Excerpt, from Michael Marshall at BBC:
“The strength of Miller-Urey is to show that you can go from a simple atmosphere and produce lots of biological molecules,” says John Sutherland of the Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, UK.
The details turned out to be wrong, since later studies showed that the early Earth’s atmosphere had a different mix of gases. But that is almost beside the point.
“It was massively iconic, stimulated the public’s imagination and continues to be cited extensively,” says Sutherland. More.
Sure. Once we can dispense with Mike Behe’s question, “how, exactly,” we just need to pick a theory that suits our colleagues and ourselves.
Apparently, life was more complicated than anyone had thought. Despite the present chaos, Marshall offers us a revelation:
Some of the people alive today will become the first in history who can honestly say they know where they came from. They will know what their ultimate ancestor was like and where it lived.
This knowledge will change us. On a purely scientific level, it will tell us about how likely life is to form in the Universe, and where to look for it. And it will tell us something about life’s essential nature. But beyond that, we cannot yet know the wisdom the origin of life will reveal.
It will reveal what policymakers want it to, of that we can be sure. Epeially in an age whn science is as corrupt as it currently is.
A friend remarks,
A long post. Undoubtedly in response to some rogue website that claims OOL is insoluble.
Is it coacervates, RNA-world, metabolism first? It’s all the above! Piece of cake.
Yes, especially if sciencecrats have the power to enforce dumb belief and suppress questions.
See also: origin of life
Follow UD News at Twitter!