On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> Organisms can utilize inorganic minerals, sure. Salt would be a better > example as we can actually eat it in its pure form and we actually need to > eat it. But that's completely different than a living cell made of salt and > iron that eats sand. The problem is that the theory that there is no reason > why this might not be possible doesn't seem to correspond to the reality > that all we have ever seen is a very narrow category of basic biologically > active substances. It's not that I have a theory that there couldn't be > inorganic life, it is just that the universe seems very heavily invested in > the appearance that such a thing is not merely unlikely or impossible, but > that it is the antithesis of life. My suggestion is that we take that rather > odd but stubbornly consistent hint of a truth as possibly important data. > Failing to do that is like assuming that mixing carbon monoxide in the air > shouldn't be much different than mixing in some carbon dioxide. I don't really understand what you're saying. It would seem to be an advantage for an organism to develop something like steel claws or a gun with chemical explosives and bullets, but there are no such organisms on Earth. Nature does not abhor inorganic matter since by weight most living organisms are inorganic matter. So why are there no organisms with steel claws or guns? The simplest explanation consistent with the facts is that it was difficult for the evolutionary process to pull this off. You claim it is because it is "the antithesis of life". Why, when there is an obvious and better explanation consistent with Occam's Razor? -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
