Quote:
Originally Posted by Neverfly
Ok, exactly how is it a "lame" argument?
If Life must have an origin- WHERE did it happen?
Be realistic.
|
OK, realistically, merely asking "if it didn't start here, it MUST've started somewhere... where?" does nothing to negate the potential for Life having done so.
While it's a valid question and we don't have an answer as yet, I still find it lame as an argument against exogenesis or panspermia.
Quote:
|
It's JUST as plausible that the life that exists on Earth Originated on Earth, more so considering that so far, there is no hint of life existing anywhere else in the Solar System.
|
Yes, it is just as plausible Life originated on Earth but I disagree with "more so" based on what we think we know about our solar system. We barely understand our nearest neighbors, Luna and Mars, and Ara Pacis pointed out, there are what one might consider hints of Life. Although, as you said, "sadly, that's all it is" and at this time we just don't know. (at least we know you're willing to change your stance...
)
Quote:
|
Is it possible that life on Earth did not originate here? Sure, it's possible. But as of right now, we have no real reason to think it didn't.
|
Well, I pointed to a few reasons one might consider an alternative to abiogenesis on earth being as likely; they are, I think, some of the very reasons some scientists consider exogenesis and panspermia as viable alternatives.
Quote:
|
To me, it's a lame argument to say, "Life couldn't have just formed here."
|
I haven't seen anyone state this but I'd agree it would be a lame argument against abiogenesis on Earth.
Quote:
And again...
It is NOT Difficult for life to begin.
It really isn't.
Not in Chemistry.
Given the chemistry- it WILL happen. It's just a matter of when.
|
No doubt; as you well know, a mantra I have is "similar ingredients in similar environments produce similar results."
I think Life has been happening for maybe 9Gyrs, everywhere, all the time.
But given you think the chemistry leading to Life is inevitable, what for you, precludes the possibility that the earliest known life on earth was transported here from elsewhere, to the point you think it is more likely to have originated here?
Do you view galaxies, solar systems, planets, moons, comets, asteroids, meteors, meteorites, cosmic dust... as closed systems? As though the elements and chemistry, physics too, at work in these things will inevitably lead to Life sometime, but there is no real potential for swapping or mixing and transporting organic material between these systems?
Quote:
One scientist managed to create the precursors in a test tube over the course of just 25 years.
25 years... THink about that.
|
Miller, I take it?
Quote:
So what?
Nice thinky face. You like that one.
You know, A.DIM, it would be helpful if you rationally made rational arguments instead of trying to act coy.
Coy doesn't suit you.
|
"So what?"?!
Neverfly, you suggested
"It's speculative but rationally so. The abiogenic origin theory is sound and well supported by bio-chemistry. Very Well Supported.
The only real issue is: Did life originate here once or many times? Because it's actually pretty easy for life to form..." which is contrary to what wiki states.
If there were an "only real issue", as you say, we'd have more of a standard model, not a "wide array of disparate discoveries and conjectures."
Hell, we don't even have proof of principle, do we?
I mean, has Life been created from nonLife?
That's what abiogenesis is, after all.
Nothing coy here; although it's not about me and your misperception.
My thinky was appropriate (regardless if I like it) since your statements didn't jive with consensus mainstream.