

Sept 21, 2018 15:40:38 GMT rizdek said:

Well, maybe a person like me, not versed in biochemistry at that level has an easier time believing that just "somehow" it happened in ways yet to be determined, that may never be determined or even that never can be determined. I don't have to worry about the details....of how, for example, agents of assembly overcame agents of disassembly and stuff like that.

   The mistake a lot of people make especially in their earlier years is trying to extend Darwin's theory to an abiotic environment. The reason that doesn't work is that living things have mastered the art of reversing entropy with of course the required input of energy from sunlight or food.

   The most likely way life began is from short strands of RNA building longer ones. In the lab however they don't get longer than about 40 links (last I checked). That's because the shorter strands have the competitive advantage and will break apart the longer ones, unwittingly of course. In that case "natural selection" is preventing the progress of life, or rather the progress of nonliving things toward life.

   By the way your links have nothing significant to add. Very short RNA chains self replicate rather successfully and this has been known for decades.

"Abiotic molecules have no such talents for reversing entropy whatever outside energy is available. They are far too simple."

At least as far as they've been able to determine in the short lab experiments they've conducted. And yes, a few decades or even centuries of testing would be considered "short." It is possible they've not presented these "short" strands with enough varied environments and competition that might lead to longer strands having an competitive advantage. It would seem the greater the variation in the environment with more "obstacles" and "hardships" to overcome, and the more and varied the other molecules are, the greater the opportunity for mutations with longer chains to be more successful. The devil is in the details and it seems most of the details aren't known. All the links suggested to me is that some molecules self-assembled that can reproduce, pass on information based on molecular structure, mutate (and pass on those mutations) to subsequent generations and it would seem to me, based on that, that abiogenesis isn't out of the question.

And then we need to consider the other option(s) for how natural life came to be. By "people in their earlier years" I assume you mean those who just don't know enough about it. I heartily agree but that was kind of my point. I would pose that as little as I, or some other neophyte in the field of biochemistry, knows about "it", my ignorance is nothing in comparison to the ignorance of the/a supernatural world, a supernatural entity or divine attributes which some assert must exist, is behind the wonderful complexity of life and which is able to overcome the problems that cannot be overcome by nature in an abiotic environment. I am operating under an assumption similar to the one you are operating under...I take it you believe that it is likely that I know very little of biochemistry...and you are right. But my assumption is that no one who is espousing God as the designer/builder of physical life knows anything about the God they are positing, how it might function or even if its "god-like" functioning is possible.

As little as we know about the natural world, people know nothing of a supernatural world. So there's no "out" or "solution" to be had by simply positing "god" and thinking that solves any problems or overcomes any lack of capacity of the natural world.