Read in the Substack app
Open app

Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Sy Garte's avatar

Wow. I just have a simple question at this point. What is your profession. Only out of curiosity. I will at some point have a lot to say in answer to your latest comment/essay, some of which might surprise you. At the moment I am a bit overwhelmed with many unexpected reactions to the book (most of them positive, I might add) but I will post again, once I catch my breath. Peace.

Expand full comment
Adam Reith's avatar

You wrote: <<We have seen that there is no clear reason that life should arise from a sea of chemicals. In fact, not only do we not know the answer to that question, we do know enough about chemistry and physics to be able to say, “There is no reason that life should exist.” We can exclude any scientific reason for the existence of life based on all the science we know. We can see there is no reason for anything to be alive. Where does this leave us?>>

Nonsense. Although there does not appear to have been any polls on support for abiogenesis among academic biologists, it's a very safe bet that the vast majority of these think abiogenesis occurred. 97-98% of academic biologists support evolution by natural selection, and it's unlikely than any more than a tiny handful of these think that a deity needed to assemble the first proto-bacterium before stepping aside and letting natural selection get to work.

Darwin never published his private speculations on abiogenesis, as he had no empirical evidence to support these, but his ideas were nevertheless remarkably prescient From his 1871 letter to his friend Joseph Hooker:

<<It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.

But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.>>

Abiogenesis has been an active field of research for over 70 years, having begun with the Miller-Urey experiments in 1953. Hundreds of research papers are published annually on this topic. Obviously, hundreds of competent chemists and biologists disagree with your claim that "there is no clear reason that life should arise from a sea of chemicals."

We have already observed the spontaneous self-assembly of long RNA strands, viruses, and bacterial organelles. It's not so much of a leap to predict we will one day witness the spontaneous self-assembly of a simple living thing from simpler self-assembled components.

I think living things are inevitable under the right conditions. Sterile planets are sterile for a reason, not just unlucky. Intelligent life is likely different and requires too many happy accidents to be widespread. Life is likely commonplace in the universe but intelligent life as rare as orchids.

Expand full comment
4 more comments...

No posts