exit

x96marlow at wmich.edu x96marlow at wmich.edu
Wed Sep 4 21:39:42 EST 1996


I have a quick question.
Go back to the moment where "successful" life first began, be it in the form
of simple cells, amino acids, or whatever.  There was either a single cell or
a group of cells.  These cells would be either plant-like or animal-like
ie--able to produce their own food or not.  If the cell was animal, what
would it have had to eat other than the other cells nearby in that first
colony.  Being the good evolutionary cell that it was it ate whatever organic
matter it could:  other cells.  Before long, however, would it not have been
the only cell left?  It would have digested its only available food supply. 
True?  What would there be left to do but die.  You might say that the cell
somewhere along the line would reproduce creating more food for the original
cell.  However, there can only be a constant amount of energy to be gained
from eating that colony of cells.  Eating cells would increase the energy of
that cell, while reproducing would decrease it.  There can be no introduction
of new energy into that system, because being the only organic life material
in the universe, it is essentially a closed system.  The second LAW of
thermodynamics dictates that that system will eventually be reduced to chaos
or in simpler terms the single suriving cell that was deemed fittest to
survive would die because it used all the available resources to become the
ony surviving form of primitive life.  How can true scientists go against
such fundamental scientifically-proven laws only because they disprove the
"easiest most painless" explaination of the origin of life? (Since when has
science been so easy to understand at first?)
What about scenario #2: a plant cell which produces its own food?  Quite
convenient.  In fact, that would be the ideal way to sustain life beyond the
perilous first amount of time:  Produce your own food using the sun's energy
and carbon dioxide.  However, every evolutionist I've ever talked to paints a
different picture of early earth.  The sun could not be seen.  It was hidden
behind clouds of methane and sulfuric acid.  There was no CO2.  There was
only a stifling atmosphere of caustic harmful chemicals.  The same chemicals
which, incidentally, were needed to create the first forms of life, which
we also have no proof ever existed in such harmful quantities in the
history of the Earth.  No creature, primitive or otherwise, can possibly
survive on the earth of evolutionary theory.



More information about the Mol-evol mailing list