On the Origins of Life

A big topic, and I know it's not photography, but I just have to share this brief video with you.

I'll never look at a jar of peanut butter in quite the same way again.


Anonymous said...

I think the speaker in this video glosses over basic scientific facts to draw superficial conclusions.

The science shows that intense energy (like lighting) is needed in the presence of basic elements like nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, carbon. With the combination of these elements and the external factors, the hypothesis is that there is a very small (I don't know the #, but in the 1 in a trillion type range) chance the factors could combine to cause the elements to mix and begin the formation of a new chemical compound...one that replicates and results in more of itself. Over time, the compounds mutate and begin to form the first signs of life and the microscopic (atomic) level. It then took a few billions years (the earth is approx 4.5B yrs old) for evolution to turn those microscopic forms of life into creatures large and small that roam the earth.

Jar of peanut butter? This analogy dumbs down the concept of the origin of life to a new low! A jar of peanut butter would never be exposed to the external factors scientists believe were needed to catalyze life (heat, lightning etc) and even if a jar was, the resulting new life created would be at the atomic level and would have to evolve....what are the chances anyone opening a jar of peanut butter exposed to temps of 100s of degrees and struck by lightning would wait around to find out?

I bet an chemist or biologist could destroy these arguments. It's so simplistic, I think it's wrong!

This smells like propaganda to me!!

Thanks for stimulating some Sunday morning thoughts Alistair!



Alistair Scott said...

Good points you make Kirk. Thanks.

As you point out, the arguments are barmy. But, on top of them, the video confuses the origin of life (abiogenesis) with evolution. It's a common mistake that intelligent design/creationists make.

But what I've subsequently found out is that, according to his web site, the presenter - Chuck Missler - was at one time, 'Branch Chief of the Department of Guided Missiles' in the US military.

That changes this from being barmy to scary. Truly scary.

Merc said...

non sequiter, but I just tagged you - no worries if you don't want to play.

Alistair Scott said...

Sorry for being so thick, Merc ... but what does 'tag' mean?