xevolutionist writes:
I should have made myself easier to understand, forgive me. My point was that the complexity of the simplest living cells is far beyond our ability to assemble, even with the technology to create virtually any environment and any combination of chemical compounds, so to assume that chance produced the same incredibly complex, interdependent, life forms, is not logical. Is that silly?
Where do you get that we have the technology to create ANY environment and ANY combination of chemical compounds? Or even if we did have the technology, which we don't yet, we haven't even scratched the surface of what is possible. If we were done "creating virtually environment and any compound" then there wouldn't be much use for the science of chemistry, would there? Everyone would be a chemical technician reading recipes. We are steadily progressing to the point where we can synthesize things that resemble cells, but we can't get anywhere near synthesizing the genome of even the simplest life forms. Peptide synthesis is making progress, but getting above a 20-mer peptide is very difficult. So far synthesizing (de novo) whole proteins is impossible for us without using some existing cellular machinery. We also couldn't possibly synthesize a ribosome today, even though we want to really bad like. The best we can do is to synthesize some part of a protein, nucleic acid, or other macromolecule.
™ Version 4.2