Quote:
Originally Posted by Poita
That is kind of my point. If we cannot simplify the process of abiogenesis down into an experiment, or find it in our existing laws, then it needs a new set of laws to explain it happening, or alternatively, it was a total freak event outside the odds.
Usually scientists don't so readily 'believe' in something if they can't formulate something to explain it, or have an experiment to be able to at least recreate a simplified version. We have neither a clear set of rules that we can show lead to life, or an experiment that has had anything close to success in creating it, yet the belief is certainly widespread. (We do have hard science to explain what happen once we get a cell with RNA/DNA and how evolution works from there.) I find it hard to think of another area where scientists are like that. My personal guess it is because they don't want to let the God of the Gaps in, and with good reason, but it is an odd anomaly to me in the way scientists usually treat ideas.
CraigS, I'm not good at paraphrasing, send me your address and I'll send you the P. Davies book, I'm not one of those guys that worries about keeping his books pristine, so I'm happy to lend it out.
|
Peter;
Don't worry about the book .. I'll get my hands on a copy for myself .. thanks for the offer though, much appreciated.
Also, I believe you should take a close to look at Complexity Theory. I really think this is where they have developed the tools which explain, at a systems level, how self assembly of complex structures is the norm arising from a large abundance of components obeying simple rules. Organic chemistry would not be an exception to this.
I also really feel you are making generalised statements about what you perceive there is no scientific discourse on, when there exists quite a lot which describe quite feasible mechanisms to explain the complexity.
Cheers