> From: paulw{at}mmail.ath.cx (Paul)
> What I am a little dissatified about evolution theory, is that, all it
> basically says is that we are simply what's left on earth, a product
> of whatever process that was occurring.

Yeah, that's right. Some critters are better at surviving and making
babies than others, and over time they are the only ones still with any
descendents. We're among those descendents of better survivors.

> And yet we do think and
> wonder-- which greatly bother the hell out of me. The thoery gives no
> reason why should things not as simple crystals and no more.

Simple crystals don't have any chemical fecundity, so they aren't even
candidates for survival, so why do you even consider them in this
newsgroup??

As for our thinking, in the past our ancestors survived better with
that capability than their competitors did without it.

If our particular ancestors had failed to survive, we wouldn't be here,
but perhaps descendents of somebody else back then would be sitting
here in North America or whereever you happen to be thinking
approximately the same question.

> I wish biologists could find out why sooner-- or at least find out
> the physical compelling reasons for the reproduction.

I think the organic chemists are more likely to find the correct
answer, namely the extremely high chance of random chemical reactions
energized by UV radiation and geothermal venting to eventually (after a
few million years) yield a catalytic cycle which sustains itself
indefinitely until some variant of it out-breeds it.

Did you see the abiogenesis "just so" stories I posted a few months ago?
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 10/3/04 10:27:03 PM