|
|
Re: Question regarding evolution.
Aethelrede@worldnet.att.net
Sat, 19 Oct 1996 16:37:14 -0400
Stephen Barnard wrote:
>
> lemnitz wrote:
> >
> > I have a question regarding the origin of life, and not being an authority
> > on the subject, I thought I'd ask it here.
> >
> > What I understand of evolutionary theory indicates that life evolved from
> > chance combinations of chemicals, with the heat and pressure of earth's
> > atmosphere acting as a catalyst. Apparently, simple amino acids and such
> > were formed from these chemical reactions, and from this we infer that
> > single-celled life was also a possibility.
> >
> > My question is this:
> >
> > Assuming that a form of life, however simple, could be spontaneously
> > created from it's chemical components, how would it reproduce? As far
> > as I can tell, the first organism would have had to posess these
> > attributes:
> >
> > - A DNA system, or perhaps a precursor to DNA - necessary for storing it's
> > genetic makeup.
> > - A system to transmit this information to its offspring, however simple.
> > - Some apparatus capable of building a new organism based on the DNA.
> > - A system for absorbing from its surroundings the energy necessary for
> > reproduction.
> >
> > Obviously, were these not in place, the organism would eventually die, and
> > earth would be back where it started - lifeless. Looking back on what I've
> > just written, I suppose my real question is this: Am I to believe that a
> > spontaneously produced creature could possibly be as complicated as I've
> > loosely detailed here, and if not, where have I erred?
> >
> > I'd appreciate any light you could shed on this subject. None of my
> > professors have been able to even begin to answer my question.
> >
> > --
> > ______ ____
> > _|___ || _| Jason Hickner lemnitz@zipcon.net
> > | | | -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > \ || | "Natura enim simplex est, et rerum
> > \ ____||____| causis superfluis non luxuriat." - Newton
>
> The origin of self-reproducing life in now a mystery, and don't let
> anyone tell you differently. There are speculative theories, from clay
> quasi-crystals to autocatalytic chemical reactions, but the fact is that
> nobody knows. One of these days we will know, or at least have a very
> probable hypothesis. For now it remains one of the most interesting and
> speculative topics in biology.
>
> Steve Barnard
Ever hear of alt.creationism? I think this thread belongs
there.
|