The First Part’s Been Said to Me Before

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Science Marches On, Sunday Morning Blasphemy, The Illogical School and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to The First Part’s Been Said to Me Before

  1. You really believe in abiogenesis? Because atheist told me no atheist truly believes in such ridiculous theories.

    • I’m not sure what there is to “believe” about abiogenesis, other than the idea that life began at one point from non-life. That much is a given, but the question of how it all started is the subject of a great deal of study. There are a number of hypotheses and models being developed, but none to date are sufficiently rigorous and substantiated with physical data to really be called a theory.

      • Agreed, it is not a theory. It’s a ridiculous notion that was used to supposedly “prove” evolution. They even used flies coming out of flour as proof of “spontaneous generation” of life emerging from non-living things. Until they discovered that flies lay eggs. Eggs that hatch.

        • First, you’re confusing abiogenesis with evolution. They’re two different phenomena, and have different models to explain how they work (but as I said, abiogenesis is still very much a work in progress). Evolution is an observed fact, both in nature and in controlled lab settings. We know this from the fossil record, phylogenetics, comparative anatomy, and other physical data. Modern evolutionary theory uses these observations to explain its mechanisms.

          Second, the idea of spontaneous generation as you’re framing it is pretty ridiculous … since the last time that quality of “proof” was put forth, we were barely a fledgling nation and germ theory was still in its infancy. It was finally put to rest by Pasteur in 1859, and our understanding of biology has vastly improved since then.

          Abiogenesis is the study of how life could have originated from basic building blocks by way of the principles of chemistry, thermodynamics, physics, etc. We observe, firsthand, organic molecules forming from less complex constituents. We’ve been able to synthesize RNA that replicates itself indefinitely. We’ve re-created organic molecules using the conditions that best represent our understanding of the early earth. All of these things – while incomplete – are snapshots of the process, and each step helps us put together the pieces of how life began.

          You may think it’s a “ridiculous notion” … and it may very well be. But it’s the best we have based on our observations to date. If something comes along that forces us to completely rethink our ideas, then we’ll start over. That’s how science works sometimes. I’m curious, though … if you think the origin of life from inorganic constituents is ridiculous … what do you think happened? Do you have any data to back up your claim?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s