Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Origin of Life Theories Attached to Nebular Hypothesis

I started to parse through all the modern hypotheses and theories of the origin of life. Most fall under the category of abiogenesis and a few under panspermia. I've noticed that most of these assumptions and speculations are attached or inserted into the nebular hypothesis framework. And so the thought occurred to me that if nebular hypothesis is a contradictory, irrational, and impossible assumption (and I think it is) then the claims attached to nebular hypothesis such as the various origin of life assertions can be discarded.

Of course a claim of life's origin with assumption and theory has MANY more problems than its connection to the nebular hypothesis and I will soon begin criticizing some of these. For starters the scientific community has no scientific definition of life. It is absurd. Just read:


“There is no one definition that we agree upon,” says Radu Popa, geobiologist and the author of Between Probability and Necessity: Searching for the Definition and Origin of Life. In the course of researching his book, Popa started collecting definitions that have appeared in the scientific literature. He eventually lost count. “I’ve found at least three hundred, maybe four hundred definitions,” he says.

Popa continues to make an excellent point:

“A science in which the most important object has no definition—that’s absolutely unacceptable,” says Popa. “How are we going to discuss it if you believe the definition of life has something to do with DNA and I think it has something to do with dynamic systems? We cannot have a conversation on any level. We cannot make artificial life because we cannot agree on what life is. We cannot find life on Mars because we cannot agree on what life represents.”

And I might add how can a scientist suppose and theorize an origin of life without a definition of life??????

On the other end of the spectrum, philosopher Cleland and her colleague Chyba are trying to convince scientific community that they need no definition of life:

Instead of trying to formulate a definition of life, Cleland and Chyba argue, we need to develop a theory of life—an overarching explanation of nature that joins together a myriad of seemingly random phenomena.

And of course this absurdity leads her to another absurdity: ALIENS

For Cleland, the most promising way to build a theory of life is to look for alien life. In 2013, the European Space Agency plans to put a rover back on Mars. Called Exomars, it will drill into the Martian crust to seek out signs of life. NASA has plans of its own on the drawing board, including one possible mission that would bring Martian soil back to Earth for intense study. Meanwhile, other promising habitats for life, such as some of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, beckon. Cleland argues that finding alien life would allow us to start figuring out what is truly universal about life, rather than just generalizing from life as we know it. Only when we have more data, she reasons, will we have a basis for comparison. As it stands now, says Cleland, “we have no grist for the theoretical mill.”***

And so here we are in 2013. Everyone is gearing up to discover aliens. This isn't science fiction. They are for real.  And they are using YOUR money to find the aliens.

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.   


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.