Transition from chemistry to biology

I would like to start a thread concerning the issue raised by creationists concerning the structure of abiogenesis. I am certain that we are all aware that all biological structures are composed of chemical elements that follow rules of physics that we can give a fair bit of evidence to back up. My question is this. Why is it not within the realm of possibilty that chemical elements in proper combinations and enviroment can give rise to living organisms without the need for suoernatural intervention?

Abiogenesis is the generation of living matter from non living matter.

damn beat me to the definition. Congrats Asgara

Bows deeply in the direction of Wisconsin hears loud crack and falls to floor writhing in agony.[This message has been edited by sidelined, 01-05-2004]

Hello folks.Just a quick line to drop off a website address. Check it out and let me know what you think. Page Not Found - HolySmoke!

DNACould you explain your contention?

Quetzal and DNAunionThanks for the critique of Fox. I do find it easier to work from the position of the weaknesses of a persons explanation for things since it allows me a chance to ascertain for myself how strong their work actually is.Quetzal mentioned a position for how abiogenesis occured but DNA did not.So I would like to understand what it is you view as weaknesses in your own scenarios and what would be required in order to resolve the difficulties.

---

"I am not young enough to know everything. "
Oscar Wilde

DNAunionYou state Is there any evidence that points to the mechanism that allows RNA to replicate?

Gup20 The relationships need not be imposed from outside as again it is the atomic level at which the rules of physics define the relationships that chemistry imposes upon the biological.The error here is assuming that the fundemental processes occur at the level of "living" things. Again there is bias on the part of people to consider the word life has a basis in reality that arises somehow magically seperate from the atoms that make it up.This is not clearly shown to be so and if we do not have a clear picture of what life is then why are we arguing for it.

---

"We cannot define anything precisely! If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers, who sit opposite each other, one saying to the other, 'You don't know what you are talking about!' The second one says 'What do you mean by know? What do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you?', and so on."

I am going to bump this topic by reinterating my original question which seems to have been lost in a fog along the line. I would like to concentrate on debating this without going off on a tangent.This message has been edited by sidelined, 06-01-2004 06:36 PM

---

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. "