New theory on Aboigenesis

[StuW]

This just popped up on my Facebook feed.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scienc...70114.html

It proposes that life did not emerge by accident or luck from a primordial soup and a bolt of lightning. Instead, life itself came about by necessity – it follows from the laws of nature and is as inevitable as rocks rolling downhill.

Very interesting implications to multiple areas of science if it turns out to be true.

[Heywood]

This just popped up on my Facebook feed.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scienc...70114.html

It proposes that life did not emerge by accident or luck from a primordial soup and a bolt of lightning. Instead, life itself came about by necessity – it follows from the laws of nature and is as inevitable as rocks rolling downhill.

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.

[jesus_wept]

This won't bother the religious, the fundies will ignore it because they have faith and the rest will shift the goalposts and act like its a tool god used, just like they do with evolution.

[One Above All]

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.

[Heywood]

This won't bother the religious, the fundies will ignore it because they have faith and the rest will shift the goalposts and act like its a tool god used, just like they do with evolution.

If someone from MIT said their research showed that Tiberius's farts smelled like roses and that disproved God, a lot of you atheists would be making the same claim you are making above.

[Mr.wizard]

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."

---

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.

[StuW]

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.

You still need the right conditions, can you survive on the moon or mars?. You have oversimplified an oversimplified article :-/

[One Above All]

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."

String "theory" is also backed by mathematics. In fact, it's mathematically perfect. Doesn't mean it's an actual theory. However, I missed the "put to the test" part in this article. I anxiously await the results.

---

If someone from MIT said their research showed that Tiberius's farts smelled like roses and that disproved God, a lot of you atheists would be making the same claim you are making above.

Who the fuck is Tiberius, and why do you assume atheists are as gullible as creationists? Atheists don't blindly accept science, since the two have no relation to one another. I've questioned science before, and will continue to do so, just as I've done here. I've even questioned math, which is ridiculous (in math, proof can actually be given). Don't project your gullible nature onto any of us.

[jesus_wept]

This won't bother the religious, the fundies will ignore it because they have faith and the rest will shift the goalposts and act like its a tool god used, just like they do with evolution.

If someone from MIT said their research showed that Tiberius's farts smelled like roses and that disproved God, a lot of you atheists would be making the same claim you are making above.

I think it's fair to say that there is plenty of evidence that what I said is exactly how theists would act if confronted with evidence that their god of the gaps wasnt needed to create life.

[robvalue]

Tiberius is the guy who generously runs this site out of his own pocket. And his name has been taken in vain by Heywood.