[ExI] Chemical Origins of Life (was Re: Panbiogenesis)
stefano.vaj at gmail.com
Fri Feb 3 16:40:10 UTC 2012
On 3 February 2012 11:53, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
> This is an extraordinary statement. It's the kind of stuff I read in
> second rate Creationist literature. I expect better of this list.
> Let's dive into the details for a bit. I've been studying this subject
> fairly deeply for about the last two months, so this is pretty fresh.
I can see that. Your stuff is pretty interesting.
There is also an additional angle.
One thing is to deliberately synthesise, say, a protein, DNA or even a
Another thing is to re-create what is believed to be the appropriate
environment and wait for things to happen.
Now, such simulations could never be accurate, if anything for reasons of
*scale* and *time*, even if we do everything else right. After Lavoisier,
we know for sure that abiogenesis is not a frequent, everyday phenomenon in
a vial containing the appropriate elements, and we have no reason to
suppose that it ever was.
I was however impressed by Dawkins's *Ancestor's Tale *contention in that
what is really hard is not to go from mineral to procaryotes, but from
procaryotes to eucaryotes.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat