Origin of Life: A Field of Ignorance
The origin of life field is characterized by speculation about dumb molecules that could not possibly have organized themselves into living beings.
[Note: CEH is taking a break this week. These news items are presented for those who wish to follow up on them.]
Mazur interviews all the leading lights in the materialist origin-of-life field.
A new synthetic molecule may solve a paradox about life’s origin (New Scientist).
Scientists crack how primordial life on Earth might have replicated itself (Science Daily). Might doesn’t make right.
Scientists’ discovery in Yellowstone ‘extremely relevant’ to origin of life (Phys.org). Uh, Mr. Scientist, the microbes are already living.
How Did Life Begin? (Nature). Leading OOL researcher Jack Szostak starts with the Miller Myth then pushes his imaginary RNA world again.
Why formamide may have been early life’s alternative to water (Astrobiology Magazine).
New study reveals secrets of evolution at molecular level (Phys.org).
Try your hand at being a CEH reporter! Read and analyze the claims above. You can use our Back Issues for assistance; click on the Origins drop-down menu on the front page, and look for previous entries about Origin of Life. You can also use the search bar for particular keywords.
Comments
Life emerged on the backs of crystals, Ben Stein is told: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUetJ3umTWU
…. yet saying “God did it” explains nothing
It does not describe how God assembled inanimate matter into organisms, however simple, that could reproduce and so evolve
It does not make any useful predictions
It does not explain how God came into being
To imagine that an all powerful being of unimaginably powerful intelligence “just exists” is even more preposterous than thinking that life can eventually develop from inanimate matter
And if you are going to criticise the efforts to figure out ways that life COULD have developed from inanimate matter you will have to do better than making snide comments and setting up straw men that you then knock down.
… yet saying “Stuff Happens” explains nothing. According to your view the Stuff Happens Law is scientific, because it makes predictions, like “Stuff will happen” or “If you see something happen, you will find stuff around.” It does not explain how Stuff came into being. Etc. To imagine that powerful stuff of unimaginably powerful ability to create life “just exists” is even more preposterous than believing that life exhibits design. As far as figuring out ways that life “COULD” have developed, will you bless my theory, “If pigs had wings, they could fly”?