Post by Smiler Post by aaa Post by Malcolm McMahon
Can we be clear? "Abiogensis" is not a theory, its an observable fact
about which we theorise. Life originated somehow. The default
hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is called the
Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. It has zip to do with Darwin. It was
proposed in the '20s. And it remains a hypothesis. The experimental
evidence hints at it's plausibility but even the creation of life in
the laboratory would not suffice to prove it.
At best we might, at some point, prove that life _can_ arise that way.
Proving that it _did_ arise that way will probably never be possible.
Abiogenesis only proves that it's possible for life to arise, but it
does not provide the cause for life to arise. It only suggested the
condition for life to arise, but there is no reason to believe that such
condition will automatically generate life. It only provides the
necessary condition for life to arise. It has not provided the
sufficient condition to guarantee life to arise. It's incomplete. It is
If the necessary conditions for life to arise exist, given enough time,
life will arise, no god necessary.
If two chemicals can react and the conditions for the reaction are
correct, what's to stop them reacting?
The loonie has been given this on several occasions but ignored it
The link is to an easy to follow presentation by the late Sidney Fox
on the formation of proto-cells in the lab using simple, natural
They metabolise, reproduce, self-organise and respond to
environmental stimuli. In other words, they satisfy the textbook
criteria for life.
The following is an abstract for a paper authored by Fox and his team
concerning their subsequent research into these proto-cells, with my
capitalising for emphasis...
Experimental retracement of the origins of a protocell
Sidney W. Fox, Peter R. Bahn, Klaus Dose, Kaoru Harada, Laura Hsu,
Yoshio Ishima, John Jungck, Jean Kendrick, Gottfried Krampitz,
James C. Lacey Jr., Koichiro Matsuno, Paul Melius, Mavis
Middlebrook, Tadayoshi Nakashima, Aristotel Pappelis,Alexander Pol,
Duane L. Rohlfing, Allen Vegotsky, Thomas V. Waehneldt, H. Wax, Bi
[me: Note how few of the team doing this ground-breaking work were
American. Most of them were from overseas, doing post graduate and
post-doctoral work in the US. This has been the state of US science
for a long time]
Although Oparin used coacervate droplets from two or more types of
polymer to model the first cell, he hypothesized homacervation from
protein, consistent with Pasteur and Darwin. Herrera made two amino
acids and numerous cell-like structures (sulfobes) in the
laboratory, which probably arose from intermediate polymers. Our
experiments have conformed with a homoacervation of thermal
proteinoid, in which amino acid sequences are determined by the
reacting amino acids themselves. All proteinoids that have been
tested assemble themselves alone in water to protocells. The
protocells have characteristics of life defined by Webster's
Dictionary: metabolism, growth, reproduction and response to stimuli
in the environment. THE PROTOCELLS ARE ABLE ALSO TO EVOLVE TO MORE
MODERN CELLS INCLUDING THE INITIATION OF A NUCLEIC ACID CODING
SYSTEM [my emphasis].
Note. Sidney Fox's work was in the 1950s. Alfonso Herrera's was in the
late 1930s. Both Aleksandr Oparin and J.B.S.Haldane had laid down the
theoretical groundwork in the 1920s.
So none of this is particularly new.