Here's a question that I've been pondering, and I was wondering what kind
of answers are given to it:
In today's environments, there is a rich and ready source of biochemical
and genetic raw materials. As organisms die and decay, carbohydrates,
lipids, amino acids, and even nucleic acids are filtered into the
surrounding environs. These may not remain intact for long, but at least
fragments of them are constantly being spread around. Even the floors of
our homes and work areas are literally covered with a biochemical film,
due to our continual shedding of dead skin cells.
So, then, why is it apparently true that no one is looking for or
expecting abiogenesis to occur today? With such a rich diversity of
ambient biomolecules, why is it seemingly unreasonable for us to go into,
say, a swamp and see if lifeforms or proto-lifeforms are developing?
This strikes me as a paradox that in the most biochemically rich
evironments we don't even think life can form. Yet, in relatively
impoverished settings such as ancient oceans, meteors & comets,
primordial hydrothermal vents, etc., many of us are absolutely convinced
that life's generation did occur.
Is there some basic part of the puzzle that I'm overlooking, or does this
seem strange to anyone else as well?
Steve C.
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 07 2000 - 10:01:49 EDT