throopw@rtp47.UUCP (Wayne Throop) (05/26/85)
I was delighted to see in the June, 1985 Scientific American an article that maintained that life arose in clay, rather than in the more traditional "primordial soup du jour". The article starts out raising several of the same arguments that have such currency in this group, but rather than just saying that "evolution can't explain x", the author goes on to give a stab at explaining x! (Not a very convincing explaination to my way of thinking, but *something*.) In essence, the article is an attempt show how DNA and proteins, which are mutually dependant (DNA needs proteins to exist in order to create proteins), could have arisen spontaneously. A facinating thing to me is that this has parallels in computer science (as does much of microbiological genetics). The "bootstrapping problem" for example. If you want to write a compiler for language X, *in* language X, and there are no language X compilers around, what to do? In computer science, the problem is solved "on purpose", and the article in question goes into how the analogous thing *could* happen "naturally". Interesting, if unconvincing. -- Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopw
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (06/01/85)
In article <51@rtp47.UUCP> throopw@rtp47.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes: >I was delighted to see in the June, 1985 Scientific American an article that >maintained that life arose in clay, rather than in the more traditional >"primordial soup du jour". The article starts out raising several of >the same arguments that have such currency in this group, but rather >than just saying that "evolution can't explain x", the author goes on to >give a stab at explaining x! (Not a very convincing explaination to my >way of thinking, but *something*.) > Yes, it was a very interesting article, and yes the concept as presented was rather weak. There may be two reasons for this. First, it was being presented in a popular journal not a technical one, and thus may have been enormously oversimplified as to the actual supporting evidence. Second, it is apparently only intended as a first aproximation of the *framework* of a new concept, much like Darwin's "origin of the Species". And much like that work it needs the discovery of new relationships and mechanisms before a realistic model of the "full" theory can be produced. Darwin needed Mendel, this needs a better characterization of the "living" clay that is proposed as the original life form. I find it fascinating, and a remarkable source for new research ideas and approaches. If the new research it sugests reveals the needed mechanisms then it may well become the new paradigm for the origin of life, or if the results do not show up it will simply fade away into oblivion. I will try to follow the research and see where it leads. It is also interesting to note that the concept as presented in no way reduces the importance of the Urey/Miller series of experiments. In order for the "organic" takeover to occur with the resulting shift from mineral "life" to "ordinary" organic life ther must be pre-existing, naturally occuring, complex organic compounds to be incorperated into the early life forms. However, this should be a warning to Creaionists about the dangers of argueing from current limitiations on understanding, new ideas and new research may always close these gaps. If this idea should pan out it will invalidate almost all of the arguments about the "improbability" of abiogeneses quite completely. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen