Mod note: Split thread from here. The original thread is for science. Pseudoscience can be discussed here.
The standard claim is "life is caused by X and Y in environment Z"
The standard response is "If you are given X and Y can you form life by utilizing environment Z"
The standard reply is "no"
Hence headlines like "Chemist Shows How X Can Be the Starting Point for Life as opposed to headlines like "Chemist Shows How X is the the Starting Point for Life" can be found on a quite a few occasions over the past 120 years.
there have been narratives about how life started since urea was synthesizedFrom the New York Times, May 13, 2009:
Chemist Shows How RNA Can Be the Starting Point for Life
I wonder how far scientists will have to take the process before a few of the "intelligent design" types will begin scratching their collective heads, pondering the possibility of a "natural" origin for life... Hypothetically, would transforming inert chemicals to RNA to DNA to "animal" in the lab do it?
I suspect the anti evolutionary crowd will have fun, as many seem to object to evolution on the grounds that it does not explain abiogenisis (although the two are totally unrelated)
(Don't worry, there was still plenty to do to keep your gods busy...)
Comments?
The standard claim is "life is caused by X and Y in environment Z"
The standard response is "If you are given X and Y can you form life by utilizing environment Z"
The standard reply is "no"
Hence headlines like "Chemist Shows How X Can Be the Starting Point for Life as opposed to headlines like "Chemist Shows How X is the the Starting Point for Life" can be found on a quite a few occasions over the past 120 years.
Last edited by a moderator: