Abiogenesis (Origins)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, August 25, 2009, 03:55 (5568 days ago) @ dhw

dhw, - > First of all I'd like to thank both George and David for constantly updating us with interesting articles and the latest research.
> 
> I've only had time so far to read the "Lies, Damned Lies..." article. David has given us a scientific response, but I must confess the warning signals were already beginning to flash when I read such statements as: "[...] in modern abiogenesis theories the first "living things" would be much simpler [...] one or more simple molecules probably not more than 30-40 subunits long. These simple molecules then slowly evolved into more cooperative self-replicating systems." Simple, simple, simple. If it's so simple, how come we're still struggling to fathom it all out? 
> 
> "Where the creationist idea that modern organisms form spontaneously comes from is not certain. [...] Even the ideas circulating in the 1850's were not "spontaneous" theories." The word "spontaneous" always seems to raise the hackles. But the word means: "resulting from internal or natural processes with no apparent external influences". Isn't that precisely what abiogenists are hoping to prove? Perhaps the problem lies in the fact that the word is associated with chance, and the idea that the theory of abiogenesis demands faith in chance is anathema to such writers. 
> - I think the "spontaneous" they refer to is the remnant of "Spontaneous Generation" which was the prevailing theory before Darwin. - > But it's the conclusion that puts the whole argument in perspective, with phrases such as: 
> "At the moment, since we have no idea how probable life is, it's virtually impossible to assign any meaningful probabilities to any of the steps of life except the first two."
> 
> "...but this requires real chemistry and more detailed modelling to confirm." 
> 
> "...the probability here is dependent on theoretical concepts still being developed, and is unknown." 
> 
> "However, in the end life's feasibility depends on chemistry and biochemistry that we are still studying." 
> 
> So now we know...what exactly? - We know we need to know more, lol.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"