Comment on Something's Wrong

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 22:54:58 GMT

Hold on, the naturalistic origin of life is pretty plausible based on current understanding (Miller-Urey showed amino acid development would be very plausible, and from there there are a number of AIUI chemically sound models for those building blocks naturally forming self-replicating organisms or pseudo-organisms).

Are you genuinely arguing that its probability is so low that it would be less productive to investigate naturalistic abiogenesis mechanisms than it would be to look for new hypotheses? Or, alternately, do you have a more specific idea of what minimum level of probability it takes for a hypothesis be "plausible" rather than "being taken on faith"?

Discuss