Origin of Life: Organic chemists don't know how (Introduction)

by David Turell , Friday, October 17, 2014, 02:21 (3480 days ago) @ dhw

TONY: Yeah... that pretty much sums it up.
> 
> dhw: It certainly does. And since no-one has ever observed macroevolution, we can only theorize about it. If we disregard the seemingly insoluble problem of how life originated, we are left with the usual choices: 1) random mutations; 2) separate creation by God; 3) dabbling by God; 4) preprogramming by God; 5) an autonomous inventive mechanism (origin unknown, but let's say for now God designed it). The very fact that we can observe microevolution suggests that there is an autonomous mechanism which works towards purposeful change, in this case enabling organisms to adapt to their environment. This is not random, so out goes 1). Options 2) and 3) would keep God mighty busy organizing every single variation, and 4) would require zillions and zillions of programmes to be built into the first cells. These options all seem pretty unlikely to me. That leaves 5). So maybe an autonomous mechanism that can adapt can also invent.-I agree about (1). With (2) God wouldn't need evolution so it is out. (3 & 4) are reasonable and probably within God's power, but then for me it makes the mechanism of evolution a confusing choice for God. Heck, just direct it all the time, which is a sub-choice (3a & 4a). (5) is certainly possible if semi-autonomous as I have described.-With 'autonomous' you are also trying to have your cake and eating it. The jump from Ediacarens to Cambrian animals is a jump your IM doesn't explain. The planning is too great, and trial and error itty-bittiness is not present in a copious fossil record. To backtrack slightly since I am trying to equate evolution with a plan by God, the planning for first life is an even greater gap than the Ed-Cam jump. Both events show the same handiwork. And your approach can't touch that with a fork!