Chance v. Design (Evolution)

by George Jelliss , Crewe, Sunday, May 03, 2009, 22:24 (5681 days ago) @ dhw

George: My suspicion is that the first replicating molecule was relatively simple (as compared with modern DNA).
 
dhw: How simple is "relatively simple"? /// - George: DNA is in effect two long chain molecules with attached amino-acids which connect in pairs. This is not that complicated, though as David Turell points out it is part of a more complex system involving RNA etc in cells. By "relatively simple" as compared with DNA I thought it was clear that I meant something with fewer atoms. - George: The variations then follow as a matter of course, triggered by chance events. ///
 
dhw: It's a matter of course, then, that mindless, unconscious blobs of matter can be turned by chance into hitherto unheard-of faculties like hearing, vision, taste, smell etc., /// - George: I thought you had accepted evolution by natural selection? What we are talking about here are the earliest stages of emergence of life. What is required is to show how a transition from simple self-replicating molecules to the earliest known form of life, namely prokaryotes, could occur. Such bacteria do not to my knowledge have organs of hearing, vision, taste or smell. - dhw: You find chance "a satisfactory explanation". I can't argue against that. Theists find God a satisfactory explanation, and in my state of ignorance I can do no more than explain why I can't share your faith or theirs. - George: The reason chance is a satisfactory explanation is that it is economical. Most theists also accept that chance events occur (unless they think God determines the outcome of every dice throw, and ensures that they obey the laws of statistics). Then they add the unnecessary and expensive extra complication of a designing intelligence of unknown origin.

--
GPJ