abiogenesis

[Marc Jean Greener]

In article <199501101452.GAA22686 at net.bio.net> tphillips at BIOSCI.MBP.MISSOURI.EDU (Tom Phillips) writes:
>>Science &  God 1/5/94
>>==============
>>
>>*Spontaneous Generation & The Evolutionary theory

****stuff removed****
>>        This is still the root of the evolutionary theory today. Except
>>now, they have exchanged meat for molecules. Here is an example text
>>from my current microbiology book "Biologist believe that life arose on
>>earth about 4 billion years ago in the form of simple organism much like
>>the prokaryotic[2] organisms of today, however fossil evidence suggests
>>that eukaryotic[3] organism arose only about 1 billion years ago." [1]
>>Basically, this states that it took 3 billion years just for a cell to
>>evolve into one with a nucleus(eukaryote). And it took ONLY 1 billion
>>years to go from a eukaryote[ cell w/ nucleus ] to a modern humanoid.
>>Quite illogical.

Hmm. From my understanding of biochemistry, I would guess that the reason for
this is because the evolution of the 'common ancester' into archae, eubacteria
and single celled eukaryotes was at a molecular level and therefore more complex and precise in terms of cell structure and metabolic pathways etc.  The 
evolution of multicellular organisms from unicellular eukaryotes does not 
appear to me to be as complex, because all eukaryotic cells are very similar in
terms of structure and biochemistry and the structures of eukaryotes may be 
more adapt to evolving multicellular systems, I can not tell.  But 
nethertheless, the evolution of man from the 'amoaba' is mainly physiological
and not biochemical as with the change from some common ancester to those cells
with a defined nucleus.  I hope you understand what I am trying to say here.


>>

****Some bit on infinity in relation to God's existance and some ref's****
         (removed)
>
>
>I don't know about your God but my God surely could design/create a system
>in which a cell could evolve into a human in a billion years.  Evolution
>does not equate with athesim. 

I agree.



>Its biggest conflict with religion is simply
>that it argues against a literal translation of the bible.

I agree again, if you mean that when it explains in the Bible that man was 
created from the earth or something, this is in a metaphorical sense and 
suggests the very evolution of the first amino acids and thence life on Earth.



>Surely you
>admit that if God could create man and his environment in 6 days according
>to a literal interpretation of Genesis then He could initiate the process
>of evolution.  God is all powerful and incomprehensible as you point out
>with your paradox.   Why do you think you can understand everything about
>him in human terms.  Perhaps the  concepts in the bible have been revealed
>to man in parable/analogy fashion.  You should put a little faith into
>God's existence and maybe you wouldn't feel so obligated to impose your
>views on how He should do his job.
>
>
>Thomas E. Phillips, Ph.D.

You say he should put a little faith into Gods existance.  You mean to say that
basically he should just assume that God exists?
I think this guy is right in trying to prove or find the feasability, rather    than justify Gods existance. I myself find it hard to believe in something that
I haven't thought possible in my own mind, but this is the wrong news group for
that sort of thing!
But anyway, you are right in saying that this guy shouldn't really 'impose his
views' on Gods work.  Whats done has been done.  From the evolution of life,
the formation of the Galaxy and the making of the Universe itself is all part 
of one big 'chemical reaction' (metaphorically speaking) and we can't impose
views on something that as yet we cannot change.


Marc Jean Greener.
Undergraduate Biochemist with Biotechnology.
Biological Laboratory,
University Of Kent At Canterbury.