Abiogenesis is impossible

[Angrboda]

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Nav...elab3.html

Holy fuck, that site is basically an ammo dump of creotard bullshit. Some busy little creationist went to a lot of work mining all them quotes and crap.

[Whateverist]

On the other hand, what do we really expect. Being creationists, what else do they have? It isn't as if they're allowed to (or any longer capable of) think for themselves. Finding hopefully authoritative quotes is all they have after a life wasted on citing scripture.

Go in peace now Snowpeas.

[KichigaiNeko]

Yes I know you are all going to *groan but.....

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/22/ph...-be-right/

Topics: Jeremy England ♦ massachusetts institute of technology ♦ mathematical formula ♦ mathematical standpoint




Print Friendly and PDF
Email this page
Steal this story ... LEGALLY
The origin of life is basically inevitable from a mathematical standpoint, according to one physicist, and “should be as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill.”

Jeremy England, an assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said he’s developed a mathematical formula to explain his theory that matter necessarily acquires the key attributes for life if placed under certain conditions.

The 31-year-old England theorized that a group of atoms driven by an external energy source, such as the sun, and placed in a heat bath, such as the ocean or atmosphere, will eventually restructure itself to disperse heat – a defining characteristic of life.

“You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,” England told Quanta Magazine.

I thought of this thread

[The Reality Salesman01]

"researcher realize that natural causes cannot produce replicating life forms. famed origin-of-life researcher leslie orgel said this at issol 2002 "It would be a miracle if a strand of RNA ever appeared on the primitive Earth. As a preface to this comment, Orgel remarked, 'I hope no creationists are in the audience."
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Nav...elab3.html

Calm down, my fuzzy little man-peach...Say it ain't so!

A miracle? If Scientists can do it in a lab, by simulating conditions that Earth was capable of creating, surely you don't maintain that it was anything miraculous, or divinely sparked. It's a perfectly natural phenomena, that is now being better understood as such. You do know that this is not something new, right? I realize that you put a lot of eggs in the out of context quotes that you extracted from a meeting in 2002, but in order to avoid being plagued by selection bias, and prevent being seen as delusional, you should really keep up with the times, and revise your beliefs as new evidence destroys good reasons for holding the old ones.

You gotta get this magic stuff outa your head. When you go to Vegas, and watch a magic show, you don't leave believing that rabbits can be brought into existence from a Top-Hat, you walk away wondering what the trick was, no? Hopefully I'm not giving you too much credit here, but I suspect you are not so gullible in all aspects of life. Be careful not to confuse things that your mind does not yet understand, with "Miracles" or "Magic". Magic is deception, and Miracles are their misunderstood cousins.

[SteelCurtain]

This is a more in depth version of the article that Kichi posted. It is very interesting, novel idea. If the research pans out, it could be a very simple, (Occam would be proud), very cogent hypothesis for the non-biological origins of life, i.e. 'that's just what matter does given the conditions on the primordial earth.' Thermodynamics, bitches.

https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/...ry-of-life

[WesOlsen]

Owned

[snowtracks]

well, i thought you guys would be thoroughly impressive with that quote.

[Jackalope]

well, i thought

I remain skeptical.

[snowtracks]

but paul davies is getting ready to recognize IE. Astrobiologist Paul Davies has published a paper that is just shy of a conversion story to intelligent design, though his feet remain stuck in the evolutionary camp. living cell is 'information' based. many on this board have said 'not so'.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/acc...67461.html#

[Rayaan]

This is a more in depth version of the article that Kichi posted. It is very interesting, novel idea. If the research pans out, it could be a very simple, (Occam would be proud), very cogent hypothesis for the non-biological origins of life, i.e. 'that's just what matter does given the conditions on the primordial earth.' Thermodynamics, bitches.

https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/...ry-of-life

But now some clever theists might use this new theory as a corroboration for the idea that the laws of nature were perfectly fine tuned for our creation, the fine tuner being God.

Interesting research, nonetheless.