[net.origins] explanation granted.

hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (05/10/85)

___________________________________________________________________________

> From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
> 
> Reluctant as I am to leap into discussions such as occur in this
> group, I want to ask Keebler (aka Ernest Hua) to explain himself.

Sure thing.

> Excerpted from Keebler:
> 
> >                  ... Evolution is a view of the natural flow of things,
> > which is assumed to always have happened and always will...
> 
> Clearly, this *assumption* is one of the main, if not the main,
> sources of disagreement in this group.  Why do you make this
> assumption?  Exactly what does it mean?  Why does it upset you
> that others do not choose to make this assumption?

1) I make this assumption, as scientists must do, because science becomes
a joke if this is incorrect.  (I am not saying that this is correct; I am
just making this assumption to make scientific study possible.)  Science
tries to find out about laws of nature.  Laws that change with time are
not laws themselves, but only sub-laws in a much bigger law, a dependency
of which is time.  It may actually be that no law really exist at all, and
in fact, all that we have gathered as data for evidence of laws is just
simple coincidence or, better yet, a cruel joke devised by some omniscient
being.  But until we figure that out, we have to live with the assumption
that nature is consistent.

2) This assumption means that laws that apply today have always applied,
and always will.  This is quite different from what you interpret into
my words below.

3) I really don't care if others do not make this assumption, but if
they want to push their opinions as scientific, they had better form
those opinions with this assumption, since allowing for an unpredictable
nature goes against a fundamental principle of science.

> Later, in the same paragraph:
> 
> >         ... By the way, where did I say that the evolution of life forms
> > did not occur under different sets of conditions than today?
> 
> This question is one reason I don't understand what your assumption
> means.  If the "natural flow of things" is "assumed to always have
> happened and always will" then it sounds to me like you are saying
> that the evolution of life forms occurred under the same conditions
> as exist today.  If the "natural flow of things" is always the same,
> then the conditions are not different.  (Maybe that's not what you
> meant, but that's what it sounds like.)

Nope.  That is NOT what I mean.  What I meant was that if F=ma today,
then F=ma when life forms first appeared.  Laws are not the same as
conditions.  I am certainly not saying that, because there is oxygen
in the atmosphere today, there was oxygen in the atmosphere when life
forms first appeared.  It follows then, that we can attempt to repro-
duce some primitive conditions, but we do not have to reproduce any
primitive laws, in order to see what may have happened "way back then".

> So what *do* you say about the origin of life (if anything) ?

I don't think I have mentioned my opinions on the topic of the origin
of life forms.  In short, I think life forms formed in some set of
highly chemically reactive conditions such as the one tested by
Stanley and Miller (did I get those names right?).  I think the
development went through hierarchial phases (e.g. molecular, macro-
molecular, organelle, cellular, etc ...).

> If you say that life arose from nonlife, under conditions
> radically different from those of today, then the statement that
> the "natural flow of things" has always happened doesn't mean much;
> the "natural flow of things" is broad enough to allow anything.

Interestingly, you raise the same complaint that I addressed in
the original post.  The "natural flow of things" is extremely
broad, but it is confined by natural law.  Of course, if apples
start floating today, there better be a law to explain it.  (In
a way, the basic assumption is quite circular, but there is no
other way around it.  If you want to find consistency, you have
to expect it to exist.)  In short, if something happens, scientists
will have to find a law to explain it; "God willed it to be so"
and other supernatural explanations are not valid scientific laws.

> { more of the same misunderstanding }
>
> If you say that life arose from nonlife, under conditions
> substantially the same as those of today, then I should expect,
> that, with a little tweaking, someone should be able to create
> the conditions under which life could arise from nonlife.

Actually, someone came close.  In fact, I mentioned that experiment
above somewhere.  There were others that dealt with conditions where
S & M left off.

> If you say that life did not arise from nonlife, but has always
> existed, in a form we would recognize as life, then I will eagerly
> await your explanation of your reasoning.

This is clearly not of my opinion.

> If you say that life did not arise from nonlife, but existed in
> a form we would not recognize as life, including the concept that
> life and nonlife are two regions of the same continuum, then I
> will have to find a different term and pose the same questions,
> because I think it is clear that there is something substantially
> different between a rock and man.

Certainly.  There are certain qualifications that we use to define
life.  A rock cannot satisfy any of them, therefore, we cannot con-
sider a rock as a life form.  However, what about a virus.  It is
capable of self-replication under certain circumstances, though it
is most often dormant.  Is it a part-time life form?

By the way, your first sentence in this past paragraph is self-con-
tradictory.  Life cannot exist "in a form we would not recognize as
life" because then we would not call it life.  There is also the
misunderstanding that there is some continuum which someone (perhaps
you are refering to me?) partitioned into life and non-life.  I am
not quite sure what you are talking about.  I guess that you can
metaphorically consider the development of life forms as part of
some continuum.  Aside from that, I am forced to ask you for a
clarification.

> (Besides, if you really think that life had no "origin," why are
> you posting to net.origins?)

Of course, I never said that life had no origin.  For the sake of
clarity, I must deal with the technicalities, so here it goes:

If one refers to "origin" as some point in time when a particular
form first appears, then I think there is no clear time though one
should be able to demonstrate some range of time in which the origin
may actually reside.

If one refers to "origin" as the actual source of a particular form,
then I think there are numerous possibilities, one of which has al-
ready been discovered.

There are other references to "origin" in some high-level contexts,
all of which are inappropriate.

Finally, net.origins is for the discussion of the evolution vs. creation
contraversy.  The most appropriate attack at the problem is through the
scientific end since that is what creationists are claiming to have but
that which scientists are consistently refuting.  "origins" does not
deal strictly with the origin of life.
___________________________________________________________________________

Live long and prosper.
Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }

keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (05/14/85)

[.........]
>> If you say that life did not arise from nonlife, but existed in
>> a form we would not recognize as life, including the concept that
>> life and nonlife are two regions of the same continuum, then I
>> will have to find a different term and pose the same questions,
>> because I think it is clear that there is something substantially
>> different between a rock and man.
>
>Certainly.  There are certain qualifications that we use to define
>life.  A rock cannot satisfy any of them, therefore, we cannot con-
>sider a rock as a life form.  However, what about a virus.  It is
>capable of self-replication under certain circumstances, though it
>is most often dormant.  Is it a part-time life form?
>
>By the way, your first sentence in this past paragraph is self-con-
>tradictory.  Life cannot exist "in a form we would not recognize as
>life" because then we would not call it life.  There is also the
>misunderstanding that there is some continuum which someone (perhaps
>you are refering to me?) partitioned into life and non-life.  I am
>not quite sure what you are talking about.  I guess that you can
>metaphorically consider the development of life forms as part of
>some continuum.  Aside from that, I am forced to ask you for a
>clarification.

This would appear to point out a continuing problem the creationists
seem to have with classifying everything as either black or white.
Keebler points out here that there may be a transition point where
something is 'half life', or 'part life part chemical reaction' or
whatever.  I see no reason to try to draw hard lines between these
things as the creationists seem to.  I also see no reason to draw
hard lines between other things, such as bird/reptile, man/ape,
or to diametrically oppose such things as evolution/creation etc..

Keith Doyle
#  {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd

garys@bunkerb.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (05/15/85)

> > From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
> > 
> > Reluctant as I am to leap into discussions such as occur in this
> > group, I want to ask Keebler (aka Ernest Hua) to explain himself.

> Sure thing.

> > Excerpted from Keebler:

> > >                  ... Evolution is a view of the natural flow of things,
> > > which is assumed to always have happened and always will...

> > Clearly, this *assumption* is one of the main, if not the main,
> > sources of disagreement in this group.  Why do you make this
> > assumption?  Exactly what does it mean?  Why does it upset you
> > that others do not choose to make this assumption?

I thank Keebler for his explanation.  It confirms what I had
suspected, namely, that his (and many others') definition of
science rules out God a priori.  This puts a severe limitation
on discussion in a group which purports to be on the subject
of creation vs. evolution.  If by definition God does not exist,
or is at best irrelevant, then how can any discussion proceed?

> 1) I make this assumption, as scientists must do, because science becomes
> a joke if this is incorrect.  (I am not saying that this is correct; I am
> just making this assumption to make scientific study possible.)  Science
> tries to find out about laws of nature.  Laws that change with time are
> not laws themselves, but only sub-laws in a much bigger law, a dependency
> of which is time.  It may actually be that no law really exist at all, and
> in fact, all that we have gathered as data for evidence of laws is just
> simple coincidence or, better yet, a cruel joke devised by some omniscient
> being.  But until we figure that out, we have to live with the assumption
> that nature is consistent.

I can accept the above, with the following comments:

1. You earlier say that the 'natural flow of things' has always happened
and always will.  It does no harm to the assumption that nature is
consistent to suppose that the material universe had a beginning and
will have an end.

2. Anything we call a law today might turn out to be a sub-law tomorrow.
All of the physical laws are merely approximations of reality as we
are able to perceive it.  Newton's laws of motion are sufficiently
accurate most of the time, but in some cases (e.g. very high speeds),
the error becomes significant, and we switch to Einstein.  Newton's
laws are exact within Newton's model of the universe, but are merely
approximations to the real universe.

3. Your assumption also rules out miracles a priori.  That's ok, though,
to some extent, because by definition a miracle is an exception, or,
if you prefer, an inconsistency.  So, it is in a sense true that miracles
are not scientific -- if you could reproduce a miracle under controlled
conditions, it wouldn't be a miracle, but, as you imply, an example
of some other law.   Now don't misunderstand -- I agree that any
claim of miracle should be viewed with a large dose of skepticism,
and that 99+% of all such claims are bogus (largely, I think, these
claims occur because a lot of people have a rather loose definition
of 'miracle').  But I don't think it necessary to assume that there
has never been a miracle, and never will be.  Again, it is an
approximation, even a very close approximation, to say that miracles
do not occur, but one must remember that there is a difference
between the model and reality.

> If you want to find consistency, you have to expect it to exist.

Interesting the similarity between this statement and Hebrews 11:6:
"...anyone who comes to him [God] must believe that he exists and
that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."  Certainly, those
who operate from the assumption that there is no God will never
find him.  (Please note that I am not saying it is wrong to expect
consistency -- except in the beliefs of humans, of course :-).

> Certainly.  There are certain qualifications that we use to define
> life.  A rock cannot satisfy any of them, therefore, we cannot con-
> sider a rock as a life form.  However, what about a virus.  It is
> capable of self-replication under certain circumstances, though it
> is most often dormant.  Is it a part-time life form?

There are plants whose seeds can remain dormant for thousands of
years and germinate normally.  I would not call them part-time
life forms.  Frankly, I don't know what to call a virus.

> By the way, your first sentence in this past paragraph is self-con-
> tradictory.  Life cannot exist "in a form we would not recognize as
> life" because then we would not call it life.  There is also the
> misunderstanding that there is some continuum which someone (perhaps
> you are refering to me?) partitioned into life and non-life.

I was only trying to consider all possibilities.  Someone made
a statement that there was no clear distinction between life
and nonlife, and that therefore it wasn't entirely meaningful
to ask when 'life' began.  Since you say this is not your view,
I am content to drop it.

> Live long and prosper.
> Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }

Peace and long life.
Gary Samuelson
ittvax!bunker!garys

friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (05/20/85)

In article <502@bunkerb.UUCP> garys@bunkerb.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes:
>
>I thank Keebler for his explanation.  It confirms what I had
>suspected, namely, that his (and many others') definition of
>science rules out God a priori.  This puts a severe limitation
>on discussion in a group which purports to be on the subject
>of creation vs. evolution.  If by definition God does not exist,
>or is at best irrelevant, then how can any discussion proceed?
>
	I do not think that the scientific assumption(see below)
claims the *non-existance* of God, only that he is *irrelevant*
to *scientific* study. It says *nothing* about God in other contexts.
And in fact this is one of the main points of those who oppose
teaching Creationism as science, since the primaray assumption of
Creationism violates the primary assumption of science.

>> 1) I make this assumption, as scientists must do, because science becomes
>> a joke if this is incorrect.  (I am not saying that this is correct; I am
>> just making this assumption to make scientific study possible.)  Science
>> tries to find out about laws of nature.  Laws that change with time are
>> not laws themselves, but only sub-laws in a much bigger law, a dependency
>> of which is time.  It may actually be that no law really exist at all, and
>> in fact, all that we have gathered as data for evidence of laws is just
>> simple coincidence or, better yet, a cruel joke devised by some omniscient
>> being.  But until we figure that out, we have to live with the assumption
>> that nature is consistent.
>
>
>3. Your assumption also rules out miracles a priori.  That's ok, though,
>to some extent, because by definition a miracle is an exception, or,
>if you prefer, an inconsistency.  So, it is in a sense true that miracles
>are not scientific -- if you could reproduce a miracle under controlled
>conditions, it wouldn't be a miracle, but, as you imply, an example
>of some other law.
>.  But I don't think it necessary to assume that there
>has never been a miracle, and never will be.  Again, it is an
>approximation, even a very close approximation, to say that miracles
>do not occur, but one must remember that there is a difference
>between the model and reality.
>
	Actually, this depends on your definition of miracle. You
are coming perilously close to a God-of-the-gaps philosophy here.
Why should God's operation in the universe be limited to "exceptions",
or why should his involvement necessarily be treated as an exception.
What if the "laws" of nature are God's laws, and are maintained by him
on a moment to moment basis? Then the distiction between a miracle
and a natural event becomes arbitrary and essentially meaningless.
That is unless God is the sort who will violate his own rules.
Actually, I think God-of-the-gaps thinking is the main impetus
for the support for Creationism.

>> Certainly.  There are certain qualifications that we use to define
>> life.  A rock cannot satisfy any of them, therefore, we cannot con-
>> sider a rock as a life form.  However, what about a virus.  It is
>> capable of self-replication under certain circumstances, though it
>> is most often dormant.  Is it a part-time life form?
>
>There are plants whose seeds can remain dormant for thousands of
>years and germinate normally.  I would not call them part-time
>life forms.  Frankly, I don't know what to call a virus.
>
	Ther is one difference between a dormant seed and a virus,
a seed is always metabolizing, at least a *little*, a virus w/o a
host is just an inert piece of complex hydrocarbons.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen