Question 1. Is these correct?
That abiogenesis is a study of how life might have begun on planet Earth.
I would say that abiogenesis is the study of mechanisms whereby life may have arisen from pre-organic compounds, with particular emphasis to the development of life on earth and the conditions that existed between 4.5 billion years ago and 3.5 billion years ago.
Of late this has included the possibility of "seeding" of earth with organic or pre-organic compounds that have been found in space and that could be carried to earth by meteors or as dust, so we are not strictly restricted to things just on earth.
What makes earth of particular interest in these studies is that we do know that there is life on earth. To study the development of life on mars, for instance, is rather pointless if we can't show that there is life on mars.
Question 2. What would the study of abiogenesis have to do with life outside of the planet Earth?
There would have to be another hypothesis to cover that subject as you mentioned.
Once we have evidence of life on some other planet then we have essentially the same question - before {A} no life, after {B} life, so how do we explain it?
Question 3. Are you suggesting that hypothesis be a part of the standard Theory as it is referred to by Talk Origins in the following quote? Where they are attacking Wells.
I've not read that article, however I don't think they are referring to a "Standard Theory" (the way it is used in physics when they talk about the "Standard Model") but just the common theory. We may be reading too much into specific words.
Question 4. Has the Abiogenesis hypothesis reached the point it can be called the standard theory?
Personally I am skeptical of any claims to their being a "Standard Theory" as that implies the kind of degree of validation that would have been reserved for "laws" not that long ago, and that have been shown to need revision (Newton's "Law" of gravity, for instance). To me a theory is a theory. As long as it is a scientific theory that means it is based on evidence, it make predictions and it explains things to the best ability of our current knowledge, but that it is still just as susceptible to falsification as the newest theory to be developed.
Anything that has to do with life starting by some supernatural entity would have to be faith based as there is no way to prove one way or the other it happened that way.
I would use hypothetical rather than faith based, as you can have hypothetical considerations that you don't necessarily believe are true, but which are made to be tested and eliminated (if possible) in order to narrow the realm of what is possible by elimination, when the falsified hypothesis are voted off the island.
Anything that had to do with life coming from another planet would have to be faith based as it is impossible to prove.
Again, it would be hypothetical, and no theory in science is proven, so the best you can do is validate the concept. For instance, one of the concerns about finding life on Mars is that it is earth based life that has been carried there by our own rockets. If the life there had opposite handed amino acids, or used different constructions of proteins not seen on earth, then that would validate (but not prove) the hypothesis that they could be due to separate development of life on a separate planet. If they were all similar to earth life that would validate (but not prove) the hypothesis that they could be from contamination.
Hope that helps.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : splignel
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
™ Version 4.2
