351. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #196549 by Steve Zara on June 20, 2008 at 6:31 am

So, tell me, Vin ever get tired of being wrong?

Maybe it is just me, but I find snide little digs like this quite irritating. If we are going to debate, let's do it on the basis of facts and reason.

352. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196544 by Steve Zara on June 20, 2008 at 6:21 am

I think a good religion would help with this. It wouldn't deny evolution or natural selection, or the right to follow where the evidence leads, but it would allow the existence of a perception horizon.

No, you can't put a barrier on the possibilities. That is not allowing us to follow where reason and evidence lead. That is what I feel is so arrogant about religion - it says to science and reason "stop here!"

353. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #196457 by Steve Zara on June 20, 2008 at 2:17 am

We refuse to abide by law that would take away from our sovereignty.

All international laws take away sovereignty to some extent. That is required in a world in which countries interact.

As Isaac Azimov said in the late 80s, we need to start realising that the world is interrelated, as if it was more like one country. International anarchy is not a good option.

354. Is the Universe Actually Made of Math?

Comment #196451 by Steve Zara on June 20, 2008 at 2:01 am

Comment #196447 by Shane McKee

Nice post. I'd like to comment on one thing:

Perhaps there was no singularity

There wasn't (I think we can say with close to certainty). Singularities are artefacts of the mathematics of general relativity. They don't take into account quantum mechanics, and we are virtually certain that some form of quantum gravity comes into play at very short distances.
http://zarbi.livejournal.com/129811.html

355. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #196440 by Steve Zara on June 20, 2008 at 1:09 am

I am not quite as concerned as others, and I think it is quite wrong to say that this means the entire UN is in decline. This is just one council, and has no legal weight.

I wonder if this couldn't be used as a precedent. We could say that only scholars of science discuss scientific matters (that would prevent the catholics spouting nonsense about condom safety, for example).

Also, does this mean that only scholars who are religious should discuss matters of faith? On this site we have people who are clearly experts on what people of faith say they believe, but who aren't religious.

It would have been better if it had just had been "scholars", because there are others who are experts on faith two - psychologists, neuroscientists.

356. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196320 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2008 at 4:26 pm

Comment #196307 by MPhil

Here I would be more careful and say it selects the structures that make it possible to acquire the ability to do mathematics

Good point.

As for consensus - Yes!

Go to bed :)

357. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196308 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2008 at 4:14 pm

Comment #196306 by MPhil

I see what you are getting at, but I don't think it means we can transcend evolution as such.

I agree that it may not be appropriate to label flight itself as biological.

But what evolution selects is the potential for flight.

Similarly, it may not be appropriate to label doing mathematics as biological.

But what evolution can select is the ability to do mathematics.

358. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196303 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2008 at 4:02 pm

And the reasons for doing these things would not directly have to do with selection (except things like bio-weapons and nukes).

But that we have chosen to do one of these things can influence survival. So the capacity to choose, and perhaps even having the mental makeup to choose a particular one, can be distinguished by evolution.

359. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196300 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2008 at 3:55 pm

I'm sorry Goldy - thinking is not biological at its base level... or do you think artificial intelligence is a priori impossible? Non-biological systems might well think one day. Thinking and thoughts are about information and propositions - and these just aren't biological.

Artificial flight is possible, but that does not mean that flight is non-biological. You might just as well say that the flight of birds isn't biological because the base level of flight is physics.

I think we are missing the point, perhaps. What matters is what can be selected - what is the raw material of evolution. The ability to fly can be selected. The ability to do mathematics may also be selected.

Therefore, we aren't beyond evolution.

Good Night!

Have a nice weekend!

360. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196298 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2008 at 3:54 pm

Thinking and thoughts are about information and propositions - and these just aren't biological

What matters is - do these convey an advantage in terms of survival? If so, then the capacity to perform them can be selected.

361. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196297 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2008 at 3:51 pm

Comment #196292 by MPhil

I agree with Goldy. You might just as well say that penguins having fun sliding around on ice isn't biology, or a chimp playing with a stick isn't biology.

You don't get to which particular stick a Chimp will play with from biology. What biology gives is the capacity for play in general. The capacity for play is determined by genes. Also, the tendency to play with sticks can be selected for, as it could lead to tool use, which is advantageous in the acquisition of food.

We have minds that can "play" with mathematics. Such minds can be selected. Playing with mathematics can be selected also - if it helps us survive.

362. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196290 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2008 at 3:34 pm

I feel we can say we transcend biology only when we do the defining.

Indeed, but even then we will still "evolve". Natural Selection is a general principle. Providing we replicate with variation in a resource-limited environment, there will be selection.

363. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196287 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2008 at 3:31 pm

Don't you think there are dimensions to human social life, intellectual pursuits etc that do not fall under the domain of evolution or biology in general?

Not really, no, as brains are biological. Dolphins will play with objects in the water with quite a lot of thought and planning. Does that mean that dolphin play is not biological?

I agree that mouse thing is interesting. It points out what evolution actually works on: proportions of alleles. It is not about increasing numbers, it is about increasing proportions. That can work even if the result is a declining population.

364. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196286 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2008 at 3:27 pm

Comment #196281 by Quine

For me, it is those who Dawkin's addresses when he says we should not live Darwinian lives.

Comment #196259 by al-rawandi

I am a bit confused too. I don't really see how being aware of evolution matters. The brain capacity to have that awareness is a result of evolution. It may or may not turn out to be a trait that helps with survival. If so, it will be selected.

365. The Mother, The Child, The School Board And The Psychic

Comment #196280 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2008 at 3:22 pm

Comment #196269 by bachfiend

A "quick listen" to Yes? Which Yes? Early 70s, mid 70s, late 70s? Which of the many 80s versions? 90s versions? 00s version?

Which keyboardist? Which singer? Which drummer? Which guitarist? Which style? Pop? Rock? Psychedelic?

Saying "I don't like Yes" seems to me to be rather like saying "I don't like rock music" - there are so many styles and forms, that a "quick listen", or to say "I don't like the keyboards" just doesn't cover the range.

But this is so off-topic, I shall cease now.

366. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #196278 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2008 at 3:15 pm

I'm tempted to reprise an old computer advertisement from here in the UK at this point (past Spectrum owners will recognise this one):

"Coming soon - the Microdrive".

Oh dear! Painful memories. I was daft enough to type my Ph.D. thesis on a Sinclair QL, and had to do much re-typing as a result of the microdrives.

367. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196277 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2008 at 3:13 pm

Mike-

Other organisms may live in times of plenty, play, and do things harmful to the survival of their genes.

Even genes can do things harmful to their long-term survival - there are mutations in mice that tend to produce only (I think) males, and can quickly wipe out a population, even though, in each generation, that mutation is selected for (it will be in a bigger proportion of the population).

I don't think it actually makes any sense to say that we can transcend evolution. If we survive, then it will have been in considerable part to our evolved big brains. If we don't, big brains are not that much good for survival. In the end, the genes that produce us will either survive or not. That's Natural Selection!

368. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #196251 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2008 at 2:12 pm

Comment #196249 by Sciros

He has used this technique before. I think it is rather original.

"Sorry, but you have given me a too detailed and complete response to my points. That was naughty of you. Your responses have to be smaller for me to cope."

Argument by short attention span.

369. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #196246 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2008 at 1:59 pm

Comment #196242 by Shmeezers

The main focus of the debates here is the existence of God, or not. That is a different issue. If you want to talk theology, I would be completely happy to do so.

Before we talk theology, we need to establish that the subject of the field exists.

Lets make a start.

Please describe how you would demonstrate that a phenomenon was supernatural.

This requires you to demonstrate beyond doubt that a phenomenon can never be described by any natural law.

Go on then....

370. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196222 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Evolution is a different game when we talk about its effect on entities that can contemplate it as an idea.

I am honestly not sure.

371. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196214 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2008 at 1:16 pm

When it's just about transcending evolutionary imperatives - we certainly can (for example wipe us all out through war or live in complete celibacy, or use contraceptives etc).

Hi MPhil

I am not sure what "evolutionary imperatives" means. Animals live in celibacy, or abort fetuses under some conditions (so, use a form of contraception).

Our large brains are evolved. If that leads to us consciously deciding to perform acts that help us survive long term (such as establish and maintain a sustainable population), then that is surely as much Natural Selection as anything else.

What do you think?

372. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196151 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2008 at 11:10 am

Another aspect of ID that makes it absurd is that it assumes that even if there was a way to detect design in principle, that we could do it. There might be a message in some "junk" DNA, for example ("This organism (c) Sirius Cybernetics Corporation"), but why should we be able to recognise the message or decode it?

The whole thing is so arrogant.

373. The Mother, The Child, The School Board And The Psychic

Comment #196098 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2008 at 9:48 am

Comment #196090 by decius

"Yes" are not a pop band. They are accomplished musicians. Steve Howe is recognised as one of the greatest rock guitarists ever.

Honestly, you young people and your punk and hop hip. You just don't know what real music is.

(I'm nearly 50 you know)

374. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196084 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2008 at 9:25 am

Steve Zara, Podaar et al, with respect, I don't think we do know the evolutionary advantages of the notion of 'good'.

The evolutionary benefits of altruism for certain groups is not in doubt.

I am afraid you are coming pretty close to saying that you don't believe the science because it disagrees with you. Please tell me you aren't doing this.

The jury is out as to whether our particular traits favour the survival of our species or genes. And, in any case, changing environment has an important role, so climate change may mean that we have evolved sufficient technology to extinct ouselves.

The jury is always out. That is what evolution is about.

No species has found anything to be a strategy. Behaviour happens, and it suits for the time being or not until it doesn't. That's the natural selection mechanism.

Evolution and species don't have strategies they don't need them. In stars, certain particles stick together to form certain nucleii. Some nucleii are stable, some aren't. The ones that are stable persist. "Sticking together and not blowing up the nucleus" is clearly "good" for the nucleus. No strategy involved. Members of a group of animals not arbitrarily slaughtering members of their own family and friends is also good for survival. This is a simple mathematical truth.

I'm fine with science - one of your fans. I just think good science and good religion should sit nicely together.

They don't, when religion makes any claims about reality. They are simply fundamentally incompatible. Religion relies on personal revelation and tradition as methods of saying what is true about the universe. They aren't acceptable methods of finding that out. Our minds aren't designed for that.

Here is an analogy. Sherlock Holmes tries to solve a case.

Using Science:

Holmes: "The murderer was a sailor with a limp"
Watson: "Amazing Holmes! How did you find that out?"
Holmes: "Well, Watson, I noticed the size of the footprints, and how they dragged in the mud. I also found this dropped cigarette, which has a kind of tobacco sold only in the ports of the West Indies".

Using Religion:

Holmes: "The murderer was a sailor with a limp"
Watson: "Amazing Holmes! How did you find that out?"
Holmes: "Well, Watson, I had a dream which I interpreted after reading my Bible."

Now honestly, which story is satisfying?

This sounds ludicrous, doesn't it?

It is. Unfortunately, it is real:
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2739,The-Mother-The-Child-The-School-Board-And-The-Psychic,CityNews-Staff,page1#196081

Religion is dangerous. It is thinking without a seat belt.

375. The Mother, The Child, The School Board And The Psychic

Comment #196016 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2008 at 7:58 am

(Then there's my friend who likes the band 'Yes'. oh dear.)

Excuse me! Is there something wrong with that?

376. Charles Darwin: 'Is man an ape or an angel?'

Comment #196008 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2008 at 7:36 am

Comment #195948 by ridelo

RNA can evolve. We have seen it change to become more resistant to replication inhibitors, "in the test tube".

377. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195970 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2008 at 6:20 am

Jethro-

I think you still aren't "getting it".

We just can't go around stating what realist is like based on intuition. We know that doesn't work.

We also know that there are evolutionary advantages for why we should have the notion of good - why we care for others. This isn't "dreamed up" - it has been a major aspect of neo-darwinist theory and research for decades.

I want there to be more than natural selection seems able to support

I don't understand why you believe that what you want should be the basis of what is.

378. Is the Universe Actually Made of Math?

Comment #195945 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2008 at 4:59 am

Comment #195871 by MPhil

Sorry, but after having read what MPhil has posted, could everyone please ignore my first posting?

MPhil - you are, as usual, right. Mathematical "facts" aren't even the kind of thing that could have any creative power.

379. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195943 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2008 at 4:52 am

They aren't evidence for God, but they are sufficient to point me to the idea that there is a personal quality to reality

But that is the thing - why should our intuition be any guide to ultimate reality? Experience shows it is actually very poor. We are forced to abandon intuition when dealing with the very big (relativity) and the very small (quantum mechanics), for example.

There are very good reasons why we have a sense of that "personal quality" - it is a sort of mild "paranoia": Better to think that a bent stick in a shadow is a snake out to get you than think a snake in a shadow is a bent stick. That tendency means we think over-estimate the amount of agency in the universe. We have in the past looked to gods to move the clouds and throw lightning at the ground.

The only way not to be fooled about big questions is to abandon intuition and go with the evidence, and that includes always picking the simpler explanation first.

I'm afraid that leaves not the slightest room for a personal god for me.

380. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195938 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2008 at 4:40 am

I have to add my praise for irate's post. Excellent job, sir.

381. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #195926 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2008 at 3:41 am

What I find rather amusing, and quite ironic, is that this fellow is also the author of an article called

"Truth in Reporting - If Only We'd Insist On It"
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2599

382. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195923 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2008 at 3:31 am

Comment #195918 by Quetzalcoatl

I find it a bit cheeky that he is insulting a God. That sounds a bit like anti-theism to me.

383. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195916 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2008 at 3:16 am

Comment #195900 by Quetzalcoatl

"your debating skills could use improvement"

I'll bet it is a challenge. He is trying to get you to show your skills are fine (which they are) by debating him in public.

384. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #195913 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2008 at 3:09 am

Comment #195912 by Greyman

Honestly, I just can't take these people any more. I think if anyone states that there are holes in evolution, I think we should ask for their publication list in reputable journals, and if they provide none, just ignore them.

(Stating that this is the case is different from asking about what they don't understand)

So, ypostelnik - where are your peer-reviewed scientific papers on this subject?

385. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #195911 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2008 at 3:06 am

Comment #195898 by ypostelnik

It isn't worth it. I mean, really. You just don't have a clue about either science or logic.

Just to give one example:

One central problem with the theory of evolution is that it dictates that life formed from non-life. This is not plausible. Furthermore, for there to be a rich enough variance in DNA/RNA this would have had to happen millions of times, separately. DNA and RNA are also both needed to reproduce a single cell.

DNA and RNA are only needed to reproduce a single modern cell. This is as stupid as saying that the Wright brothers could not have flown because all flight requires jets and autopilots.

We have perfectly good models of how rich and variant RNA (and forms of DNA) can spontaneously form, not just millions of times, but trillions of trillions of times. Just look up "RNA and ice".

If you are going to try and post science, at least try and get educated about current research.

And as for logic, let me try and clear something up:

showing holes (if any) in evolutionary theory does not take you anywhere to a proof of the existence of a deity

It makes a deity no more feasible, as it is more likely that life spontaneously appeared than an infinitely complex mind like that of the Christian god spontaneously appeared and made the life.

Got that?

386. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195888 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2008 at 1:39 am

Apathy - as I have already explained many times on this site I have no problem with evolution.

All you have to say is:

"Evolution happened and there were disasters and disease before people"

Seriously, what is the problem?

387. Is the Universe Actually Made of Math?

Comment #195527 by Steve Zara on June 18, 2008 at 12:09 pm

I think Max Tegmark is one of the most exciting thinkers in physics. He is a highly reputable physicist with a young and active mind, and we need thinkers like him to challenge the status quo.

We should not dismiss lightly what he says. It is not games, it is someone with a deep understanding coming up with original thoughts.

388. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195526 by Steve Zara on June 18, 2008 at 12:05 pm

You are very intelligent and knowledgeable, Steve, but you really can get hung up on the simple stuff at times.

I am a bear of simple brain.

If someone says "A causes B", I say "show me how".

Gott's stuff is fascinating, but it is about universe generators, not what happens afterwards.

I just don't trust science fiction explanations for what we see.

389. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195472 by Steve Zara on June 18, 2008 at 9:42 am

Comment #195470 by fizhburn

This part of the difficulty is: I'm not sure where the "intelligent" label comes in, and what would justify employing it.

It is always a matter of degree. I don't see a problem, really.

What we are always after is the simplest explanation that we use at the start of our investigations.

This isn't, I feel, about determining where design has happened... it is about trying to identify when we see something that is clearly "designoid" really is designed and not evolved.

390. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195469 by Steve Zara on June 18, 2008 at 9:36 am

Comment #195468 by Cartomancer

Richard himself coined the term "designoid" in his Growing Up in the Universe series. Might that have the appropriate nuances?

I think it's perfect. I knew someone with a big brain would have come up with a term. I was thinking about looking at some of the writings of Stuart Kauffman, but one can always trust Richard to deliver the goods!

391. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195465 by Steve Zara on June 18, 2008 at 9:23 am

Examining how one would go about arguing in favor of ID, an obstacle for the IDer is that one can't come up with necessary and sufficient conditions that don't rely on us just looking at something and thinking that just has to have been made by someone.

What I am trying to argue here is that you can come up with sufficient conditions (although certainly not necessary) to argue that something was intelligently designed.

The conditions are, to put it simply, that the thing you are looking at can't be part of a life form, otherwise you can never dismiss the possibility that it is a product of evolution.

Also, the designers you invoke must have evolved.

392. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195461 by Steve Zara on June 18, 2008 at 9:20 am

Ma heid's spinning. One minute someone says complexity can only come from simplicity, God is complex ergo God cannot be creator. Next someone else says design must be a complex process. Then we've got the old hoary about who created the creator, yet when the existence of cuddly 'nature' is invoked, everybody goes soft and nobody asks about her origin.

There is no "her". Nature provides the appearance of design for free. No complexity needed.

I am truly sorry, but there simply no need for a supernatural designer in this, even if the concept made sense.

I really don't know how much simpler it can be put:

Given two answers, pick the simpler one. God is always the more complex answer.

(God is actually far more complex than life forms truly spontaneously popping into existence).

393. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195432 by Steve Zara on June 18, 2008 at 8:08 am

Comment #195429 by Quetzalcoatl

are you suggesting that we should be encouraging David Robertson to write another masterpiece?

I would love for him to write his views on evolution, and planetary history.

394. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195431 by Steve Zara on June 18, 2008 at 8:04 am

Comment #195428 by Frankus1122

True, but you don't need to invoke a designer.

What I am trying to propose here are two points:

1. We need not worry about the implications of suggesting a designer if we are reasonably sure something with a mechanism is not a replicator.

2. Ultimate designers must have arisen through evolution.

The point of my arguments is to suggest that people should not be worried about (1), because it still requires (2) in order to be any kind of explanation. This does not open up any gap for ultimate designers who have not evolved.

This is an argument about how to stick with Ockham's Razor, while admitting that watches look designed.

Comment #195430 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

I feel that "designed" is the wrong word now, as it suggests intent and intelligent. I am not sure what the right word is!

If you read The Extended Phenotype, you will see that it is pretty reasonable to consider beaver dams and wasp nests as under genetic control!

395. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195427 by Steve Zara on June 18, 2008 at 7:55 am

Comment #195425 by Marie-Louise

As this seems to be a current topic, I think you are positively cute (if you don't mind me saying so).

This story does highlight something both interesting and amusing. Perhaps the "fleas" - the writers who piggy-back of the success of Dawkins and others in an attempt to both rubbish his arguments and make money, are not parasitic after all, but actually help the case through their poor writing and vacuous arguments.

Perhaps they should be encouraged?

396. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195424 by Steve Zara on June 18, 2008 at 7:47 am

Comment #195419 by mesomodel

I don't accept that complexity, or even simplicity, necessarily implies a designer, but a great deal of folks do. I'm just trying to see where that thought process leads. A dead end, I'm sure.

It is about probability, I believe (strongly related to complexity).

We know that one gets complexity for free through both evolution and self-organising systems far from equilibrium.

Only evolution seems to be able to give rise to mechanism. One can see all kinds of structures arise in physical and chemical systems under the right circumstances, but for things that have clear functions (say enzymes) we need evolution.

This means that when we see mechanism (as in a watch) in a non-replicating object, we either invoke a designer, or we must require uncountable trillions of years for a watch to self-assemble by, say, quantum effects. The watch either arose spontaneously, or something made it. The spontaneous option is incredibly unlikely, but an evolved designer isn't. It is the simpler option.

The "non-replicating object" criterion is key. If something is clearly too simple to replicate (like a watch), then invoking an evolved designer is, I think, reasonable.

397. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195412 by Steve Zara on June 18, 2008 at 7:26 am

Comment #195406 by mesomodel

Steve, is it your intent that item #2 also prevents the infinite recursion of who designed the designer?

Yes.

If one accepts the premise that there exists a level of complexity which implies a designer and excludes all other possibilities, then this premise must also apply to the designer. Who designed the designer? How do you avoid infinite recursion

I believe by the requirement that ultimate designers must have evolved.

A hypothetical situation: A watch (not a replicator) was built by a robot (not a replicator), which was built by a human (replicates).

Also, it isn't a level of complexity that implies a designer - it is something far simpler than that - it is that an object isn't a replicator, or a vehicle for replicators. In a way, it is a level of simplicity that implies a designer - watches are in many ways far simpler than bacteria, but bacteria replicate.

398. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195398 by Steve Zara on June 18, 2008 at 6:59 am

Comment #195396 by phil rimmer

That is the sort of thing.

399. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195397 by Steve Zara on June 18, 2008 at 6:58 am

Comment #195395 by Quetzalcoatl

True, but we are the ones saying that spontaneous appearance of something that complex isn't reasonable. I don't see any danger in saying that, as we aren't saying that anything else that complex spontaneously appeared either.

400. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195393 by Steve Zara on June 18, 2008 at 6:53 am

Comment #195392 by Quetzalcoatl

Agreed, but the danger here is that the creationist response will be- "what about the first cell, then? Didn't that spontaneously appear? If you can accept that, then why not this?"

We don't suggest the first cell spontaneously appeared - it assembled out of different parts, because of certain thermodynamic environments. We aren't saying that millions of atoms just whizzed together and "BAM!" there was a cell :)