> 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
>
The answer to all you questions is contained in the preamble to the last
few.
You recognise that we can't yet make television pictures as sharp as can be
seen with the human eye, or reproduce sound as well as we hear it.
Television has been around for about 60years, life, or the Earth, for about
4 billion years.
Ask your questions again in 4 billion years time and I am sure the answers
will be different.
Paul
Paul Taylor
Microbial Ecology and Bioremediation Laboratory
Department of Microbiology and Immunology
The University of Melbourne
Victoria 3010
p +61 3 8344 5705
f +61 3 9347 1540
e p.taylor7 at pgrad.unimelb.edu.au
---
