dsgrue3 on 19 December 2012
| timmah said: A point on the origin of life, we have yet to, with our own *supposedly* high intelligence, create life from non-life in a laboratory environment, let alone anything that can reproduce and evolve. If we haven't figured out how to make that happen in a tightly controlled test environment under the best possible circumstances, with all of the amino acids necessary present by design, how is that supposed to have happened on its own in the harsh primordial environment of the early earth? We have caused single celled organisms to develop into multi-celled organisms, but we started out with life that already existed in all of these cases and purposefully made the change happen. Every single living thing that we observe can be traced to the living thing that comes before it, but there are absolutely zero examples of any observed living thing existing without a living precursor. The postulation that life came from non-life is simply not backed up by any current testable science, and therefore must be accepted on some level of faith. |
Life took billions of years to develop. Why would be able to speed up the process?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment
Describes how amino acids formed on Earth, more than necessary for life.
http://www.gizmag.com/bringing-life-to-inoganic-matter/19855/
Inorganic chemicals may be able to evolve and self-replicate.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16382-artificial-molecule-evolves-in-the-lab.html
RNA is self-replicating
Not sure what further confirmation you need.
