On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 18:16:15 GMT, (John Flanagan) wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 04:51:11 -0400, Gary R Coffman
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 01:10:39 GMT, (John Flanagan) wrote:
I have no problem with evolution either, in the generic sense. I have
a problem with Darwinian "random chance" evolution as being
astronomically improbable. Statistically it'd be easier to believe in
God than to believe in molecules bumping together producing anything
as complex as an ameoba.

Perhaps that's because you are profoundly ignorant of the rules
of carbon chemistry. Molecular collisions are random, but the
results depend on the rules of carbon chemistry, and those rules
are definitely *not* random.

Am I incorrect in believing that scientists have not created any
organic materials by "primordial" means more complex than amino acids?

Indeed you are incorrect. The key to larger more complex structures is
the amino acid serine. It has strong chirality, which very strongly influences
other amino acids to join together in more complex molecules with the
characteristic left handed twist of living things. As one Purdue researcher
put it recently, it is the bouncer in the dance club of primordial chemicals.
In other words, it takes much of the "chance" you keep rattling on about
out of the picture.

I agree about the randomness of molecular interaction and also that
chemical law dictates the results of these interactions. But it's an
astronomically huge, unsubstantiated leap of faith, shall we call it,
to say that these chemical laws dictate the eventual assension to
organic molecules as complex as DNA. Or that there have ever been in
the history of the universe enough chemical interactions to make
plausible the development of incredibly complex DNA even "if" the laws
dictated it.

As I said, your knowledge of carbon chemistry is sadly lacking.

Gary