Quote:
Originally Posted by Actor
Dr. Watson assumes that all life is cellular, i.e, consists of conglomerates of cells or of single cells. He totally disregards molecular biology. The defining attribute of life is reproduction. This is possible with a single molecule, meaning that #7 is the only requirement for life. #1 thru #6 fall by the wayside. A single molecule in a primordial environment would not need them.
|
It's Dr. Wilson, Sparky. Try to keep up.
The problem with your molecule theory is that molecules are not free-living organisms. Look up the definition on the web.
A molecule is a particle made up of two or more atoms that are chemically bonded together; the number of atomic nuclei making up a molecule is a determinate number.
The above taken from the Chemical Dictionary.
The second problem with your theory is that atoms do not reproduce -- not in the sense you're trying to convey.
Do atoms reproduce?
- Tremont Grade School
Tremont, IL
A:
In the sense that living organisms reproduce, no, atoms do not reproduce.
Some atoms are radioactive and decay into other atoms. Some emit "alpha" particles when they decay. An alpha particle is two protons and two neutrons stuck together. An alpha particle is the same as a helium nucleus. For example, Radon (a naturally ocurring gas, produced in the deacay of Thorium which is found in rocks) decays by emitting an alpha particle to produce a Polonium atom, which decays itself by emitting an alpha particle. Each of these alpha particles makes a helium atom.
But is this "reproduction"? Not at all! The helium atoms do not "grow up" to be like the atoms they came from -- they just stay helium atoms.
https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1290
The third problem with your theory is that it begs the question hugely! Even if molecules reproduced in the sense you are implying, what good is it if the copies cannot sustain themselves due to the absence of the the other six key complex elements to life? All the copies would be "stillborn"! They would die immediately without the supporting systems!
The fourth problem Wilson pointed out in my 5477 is that your theory also begs the question big time with respect to the even the bigger question -- evolution to a free-living cell. Again, here is what Wilson said:
That evidence cannot be limited to simply demonstrating the natural formation of bits and pieces of a whole cell (e.g. amino acids, protein fragments and other biochemicals because that leaves no plausible explanation for how these biological bits could randomly come
together to form a whole cell. Anything short of that demonstration cannot be used as the direct evidence needed to establish abiogenesis as fact. (emphases author's)
In fact, your reproduction theory for molecules (which isn't really reproduction to begin with) "leaves no plausible explanation for how those" [atoms in the molecules] randomly come together to form a whole cell".
Also, you might try to actually read my 5496 wherein several evolution scientists are quoted and reproduction is discussed in that post.
Have a nice evening, Sparky. When you have something of genuine substance to say, please beam it up to this thread.
