Viddler

Evolution does not suggest this. It theorizes that the smallest chemical building blocks of life came together coinciendally over eons in a single place in the many possible locations among the vast expanse of the universe. From there, natural selection allowed those chemical processes to evolve into more complex states and eventually higher life.

Not being able to do something with the technology present today does not correctly lead to a conclusion that it is impossible to do, nor that it couldn't have happened by coincidence.

In The Origin of Life, Oparin explains how the basic organic chemical structures of life could have been formed from elements in the atmosphere of pre-life Earth. His writings were proven in the lab by Stanley Miller in 1953. The except shown here is a prelude to an explanation of how the predecessor chemicals that would form organisms would be difficult to find archeologically, since you can't really find fossils of chemical compounds, thus making obsure how the chemical transformation takes place. Read his book here: http://tinyurl.com/2ufs2g

It is possible for a set of things to happen that cannot be reproduced on purpose. While it is possible for science to reproduce conditions in the labe that make the parts required for life, the exact circumstances and coincidental combinations might not be possible to reproduce. This does not mean it can't happen at all, and since life does exist it seems more possible that the combinations could happen than not. What the video says is that this coincidence can't happen, but the only explanation it offers as to why is that scientists can't forcefully recreate the precise conditions in a lab. This is not a correct application of logic.

The implication of this statement is that we are at the pinnacle of our technology and understanding of this science. Darwin, even in his age, was intelligent enough to know that he did not have all of the answers. So we are to assume that now, because we can see inside a cell and visualize its complexities that these complexities are so advanced as to be beyond us and only capable of design by a higher power? At this point I can only invoke the third law of the venerable author Arthur Clarke: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Unless we have proven irrefutably that these structures are so complex as to have required a designer, then we can only wait for more advanced technology that would reveal the proof to us.

Each of these individual parts can be explained very well by evolution and natural selection. Clearly a cell that can use energy more efficiently will have an advantage over those that can't. They will thrive and drive out the inefficient. Improvements in efficiency are a product of natural selection applied to mutations in the original. Keep in mind again that evolution does not say that cells appeared out of a spontaneous combination of elements, but that they evolved from the combinations of less efficient/effective organic compounds.

Yet you just likened a cell to a city, which is a structure created by man, and likely evolved from a small settlement or villiage into a thriving, efficient, monumentally complicated metrolpolis.

Thorpe seems to be an expert on bird behavior, leaving me wonder what his qualifications are to evaluate the complexity of cells beyond that of other scientists. Also, I am unable to locate the cited book containing this quotation.

For all of the citing of people saying that things are complex, whether in context or not, it's odd that only this brief mention exists that science has apparently abandoned home for generating an artificial cell. Is there work to cite of scientists who have tried, what they were trying to do, whether it was explicitly creating a cell, and whether they were successful? No. Only a glancing mention is here that because people are not doing it then it must be because they've decided it's not possible, and it must not be possible because only an almighty creator can do it. That seems like quite a leap in logic.

This is amazing. When dealt a hand in bridge, the probability of receiving that specific hand is only 1 in 600 billion. It seems illogical to conclude that because the chance of that hand happening is so rare, regardless of how good the hand is, that there must be some divine intervention involved. The occurrance of coincidence may be exponentially more rare for evolution, but the opportunities for it in the vastness of the universe and expanse of time are factorially greater, such that its occurrance would rather nearly seem inevitable, not improbable.

Besides that, the comparison of the sudden appearance of a readable dictionary is more like to the sudden appearance of a whole working cell, which is not the theory of evolution. It would be more like the publishing company exploded and a coherent two- or three-word sentence appeared.

I'll not refute this. Nor will evolution. Actually, evolution is not mutually exclusive with religion or the concept of an almighty being. If you conceive that evolution was God's will, and the coinciences that led evolution to the organisms we have today are the result of divine intervention, that precludes neither God nor evolution.

It's unfortunate that evolution is seen in opposition to God, when it can be part of God's mystery and wonder.

I suppose that evolution's simultaneous ability to allow for the lack of God in the universe is what causes people to be at odds with it and come up with other less sound explanations for the origin of live.