Abiogenesis (Origins)

by broken_cynic @, Friday, August 05, 2011, 23:31 (4619 days ago) @ dhw

We're going around in circles on a couple of points and I'm going to try to condense my various conversations with you (dhw) into one reply. I'm not sure if I'll succeed, I am a wordy bastard. In the meantime, here's a very apropos Pharyngula quote from yesterday:-"2. Life has never been observed to come from non-life.-Ooh, better. This claim is literally true and not a flat-out lie. It's also irrelevant. One of the things you'll discover as you get deeper and deeper into biology is that it's chemistry all the way down. There are no vital agents working away inside a cell, adding intelligent guidance: it's all stoichiometry and reaction kinetics and thermodynamics. In a sense, all life is built of non-life and denying it is like seeing the Lego Millennium Falcon and arguing that it couldn't possibly be made of little tiny plastic bricks. Yeah, it is.-But it's true that we haven't seen life re-evolving from simple chemicals now, and there's a good reason for that: this planet is now crawling with life everywhere, and life's building blocks that form nowadays don't last long — they're lunch. We also have only rudimentary ideas of what prebiotic chemicals were reacting in ancient seas, so we can't even simulate early chemistry in an organism-free test tube, yet. Scientists are busily tinkering, though, and we do have protocols that spontaneously produced complex organic chemicals from inorganic sources, we just haven't found the formula for a chemical replicator yet.-But it's an irrelevant objection, anyway. Nobody has shown me god conjuring people out of mud, either. Creationists have their own problem of demonstrating origins, and they aren't even trying to puzzle it out — goddidit, they're done." -PZ Myers


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum