I would be very much appreciated

Richard richard_kle at yahoo.com
Thu Nov 15 10:26:08 EST 2001


I would be very much appreciated if you answer the questions I pose below:

1. How did the first living thing come into existence by itself? In the
past, if one cell came into existence by itself in the primitive conditions,
then why can't anyone bring one cell into existence under the high tech
laboratories? Even one of the organelles located inside a cell such as
mitochondria, golgi apparatus, endoplasmic reticulum cannot be brought into
existence.
2. It is believed that various inorganic chemical compounds underwent
reactions and caused to form the first living cell. Then, let's think of a
fly that just died away. This fly has all the elements necessary for
vitality such as proteins, amino acids, and carbohydrates. Would not it be
possible to turn the same fly back to life by using the last advanced
technologies and applying all the known experiments?
3. It is realized that some living beings have not been changed over
millions of years by looking at their fossils. For instance, fish fossils of
400 million years, dragonfly fossils of 140 million years, ammonite fossils
of 350 million years, scorpion fossils of 320 million years. How could the
above-mentioned living beings manage to reach the present time without going
under any evolutionary process?
4. Let us put plenty of materials present in the composition of living
beings such as phosphorus, nitrogen, carbon, oxygen, iron, and magnesium
generously in plenty of big barrels. Moreover, we can add in these barrels
any material that does not exist under normal conditions, but you think as
necessary.   Let's add as much as amino acids and proteins we like to the
mixture and expose these mixtures to as much heat and moisture as they like.
Let's call the world best-known scientist beside the barrel. Let these
experts wait by the barrels from father to son, from generation to
generation for billions or even trillions of years. Let them be free of
forming every condition they think would be necessary for the existence of a
living thing.  After all these means, do you think actors like Clark Gable,
Humphrey Bogart or scientists like Einstein would come to existence out of
these barrels? I mean, can a human that has the ability to think, talk,
feel, innovate, and observe his own cells under an electron microscope come
into existence out of them? Or, can giraffes, lions, bees, canaries,
parrots, horses, dolphins, rose, orchids, cloves, bananas, oranges, apples,
figs, olives, grapes, peafowls, pheasants, butterflies or millions of other
species be brought into existence?
5. Ability to see the world very sharply is a matter that I take into
consideration occasionally. I examined the highest quality television
systems and realized that they cannot provide an image as sharp as a human
eye can. There are television producer companies such as Sony, Philips.
There are plenty of scientists and engineers working in these electronic
companies. Although they have all the technology and many years of
experience, they cannot attain the vision quality of a single human eye.
Then, would it be reasonable to consider this incredible vision system
formed as a result of blind coincidences?
6. I considered the same situation for the sound. The hearing system of a
human is surprisingly qualified. Despite there are hundreds of thousands of
engineers working in well-known companies such as Pioneer, Kenwood, Hitachi,
they cannot obtain a clear sound without any static as in a human ear. How
can an ear that is made up of flesh and bone develop such a perfect sound
system? If we accept them to be of blind coincidences, then wouldn't it mean
that we put forth the engineers and the technicians are not as smart as
these coincidences?
7. As I have learned from the books I have read so far, there is no
transitional form indicating that a living thing turned into another by
evolutionary means. Is it correct?

RichArd





More information about the Microbio mailing list