Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by lovecg | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

lovecg

So? Don't you think it’s important to understand even this first basic step?

View on HN

Sure, I guess.

But we've been down this road of chemical soups before ~ and gotten nothing out of it.

I'm just frustrated that they seem to keep chasing the same failed ideas.

It's time to look for other explanations... not a religious one, at that.

Some biologists look towards a meteoric explanation of life, but punting it off-planet isn't an explanation, either...

I don't think the idea is failed. Yes, attempts to replicate it in laboratory-scale tanks haven't succeeded yet. But that isn't evidence against the theory that it occurred sometime over millions of years in billions of cubic kilometers of water. It happens at some statistical rate, and lab experiments so far have put an upper bound on the rate.

This is interesting. If we can put an upper bound on the rate (what is it?) we could rule out abiogenesis if we could lower that upper bound sufficiently.

Most here seem to reason the other way around - it must have happened, so we'll just keep looking until we figure out how. I'd like to think that we could reach a point at which we could confidently say "this universe doesn't have the probabilistic resources to make it happen" instead of kicking the can down the road indefinitely.

I don't see how one could rule it out, since we don't know the number of planets on which the conditions required for abiogenesis could have occurred. It's not limited to the # of planets in the volume of the universe observable from Earth.

Right, given the Anthropic principle the probability has to be nontrivial when multiplied by all the oceans and the lifetime of the planet, but also by billions of planets and billions of galaxies. So there may be no way of ruling it out by any experiment.

All you can do is build bigger vats, just like physicists build bigger supercolliders, hoping for a result.

Scientists will chase chemical soups as long as it is the most probable theory, it is that simple. The thing with chemical soups is that some of them form very complex structures, so it is pretty easy to imagine that the right kinds of soups was the origin of life. Everything else people have suggested are either much less probable (not sure how it could happen without chemical soup) or they are nonsense (intelligent design, ie "life was created by life that was already there, just don't ask me how that other life appeared").

the same failed ideas

Saying that the idea of "a primordial soup produced the building blocks that eventually led to all life on earth" has failed because some extraordinarily limited experiments (spatially, chemically, temporally, and complexity limited) haven't produced cellular life is about like saying that the "fusion of hydrogen produces the heat of stars" theory has failed because we haven't been able to produce stable fusion here on earth. The scope of the effect that was likely produced in the primordial environment over billions of years is beyond basic human comprehension.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com