Life has never been observed to come from non-life. True or false?
True.
What would be the biggest change in genetic information that has been observed?
Perhaps microbial resistance to antibiotics?
That's not much!
But assuming the big steps of evolution really happened, including life springing from non-life, it's signally amazing that chemicals and genes have these abilities. That life in all its complexity came from some lifeless chemicals, means that those chemicals had in them the capability to become everything that we now see. It means those original chemicals had the capability to produce you and I in all our individual complexities. It means we've hardly touched the surface in understanding the elements. Assuming the larger evolutionary scenario.
More amazing is, How and why did the chemicals acquire the ability to become the complex forms of life that we see today? Did the chemicals just always have that ability? Or did the chemicals evolve to acquire that ability? What process influenced the chemicals to develop that ability - some sort of "natural selection" of chemicals? Needless to say, we probably can't observe any of that.
The complexity I can observe just looking through our lounge room, through the window, outside to the street - the tendency to produce all of that must have existed in the chemicals before the Big Bang. How? Why?
Observing evolution (which we've barely done) is one thing. But even if all the evolution that can be imagined is true, it only opens up a whole bigger mystery.
If evolution is true, then we have to try to explain how original chemicals acquired the intrinsic tendency to produce all that we now see.
And then, once we've proved the process by which the original chemicals acquired that ability and tendency, that too only opens up another bigger mystery: how did the original chemicals come to exist in the first place.
True.
What would be the biggest change in genetic information that has been observed?
Perhaps microbial resistance to antibiotics?
That's not much!
But assuming the big steps of evolution really happened, including life springing from non-life, it's signally amazing that chemicals and genes have these abilities. That life in all its complexity came from some lifeless chemicals, means that those chemicals had in them the capability to become everything that we now see. It means those original chemicals had the capability to produce you and I in all our individual complexities. It means we've hardly touched the surface in understanding the elements. Assuming the larger evolutionary scenario.
More amazing is, How and why did the chemicals acquire the ability to become the complex forms of life that we see today? Did the chemicals just always have that ability? Or did the chemicals evolve to acquire that ability? What process influenced the chemicals to develop that ability - some sort of "natural selection" of chemicals? Needless to say, we probably can't observe any of that.
The complexity I can observe just looking through our lounge room, through the window, outside to the street - the tendency to produce all of that must have existed in the chemicals before the Big Bang. How? Why?
Observing evolution (which we've barely done) is one thing. But even if all the evolution that can be imagined is true, it only opens up a whole bigger mystery.
If evolution is true, then we have to try to explain how original chemicals acquired the intrinsic tendency to produce all that we now see.
And then, once we've proved the process by which the original chemicals acquired that ability and tendency, that too only opens up another bigger mystery: how did the original chemicals come to exist in the first place.
No comments:
Post a Comment