Abiogenesis not probable but inevitable, says physicist

page: 1
28
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+12 more 
posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 07:49 AM
link   
A 31-year-old physicist and biochemist, Jeremy England by name, appears to have shown, in a recently-published paper, that the emergence of life from non-living matter is not just statistically probable, but more or less inevitable.


'You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,' England said, calling the emergence of life from inanimate matter 'as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill.' News Article

In a twist that will surprise those who claim that life 'violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics', England's proposed theory is actually based on thermodynamics. In a nutshell, he shows that nature favours arrangements of matter that are good at dissipating heat. Living things are, it seems, especially good at this.

His theory does not supersede or discredit Darwinian evolution, but is complementary to it. 'I am certainly not saying that Darwinian ideas are wrong,' he said. 'On the contrary, I am just saying that from the perspective of the physics, you might call Darwinian evolution a special case of a more general phenomenon.'

Although England's ideas are new and still being debated by scientists in his field, those who have examined his work say his theoretical results are valid. The next step is to devise experiments that will test them under lab conditions. That work is, apparently, about to begin.

Well, then. How will creationists respond if abiogenesis is shown to be an inevitable result of the nature of matter itself?

edit on 23/1/14 by Astyanax because: of typos.




posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Good find.

I have always believed that life and intelligent life isn't an 'accident' as creationist call those of us who support Darwin. It was always inevitable, the life-span of a species is just a day in the life of our planet, when you see different forms of life coming and going, intelligent life was bound to happen. It's like rolling a dice and waiting for a ten sixes in a row, it may be random, but you eventually get a perfect result.

I hope his research comes up with something more solid, answers to questions like these help us find reason to existence.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 08:13 AM
link   
I feel that life forms from frequency coupled with vibration. Energy signatures that can assemble DNA to form. The raw materials need to be there also. Couple these things together and examine the nearly instantaneous communication between things far apart, and you find that this communication or bond between distant worlds is relevant to life here on earth. We may have this tie to many worlds, the bond shares the vibration frequency. Maybe I have a few wrong names for these strange events that there is evidence of but I don't need to memorize names, I don't usually talk to scientists.

Even Einstein mentioned something about this bond that traveled much faster than the speed of light.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 08:16 AM
link   
That you for link to this paper and work. (S & F)

This also opens high possibilities for life to start on other planets with similar conditions like on earth.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Interesting that with all our technologies and modern machines the only drive we have is to burn as much fuel and use up as much energy as possible too!



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to SuperFrog, post by iRoyalty
 



I have always believed that life and intelligent life isn't an 'accident' as creationist call those of us who support Darwin. It was always inevitable


This also opens high possibilities for life to start on other planets with similar conditions like on earth.

I heartily agree with both these statements. I have long believed that the universe is thoroughly with life. And I have, in recent years, often used England's very words to describe Darwinian evolution: 'a special case of a more general phenomenon.'

I think we're going to have to broaden the definition of 'life' pretty soon.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 



the only drive we have is to burn as much fuel and use up as much energy as possible too!

It would seem that intelligent life is even better at dissipating energy than the nonsentient variety. Does this mean that the evolution of intelligence, too, is inevitable?



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 08:57 AM
link   
john maynard smith on abiogenesis


john maynard smith was dawkins teacher, he wrote the book on abiogenesis. well, he wrote a book on it, "The Origins of Life: From the Birth of Life to the Origin of Language"

after learning about these ideas i stopped arguing with creationists, it felt too much like showing card tricks to a dog.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 





Well, then. How will creationists respond if abiogenesis is shown to be an inevitable result of the nature of matter itself?



So the complex diversity of life, and earths symbiotic biosphere, is nothing more than a natural mechanism to dissipate energy?

I think this theorist is full of hot air........





posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Their are fields Neo, endless fields.......



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


I enjoy the theory and I think it might just have some application, but it should be noted that a mathematical formula can only explain other mathematical formulas. The attempt to reduce the history of life, its cause, and the entire process of organic existence to a mathematical formula is simply wishful thinking, one that relies on a pythagorean superstition of numbers and other axiomatic assumptions.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Interesting. Who knows, it may well be the case.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 07:55 PM
link   
There is more than two perspectives.

Even the smallest of particulates display rudimentary intelligence.

Creationism explains all the way to the point where 'God created the universe'
Science explains all the way to the point where the 'Big bang created the universe'

I postulate that Nothing was 'created' for it was always there. The entire universe probably displays a collective intelligence that we are not yet capable to measure.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 07:59 PM
link   
now abiogenesis is back in?

wow this theory changes so often.

150 odd years and counting...im sure you guys will nail it soon...



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Words
 



It should be noted that a mathematical formula can only explain other mathematical formulas.

Mathematical formulas helped build the Pyramids. Mathematical formulas helped mariners navigate round the world in the days of sail. Mathematical formulas enabled Halley to predict exactly when his comet would return and prove him right. Mathematical formulas enable us to predict where a thrown stone will fall, and how to navigate a spacecraft through the gravitational maze of Saturn's system of rings and moons. Mathematical formulas explain how electrons behave in a magnetic field. Mathematical formulas govern the operations of the computer on which you typed your post. There is even a mathematical formula to determine how likely it is that an animal will undertake a particular act of altruism.

And so it goes, ad infinitum. There are very few phenomena in the world that cannot be described and explained by mathematical formulae.

edit on 23/1/14 by Astyanax because: of Hamilton's Rule.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Astyanax

Well, then. How will creationists respond if abiogenesis is shown to be an inevitable result of the nature of matter itself?

edit on 23/1/14 by Astyanax because: of typos.


Ok i'm not a creationist... I don't subscribe to any theory on the origins of life atm.. but to lobby a answer to Your opening post question: The creationists will respond with applause and rally behind this idea as it would look like this theory if proven would lend credence to this little quote..


Genesis 2:7
Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Replace man with ALL life and ergo you've gave the creationists more of a foothold
edit on 23-1-2014 by SynchronousSnake because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-1-2014 by SynchronousSnake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by SynchronousSnake
 


If only.

Unfortunately, the necessary Scriptural rewrite would be unacceptable to religious creationists.

Instead, they must post images of whistling kettles and attempt to deny the practical utility of mathematics.

edit on 23/1/14 by Astyanax because: it's true, innit?



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Well only point I'm trying to make is don't underestimate their ability to twist things to suit their views.Well the reasonable ones anyway...most well just bury their heads in the sand or as You put it, post videos of kettles( No offense intended to dusty1 by the way.to each their own.)



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 03:35 AM
link   

wheresthebody
john maynard smith on abiogenesis


john maynard smith was dawkins teacher, he wrote the book on abiogenesis. well, he wrote a book on it, "The Origins of Life: From the Birth of Life to the Origin of Language"

after learning about these ideas i stopped arguing with creationists, it felt too much like showing card tricks to a dog.


Awesome lecture, thanks for posting. Really enjoyable and educational.



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   

sweord
now abiogenesis is back in?

wow this theory changes so often.

150 odd years and counting...im sure you guys will nail it soon...

Abiogenesis was never out. This hypothesis addresses its "fundamental" cause, not how it happened. Deny ignorance.

p.s. At least one abiotic empirically verified route to autocatalytic RNA sets (first life) is already known.
edit on 24-1-2014 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
28
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join