Joined: June 2005
|Idiot just read this thread and you will see the precise statement by tour team that SLOT has nothing to do with evolution.|
This is the last post I'm making on this topic. You clearly misread other people's posts. What they were saying was that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is irrelevent as a criticism of evolution. Evolution obeys the Second Law of Thermodynamics. All your handwaiving has really done nothing to show otherwise.
After all, creating a star, a unit which not only emits large amounts of energy but also creates "order" in the sense that it fuses smaller atoms together into larger, more complex ones, requires only large amounts of hydrogen and gravity. The force of gravity provides the energy necessary to begin hydrogen fusion. And incidentally, before you post something ignorant on this subject, hydrogen fusion does not violate the Second Law because the release of energy that results adds to the entropy of the universe as a system.
And the sun was not the only possible energy source, geothermal heat from deep sea vents is another possibility. In addition, there are many methods of processing energy from inorganic substances, called chemoautotrophic processes. For instance, organisms can metabolize CO2 and Hydrogen into organic molecules, methane, and energy. You may be correct that the metabolic processes followed by plants and animals may not have been possible in the early Earth, but plants and animals are fairly recent groups, occuring only in the past 600 million years. Do some research on anaerobic metabolism if you're really interested.
Truth be told, though, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Scientists have shown how organic molecules, amino acids, and nucleotides can be formed from inorganic molecules present in the early Earth in Miller's experiments. They've shown how organic molecules can spontaneously form simply spheres with lipid bilayers similar to cells. They've shown how short RNA polymers can act as enzymes and also how short RNA polymers can self-replicate.
Now, what alternative hypotheses are there that still explain observed evidence? If the dominant scientific hypothesis can show step by step with one small gap, and the alternative hypothesis shows no evidence and says that none can be found, then it's not difficult to figure out which to accept. Furthermore, this is still all irrelevent, because the origin of life is not a part of the theory of evolution any more than Big Bang Cosmology is a part of Geology.