Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

3
  • 2
    What "close correspondence"? Are you talking about how the observed CMB seems impossible according to present models? (Without, at least, introducing completely ad hoc pretzel-twists into the same?) In any case, I think Mark is asking whether abiogenesis without "help" is a reasonable belief.
    – Matthew
    Commented May 27 at 20:22
  • 2
    @Matthew: No, I'm talking about the entirely more prosaic fact that the CMB looks strikingly like a redshifted black-body radiation curve, and the amount of redshift matches up really, really well with what has been modeled. As for "without help" - that falls under methodological naturalism. Science does not assert that the explanation must necessarily be natural. It merely asserts that investigating natural phenomena subjectively appears to be a better use of scientists' time. You can't tell people that they're wrong about something like that.
    – Kevin
    Commented May 27 at 22:35
  • 1
    Solid answer. It's not obvious, but the original question is fundamentally about the definition of "bio-" and "life", and this answer gets closest to pointing out how any definition of "life" has to contend with the universe starting out lifeless.
    – Corbin
    Commented May 28 at 2:36