Vault313
New
And a protocell is a purely theoretical device at this point. It's a purely made up entity to "fill in the gaps" of the origins of life. Let us also not forget, that once again, this is something that could theoretically be created in the lab. The creation of a "protocell" by humans still would not answer the question of how life spontaneously emerged from non-living chemical precursors.I believe a virus needs a host, if there is no host then no virus, I'm not really sure about a proto-cell,
Darwinian evolution has more holes than a brick of Swiss cheese. Much of Darwinism is based on pure speculation:
"The emergence of the first cells on the early Earth was the culmination of a long history of prior chemical and geophysical processes. Although recognizing the many gaps in our knowledge of prebiotic chemistry and the early planetary setting in which life emerged, we will assume for the purpose of this review that the requisite chemical building blocks were available, in appropriate environmental settings."(bolding mine)
http://m.cshperspectives.cshlp.org/content/2/9/a002212.full
Now, this isn't my argument for creationism or design. However, it is an argument for the fact that the ideological stronghold Darwinism has over the entirety of science and science education is akin to the creationist stronghold on the insistence of a God that created all life. Darwinism has a small amount of physical evidence to support SOME aspects of evolution, but has virtually zero evidence to support the "accidental life from goo" hypothesis or random genetic mutation for the propogation of desirable traits.
Darwinism is full of "just so" scenarios and promises of future discovery. Anyone proposing a top down directive is laughed off the face of the earth for the same thing.
My question is, why is the very idea of top down informational evolution so very unpalatable to much of science? If this is where the evidence leads, why the fear in pursuing the research to that end? The a priori assumption that top-down informational evolution is impossible is just as idiotic as the a priori assumption that "God did it".