Subj: spontaneous creation of life
+ I received so much response on my last posting to this newsgroup that I
+thought that I would again foster some discussion:
+ As it turns out, a friend and I were recently discussing the theory
+of formation of life on this planet. Most scientists today blindly
+accept the theory that states life was formed through the random coliisions
in that sense that it is the simplest theory that fits all the
facts, i think this hypothesis is the most likely to be correct
+of all the "right" molecules and energy generated by lightning strikes.
+For the sake of argument, we each took a different side with me saying that
+life could never have been spontaneously formed. Well, as the argument wore
+on, we decided to find the probability of this occcuring. Indeed, we found the
+numerical value to be infinitessimally small. There are too many parameters
what value did you obtain ? is it larger than zero
+(1) the original microbe would have to be an obligate anaerobe
probably true. but how many competing microbes were present in this
soup (of which only one is our ancestor). and what is the problem
with it being a anaerobic organism ? these buggers are quit
capable of surviving (probably better than aerobix even ?).
+(2) it would have had to be chemosynthetic
i would suspect that parts of the machinery used by the first
organsim (s) would already be functioning in the soup from which
they came to be. the first organism(s) would in fact be an assemly
of several compartments with different functions.
+(3) it would have had to evolve the ability to reproduce in the span of
+ one lifetime
if it can not do this, it will die. the next candidate gets a shot at
+(4) it would have had to be particualrly resistant to the effects of UV
this could be a problem indeed. but when you think what (average)
bacteria can survive... temps over 100 C, below 0 C, high salt,
radiation, chemicals.... and the simpler the bacteria, the more
it appears to be able to survive... not discussing virusses and
+ My friend still accepts the theory given that as time increases so
+does the probability of an event occuring. I still say that we are
+missing some part of the puzzle. Something must have, at one point,
+happened to dramatically increase the probability of life spontaneously
we know that
fragments of the creation process can take place 'in a tube' but
we cannnot yet link these 'partial creations' together. does this
mean there is a big mystery somewhere ? or that even more effort
has to be put into this ?
+ I am not proposing the existence of a great creator but I am
+saying that there has to be more to it than that.
+ If we are to accept the theory of spontaneous formation of life as
+it is today, we must al has formed life that is adaptable to event the harshest
+environments. Souldn't we see more evidence of this? Why isn't there life on
why isn't there life on the sun ? in my opinion life is adaptable to
the harshest environments, but probably some enviroments are simply...
well too harsh ?
My believe is that there probably exists a very small 'energy window'
in which life can be formed (this has to do with enthalpy etc, but
college is way back). if the energy is too low (mars perhaps?) or too
high (the sun?) life cannot form. the earth is apparently under
basic question remains: is the timespan of appr. 1 x 10E9 years
enough to create life thru a chance process? creationists say no,
evolutionists say yes. in my opinion nothing speaks against it.
after all 1 x 10E9 years is a pretty long time, if you consider that
the time we spent waiting in the rain for dates that let us down
is considerably shorter.
+ John Antonioni
+ Laurentian University
+ Sudbury, Canada
+P.S. Please don't refer me to Stanley's experiments. I think that they are
+ performed under conditions that are too ideal. Even so, he still only
+ managed to generate an amino acid. Hardly the convincing proof
+ of the spontaneous formation of life that I'm looking for.