3 ms·
When I was in elementary school I was told about Miller's experiment: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/03/21/scientists-finish-a-53-yea
by ChrisCinelli 7y ago
When I was in elementary school I was told about Miller's experiment:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/03/21/scientists-finish-a-53-year-old-classic-experiment-on-the-origins-of-life/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/03/2... but nothing has ever filled the gap between his results and how a bacteria could be generated.
This is one explanation of what could have happened: http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life
Is there any more supporting evidence that life really started that way?
- ChrisCinelli 7y agoThis is more detailed: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html Conclusion in the link: The very premise of creationists' probability calculations is incorrect in the first place as it aims at the wrong theory. Furthermore, this argument is often buttressed with statistical and biological fallacies. At the moment, since we have no idea how probable life is, it's virtually impossible to assign any meaningful probabilities to any of the steps to life except the first two (monomers to polymers p=1.0, formation of catalytic polymers p=1.0). For the replicating polymers to hypercycle transition, the probability may well be 1.0 if Kauffman is right about catalytic closure and his phase transition models, but this requires real chemistry and more detailed modelling to confirm. For the hypercycle -> protobiont transition, the probability here is dependent on theoretical concepts still being developed, and is unknown.