No, Charles–*This* is How Life Started!

See the source image

New computer models and lab experiments, for what that’s worth, suggest that Charles Darwin was wrong in thinking life originated in “a warm little pond” somewhere. Now the smart money is on deep-sea hydrothermal vents (https://www.foxnews.com/science/charles-darwin-wrong-life-started-on-earth).

So far, space exploration has indicated that warm little ponds are kind of hard to come by, once you leave earth, so they’re hoping they can find some hydrothermal vents. But first you’ve got to find water, and that’s not so easy, either. But they’re hoping there’s deep water under the planetary ice sheets found on some of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn.

Meanwhile back in the lab, scientists have “re-created the environment” around Earth’s hydrothermal vents–to which they added “fatty acids and fatty alcohols” to make molecules that look like maybe someday they might sprout arms and legs and jump up singing “I’m My Own Grandpa.”

Does anybody else have a little problem with “adding” stuff to get, er, “pre-life” going? How did the original fatty acids come into being?

Really, it’s all too silly for words. But ‘naturalism’ very badly needs and wishes for there to be life on other planets, so it’ll keep on generating theories until they find some.

8 comments on “No, Charles–*This* is How Life Started!

  1. I do not mind leaving my address here. It is Ina McDougall, 16 Rotherwood Avenue, Glasgow<, Scotland, G13 2RJ.

  2. If life were so easy to jump start that it could happen by happenstance then we should be able to recreate it in the lab. Just add some water and fatty acids and walla! But too bad for them evolution can’t even stand up to the scientific method. I wouldn’t be surprised if they started pushing the idea that life was seeded by aliens because evolution isn’t cutting it.

  3. These scientists are myopic, among other faults, in not realizing that everything they use to disprove creation always involves using things, elements, etc. were already here. And then there’s the problem of irreducible complexity which, it appears, is too complex for these scientists to understand. So by adding and subtracting, they “create” – like Common Core math.

Leave a Reply