Another problem for creationists? a-new-physics-theory-of-life

[Methinx]

Hello.


“You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,”

From here: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

I would be grateful of your opinions.

Many thanks

 

[bilby]

I seem to recall seeing this before.

The biggest problem with this hypothesis in my opinion is that it predicts that life would be pretty much endemic to at least the inner solar system; and yet we only observe life here on Earth.

That suggests that there is rather more to it than this; which is why we don't ask physicists to run the chemistry or biology departments. (And for that matter why we don't ask the mathematicians to run physics departments). Contributions are welcome, but over simplifications are less helpful than might be imagined.

It is no doubt a part of the answer as to why life (rather than non-life); but the conditions appear to be necessary, but not sufficient.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I seem to recall seeing this before.

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...-evolution-proposed-that-actually-makes-sense

 

[Methinx]

I seem to recall seeing this before.

The biggest problem with this hypothesis in my opinion is that it predicts that life would be pretty much endemic to at least the inner solar system; and yet we only observe life here on Earth.

That suggests that there is rather more to it than this; which is why we don't ask physicists to run the chemistry or biology departments. (And for that matter why we don't ask the mathematicians to run physics departments). Contributions are welcome, but over simplifications are less helpful than might be imagined.

It is no doubt a part of the answer as to why life (rather than non-life); but the conditions appear to be necessary, but not sufficient.

I understand the point you make, thanks.

And thank you Keith&Co for the link.

All the best.