Bacterial motors carefully studied (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Wednesday, April 13, 2016, 15:21 (803 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: In response, I pointed out that my ignorance of organic chemistry did not mean that organic chemists all supported the plaintiff's hypothesis, and it did not stop me from recognizing the enormous complexity of the cell and of the process of innovation (the plaintiff has omitted all of these comments). He referred me to Prof. Tour's lecture, as if this would somehow support his hypothesis against mine. It doesn't. However, we agree on the whole subject of complexity, and we agree that Tour's “objection to the glib approach to OOL is right on” (how often do I have to repeat that I don't believe in chance?),

As regards the origin itself, David, you wrote: “The fact that Darwin skipped the origin problem is of no consequence in the thinking about how OC plays a role in all this.” Despite my ignorance, I am fully aware that OC "plays a role" in both the origin of life and the course of evolution - they could hardly take place without it! That does not mean that OC supports your hypothesis that God "guided" (= personally preprogrammed or directly organized) every step in evolution, plus every lifestyle and natural wonder, all for the sake of humans. And that is the issue under discussion.

Tour's discussion of his difficulties in manufacturing organic molecules simply becomes an argument from incredulity that nature could do this on its own. It seems to me you believe it can. I don't. And I cannot explain the arrival of unique organisms, humans, as the result of a free-flowing complexity mechanism that has no need to respond to nature's challenges, but makes giant leaps such as the Cambrian or human consciousness for seemingly no good natural reason.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum