I received so much response on my last posting to this newsgroup that I
thought that I would again foster some discussion:
As it turns out, a friend and I were recently discussing the theory
of formation of life on this planet. Most scientists today blindly
accept the theory that states life was formed through the random coliisions
of all the "right" molecules and energy generated by lightning strikes.
For the sake of argument, we each took a different side with me saying that
life could never have been spontaneously formed. Well, as the argument wore
on, we decided to find the probability of this occcuring. Indeed, we found the
numerical value to be infinitessimally small. There are too many parameters
involved:
(1) the original microbe would have to be an obligate anaerobe
(2) it would have had to be chemosynthetic
(3) it would have had to evolve the ability to reproduce in the span of
one lifetime
(4) it would have had to be particualrly resistant to the effects of UV
etc...etc...etc.
My friend still accepts the theory given that as time increases so
does the probability of an event occuring. I still say that we are
missing some part of the puzzle. Something must have, at one point,
happened to dramatically increase the probability of life spontaneously
occuring. I am not proposing the existence of a great creator but I am
saying that there has to be more to it than that.
If we are to accept the theory of spontaneous formation of life as
it is today, we must al has formed life that is adaptable to event the harshest
environments. Souldn't we see more evidence of this? Why isn't there life on
mars?
John Antonioni
Laurentian University
Sudbury, Canada
P.S. Please don't refer me to Stanley's experiments. I think that they are
performed under conditions that are too ideal. Even so, he still only
managed to generate an amino acid. Hardly the convincing proof
of the spontaneous formation of life that I'm looking for.
