That's not the point, though. Life can only adapt because a precise set of circumstances allowed life to happen in the first place. That the building blocks must exist first is the major issue, not what happens after they do exist.
I have not been arguing that life cannot adapt to some radically different environments, but that it needs certain conditions to begin at all. The reason we still don't know precisely what the initial process was is because we can't find evidence of the process of dead material taking on the characteristics of living matter spontaneously in nature, and thus, we can't observe it taking place. The conditions aren't right for it anymore. The planet is vastly different, now, and the sun is bigger and much brighter now than it was back then. And, while we have an understanding of what those conditions were, we can't reproduce them accurately because there's no reliable way to measure those conditions with accuracy. We can only make educated guesses.
A metaphor would be us. We spent the first nine months of our physical development inside of a womb. For most of those nine months, this was entirely necessary, because if we were disconnected and placed outside of that womb (or some very close equivalent), survival would be impossible. The womb's environment must be very precise, compared to the world at large. Even minor alterations to these settings place a developing child at signficant risk.
Likewise, even if you imagine a womb exactly like a real one only adjusted to fit an adult, we would not be able to survive in that environment, as we must now breathe air, consume food, &tc. The body develops so radically that the environment which was once necessary for our creation is now poisonous to us, and the environment necessary to our survival as adults would be fatal to us when we were in the fetal stage.
Without the conditions provided by the human reproductive systems working together, human life could never begin, and its ability to develop and adapt to this environment would be entirely moot.
I have not been arguing that life cannot adapt to some radically different environments, but that it needs certain conditions to begin at all. The reason we still don't know precisely what the initial process was is because we can't find evidence of the process of dead material taking on the characteristics of living matter spontaneously in nature, and thus, we can't observe it taking place. The conditions aren't right for it anymore. The planet is vastly different, now, and the sun is bigger and much brighter now than it was back then. And, while we have an understanding of what those conditions were, we can't reproduce them accurately because there's no reliable way to measure those conditions with accuracy. We can only make educated guesses.
A metaphor would be us. We spent the first nine months of our physical development inside of a womb. For most of those nine months, this was entirely necessary, because if we were disconnected and placed outside of that womb (or some very close equivalent), survival would be impossible. The womb's environment must be very precise, compared to the world at large. Even minor alterations to these settings place a developing child at signficant risk.
Likewise, even if you imagine a womb exactly like a real one only adjusted to fit an adult, we would not be able to survive in that environment, as we must now breathe air, consume food, &tc. The body develops so radically that the environment which was once necessary for our creation is now poisonous to us, and the environment necessary to our survival as adults would be fatal to us when we were in the fetal stage.
Without the conditions provided by the human reproductive systems working together, human life could never begin, and its ability to develop and adapt to this environment would be entirely moot.
YOU CANNOT HIDE FOREVER
WE STAND AT THE DOOR
WE STAND AT THE DOOR