Random mutations?

Regarding the distiction in the 'Freedom' between the difficulty of creating 'a house' and 'a life';

some people I know dismiss the entire argument for intelligence to exist before everything existed, because they say that 'a house' is NOT ALIVE (therefore it can't build itself - requires intelligence to design it), and that 'a life', since it is actually ALIVE, it must have been the result of 'random genetic mutations' over a long, long time period.

It seems that to them, ANYTHING that is alive, in any way or form, must have been produced over millions of years through 'random genetic alterations'. Now, when I say to them: 'What about creating a human being, with all the complexity, from scratch, in a very short amount of time', they just say that maybe, in some distant future, humans will be able to do that, but to get to the present stage, we are still the product of 'billions of years of genetic mutations'. I'm just wandering, any ideas on how to present the entire 'house and life' argument so that people such as the ones I've mentioned would maybe understand? (Otherwise, they will always think that if something's alive - billions of years is enough, but if it's not alive - THEN you need intelligence.)

rafal

Some people seem beyond help. Do they comprehend what is LIFE? How COULD it happen randomly if even a house cannot happen this way?

If life is a result of random mutations, and appeared from something that is NON-ALIVE, we should see a PHENOMENAL amount of half-alive structures that create themselves randomly and FAIL. Where are they?

Life is not by chance - it is by DESIGN.

Tom

They said the half-alive structures are virus... Virus is not exactly a life form. They said those which has failed will be degraded. We certainly would not be able to differentiate failed half-alive structure and other structure. They are just non-alive. They said an amino acid might just be a failed fail-live structure?!I just don't know how to explain to them.... that life is by design.

bom

The concept of viruses is just a debatable theory that reflects our current understanding (or a lack of it). No one has ever seen a virus, simply because their size is MUCH smaller than a wavelength of visible light. Hence, many things about viruses are simply guesses. One thing seems certain, however. Virus cannot multiply without a HOST cell that is ALIVE. They are not produced by "trial and error" but in a very organized and intelligent way.

This fact inspires me to suggest an alternative "theory of viruses". Suppose that amino-acids that we call viruses are just toxic products of metabolism, produced when natural metabolic processes in living cells become distorted. When the "adaptable and intelligent information processing process" that we may call "the metabolism of Life" is perturbed, living cells may produce amino-acids that are toxic.

According to this theory, viruses may "spread" electromagnetically. Sick and suffering organisms "broadcast" the information about their struggle. Other organisms perceive this broadcast. If their "metabolism of Life" is not robust enough - their own cells may start acting on the information received from OTHER organisms that are sick.

Hence, viruses are "copied" in other organism, without a need of any physical contact to take place. Doesn't it explain some epidemics?

Tom

But scientists have seen viruses through electron microscope. If viruses aree just copied via broadcasting the information, then what are the functions of capsule and other outside-structures of bacteriophage? Does it designed for the need of transmission via air or physical contact? But I think your theory of 'broadcasting' is more suitable for cancer cell.

bom

An electron microscope cannot give a picture of a living thing. "Virus" is an amino-acid chemical compund that is toxic, so it is quite possible that cells "encapsulate" it to reduce/delay its harmful influence. What is called "bacteriophage" seems just a part of the theory.

As you know, electromagnetic broadcasts propagate over large distances, even in a vacuum. It is likely that some "diseases" may propagate the same way. Is it a coincidence that some old people contract a "virus" when there is an "epidemic", even if they do not come out of their house and do not contact anyone?

Tom

You said 'Is it a coincidence that some old people contract a 'virus' when there is an 'epidemic', even if they do not come out of their house and do not contact anyone?' Can you give me some examples...except flu. How do u explain the yellow fever which has been mentioned in the book. In the book, it mentioned that the yellow fever was bought back from people exploring the Africa. Yellow fever is caused by virus. That's mean the explorers had a physical contact with the mosquito which is carrying the virus!!!

bom

Poisons can be transmitted in more than one way. Physical contact via insects etc.. are obvious possibilities. However, during an epidemic, when many sufferers broadcast EM disturbances, the LACK of physical contact does not guarantee perfect health.

Tom

That's sound logical as according to that book, the yellow fewer spread rapidly after the African exploration. Bringing mosquitoes back would never result an epidemic. Thanks for your explanation.

bom