Soup's On!

Cross posted @ God Is For Suckers!

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams

We've all heard this particular refrain: "Why doesn't/can't evolution explain the origins of life?"

The answer is yet to be found. And we can always retreat to our own canard, that the detractor is mixing disciplines, can't we?

Short answer is: no, we can't.

Evolution is a multi-faceted discipline that overlaps a multitude of fields. It is essentially, everywhere. It draws on a plethora of other disciplines as well. The theory of evolution draws specific ire from the religious inasmuch as it adapts to the environment around it, and changes, which in the eyes of the credulous, appears to be weak. Ironic, that this formula seems to retrofit much like natural selection, which is at its core.

But here's the crux of it: abiogenesis is linked (directly or indirectly) to evolution.

The proviso is that yes, evolution provides the naturalistic explanation of how we got from point A to point B, but the error (for those diametrically opposed to the ToE) is in assuming that a source is required for validity.

As an analogy, Einstein didn't require a 'source' for light to exist. Newton didn't require a 'source' for the infamous apple to bonk him on the head. These things already were, and needed an explanation.

Evolution is an explanation of how we came about, how we are today. It's logical - it's been proven thousands of times (or more), and will continue to prove itself.

This post is inspired by something said by PZ Meyers here, and an excellent link to the Panda's Thumb on this particular subject.

There are myriad tracks of investigation, which include evidence of photosynthesis found earlier than expected, and here is an unusual bit of news, which gives new meaning to 'diamond in the rough'.

And there's been a whole lot more going on since Stanley-Urey's famous experiment (which in its entirety, simply showed that it could be done).

So the best bet is to shower the ignorant with the facts, and watch as they fum-fah, or retreat, or go into some obvious denial.

Beginning of course, with the RNA World hypothesis. Or maybe the Iron-Sulfur world. Or even Bubbles. (Yeah, bubbles! Sounds like an eye-roller, until you dig into it). Personally, I rather like the clay/crystals theorem, but am a tad wary, as some hereafterian may very well latch onto this in a bout of allegorical frenzy ("Look, how'd they KNOW that!?!?").

So next time you hear that hoary old chestnut, best to just hit them with the facts. Bit o' advice, is all

Till the next post, then.