RE: New theory on Aboigenesis
February 26, 2015 at 6:48 am
(This post was last modified: February 26, 2015 at 6:52 am by Mr.wizard.)
(February 26, 2015 at 6:41 am)One Above All Wrote: Yeah, this oversimplification is absurd. I'm all for abiogenesis (after all, for life to always come for life, life must have always existed - which we know isn't true - so life must have come from non-life), but they make it sound like you just need light and any random assortment of atoms to get life. This is as much a theory as string theory. No testable predictions makes it little more than a hypothesis.
Well this is just a brief article on the subject, it also says it's "backed by mathematical research and a proposal that can be put to the test."
(February 26, 2015 at 6:19 am)Heywood Wrote:(February 26, 2015 at 3:10 am)StuW Wrote: This just popped up on my Facebook feed.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scienc...70114.html
Very interesting implications to multiple areas of science if it turns out to be true.
Why isn't there life on the moon, or mars? Light has been falling on the moon for billions of years. It would seem if this theory is correct we should see life anywhere light falls for a long time....and that is just not the case.
The article says, life would form where conditions are correct.