quote:
Quetzal:
Conclusion
Regardless of which of the above hypotheses ultimately leads to the creation of self-sustaining biomolecules, all show that life is merely an inherent property of chemical reactions. Any time conditions are appropriate, life (as we know it) should arise. And once we get self-replicating molecules, evolution (heritable variation, random mutation, and natural selection) + time are sufficient to explain the amazing diversity of modern life.
Science has yet to provide evidence for any of these hypotheses beyond reasonable doubt. But since all are brand new ideas, the only thing lacking is time Stay tuned!
John Paul:
quote:
It was concluded in the 1960s that the earth's primitive atmosphere was derived from volcanic outgassing, and consisted of water vapor, carbon dioxide, nitrogen and trace amounts of hydrogen. With most of the hydrogen being lost to space, there would be nothing to reduce the carbon dioxide and nitrogen, so methane and ammonia could not have been major constituents of the early atmosphere.
The only reason people cling to the reducing atmosphere hypothesis is because it offers the best hope. The rocks don't substantiate that claim though.
We also have no evidence that DNA can form anywhere outside of a living cell, and the cell itself represents IC (irreducible complexity):
Unraveling the DNA Myth
It looks like only life can beget life.
The thing is, these days we can take and mix amino acids at will and in differing environments. Guess what? Nothing resembling the start of life, just a bunch of stirred up amino acids in a flask.
Life isn't just about chemical reactions. How long is it going to take before you realize that?
Approaching Biology from a Different Angle
I do find this all interesting and I hope the research continues, privately funded of course.
Proving all these purely natural scenarios (for the origins of life) may be the only way to get people focused on how we really got here.
------------------
John Paul