[net.origins] Origin of Life

lief@hpfcrs.UUCP (lief) (02/28/85)

The question was:

>>	2. Why do many evolutionists deny the possibility [sic] that
>>	   there is something more to evolution than just pure chance
>>	   which resulted in the one-time spontaneous generation [sic]
>>	   of an autonomous, self-replicating organism from random
>>	   amino/nucleic acids, especially in light of the lack of
>>	   evidence for continuous evolution in the restricted 
>>	   timeframe of 4.6 billion years (give or take a couple 
>>	   weekends)?
>>
The reply by Stanley Friesen was:

>	This question is based on misleading semantics.  Pure chance?
>Modern advances in cosmology and organic chemistry seem to be heading
>towards the conclusion that life is *inevitable* given the right
>initial conditions.  Random amino/nucleic acids? See previous point,
>the associtions of these chemicals which form under natural conditions
>are *just* those necessary for life to form. 4.6 *billion* years
>restricted?? Doyou have any idea how *long* that really is, especially
>considering the recent evidence for a relatively rapid pace of
>evolution.

I would ask Mr. Friesen:

1)  What are the right initial conditions to make *life* inevitable?
    If you say you don't know, then how can you assume that the right
    initial conditions exsist?

2)  You say "...the associations of these chemicals which form under
    natural conditions are *just* those necessary for life to form."
    Does this mean that the result of properly associating these
    chemicals results in *life*?

3)  "...recent evidence for a relatively rapid pace of evolution."
    Could you list some of this factual evidence for me?

Sounds to me like you are making an awfully large claim for evolution.
Has any scientist ever put *life* into anything?  According to you,
the scientific world knows what is involved in doing just this.  How
can anyone call it *scientific* when making claims which are based on
nothing more than imagination?

Mr. Friesen, it is easy to make general statements about anything.
But it's quite another to state facts and evidence.  Make one single
blade of grass, or put life into 1 amoeba, and maybe I'll listen to
you.  However, until you actually go out and make something as simple
as a carrot seed (should be no problem according to your above statements),
and it grows, don't try to tell us that you have a handle on making *life*!

Lief Sorensen
Hewlett Packard Co.

ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (03/09/85)

[]
  The question of how life originated has come up before in this newsgroup.
It is clear that
     1) There is no precise model of how life could have arisen on the
        primordial Earth without divine intervention.
     2) There is no reason to believe that the origin of life is an
        event which *requires* divine intervention.  That is, such an
        event would not require contravention of natural law.

That being the case, what can we conclude?  That we are ignorant.

One could, as a matter of religious faith, choose to believe that our ignorance
here is due to the fact that this event was a primordial miracle.  One could
not conclude this as a matter of science.

Now the history of science is replete with examples of how phenomena attributed
to the constant intervention of god(s) have come to be understood as the
natural consequence of the fundamental laws of the universe.  It is therefore
reasonable to suppose that the origin of life will similarly come to understood
as a natural phenomena.  From the point of view of the scientist, God has
so far remained an unnecessary hypothesis.  Thus the claim of creationists
to be advancing a scientific model seems devoid of merit.

****religious comments follow******

I do not understand the assertion that a belief in naturalistic interpretation
of events is necessarily atheistic.  Few people would claim that the action
of gravity is due to a constant divine intervention in the workings of the
universe.  Rather, it is generally understood that gravity is a natural law
and the religious among us see God as its author.  Why then is the natural
origin of life and its subsequent evolution seen as an atheistic hypothesis?
Certainly a deity capable of creating a universe is capable of ordaining
its laws so that life arises spontaneously throughout the universe.

It may be reasonable to claim that a literal reading of the Bible certainly
casts doubt on evolution.  However, as others have pointed out, it also
seems to imply a flat Earth and a geocentric universe.  Are the creationists
on the net really prepared to argue in favor these ideas? 

********************************************


"Don't argue with a fool.      Ethan Vishniac
 Borrow his money."            {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan

*Anyone who wants to claim these opinions is welcome to them.*

friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (03/11/85)

In article <14600002@hpfcrs.UUCP> lief@hpfcrs.UUCP (lief) writes:
>The reply by Stanley Friesen was:
>
>>	This question is based on misleading semantics.  Pure chance?
>>Modern advances in cosmology and organic chemistry seem to be heading
>>towards the conclusion that life is *inevitable* given the right
>>initial conditions.  Random amino/nucleic acids? See previous point,
>>the associtions of these chemicals which form under natural conditions
>>are *just* those necessary for life to form. 4.6 *billion* years
>>restricted?? Doyou have any idea how *long* that really is, especially
>>considering the recent evidence for a relatively rapid pace of
>>evolution.
>
>I would ask Mr. Friesen:
>
>1)  What are the right initial conditions to make *life* inevitable?
>    If you say you don't know, then how can you assume that the right
>    initial conditions exsist?

	I do not know the exact values, but the following general
results follow from many biochemical experiments:
	Free molecular Carbon in the atmosphere(e.g Carbon Dioxide).
	Water existing in both liquid and vapor phases.
	Sufficient light to drive photochemical reactions, and provide
energy for other reactions..
	Absence of pure Oxygen, or other oxidizing compounds.
>
>2)  You say "...the associations of these chemicals which form under
>    natural conditions are *just* those necessary for life to form."
>    Does this mean that the result of properly associating these
>    chemicals results in *life*?
>
	I meant "exactly", that is the chemicals which form are
those needed for life and the chemicals needed for life invariably
form. I then note that to go from the complex building blocks that
have been demonstrated to form in th laboratory, and by astronomers,
to a simple living organism is a small step.

>3)  "...recent evidence for a relatively rapid pace of evolution."
>    Could you list some of this factual evidence for me?
>
>Sounds to me like you are making an awfully large claim for evolution.
>Has any scientist ever put *life* into anything?  According to you,
>the scientific world knows what is involved in doing just this.  How
>can anyone call it *scientific* when making claims which are based on
>nothing more than imagination?
>
	I am here refering to the large body of work which goes under
the name "puncuated equilibrium theory". To find the evidence go to
ypur local university library and read any book by Dr. Gould, or any
symposium debating the above theory. This literature is *extensive*.
You may also try reading Ernst Mayr for a more "moderate" form of the
Puntuated Equilibrium concept.

>Mr. Friesen, it is easy to make general statements about anything.
>But it's quite another to state facts and evidence.  Make one single
>blade of grass, or put life into 1 amoeba, and maybe I'll listen to
>you.  However, until you actually go out and make something as simple
>as a carrot seed (should be no problem according to your above statements),
>and it grows, don't try to tell us that you have a handle on making *life*!
>
	I hope I have made a start here on citing at least the
*sources* of my evidence(there is too much to actually include).
A carrot seed SIMPLE?!?!?! It is *very* complex. Even an amoeba
is very complex. Perhaps some of the newly discovered organisms
simpler than a bacterium *may* be simple enough to qualify as
candidates for similarity to the original living thing.
In less than 10 years I expect to see such thing created in the
laboratory.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

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

ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (03/12/85)

> Few people would claim that the action
> of gravity is due to a constant divine intervention in the workings of the
> universe.  Rather, it is generally understood that gravity is a natural law
> and the religious among us see God as its author.  Why then is the natural
> origin of life and its subsequent evolution seen as an atheistic hypothesis?

Genesis does not have anything to say about gravity,  so there
can be no conflict.  Genesis has too much to say about the origin
of life.  If any theory of evolution is correct, then Genesis
is wrong.  This means that the Bible is wrong.  If the Bible
cannot be wrong then either science is wrong, or evolution is
not science, and/or the Biblical account of creation is science.

This is a kind of dilemma I hope I never have to resolve.
-- 

Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD
UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward
ARPA: hplabs!hao!ward@Berkeley
BELL: 303-497-1252
USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO  80307

keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (03/13/85)

[...........]
>Genesis does not have anything to say about gravity,  so there
>can be no conflict.  Genesis has too much to say about the origin
>of life.  If any theory of evolution is correct, then Genesis
>is wrong.  This means that the Bible is wrong.  If the Bible
>cannot be wrong then either science is wrong, or evolution is
>not science, and/or the Biblical account of creation is science.

I can see no reason, and know of no evidence to indicate that the
Bible 'cannot' be wrong.  However, this seems to be the premise
that Creationist theory is largely based upon.  As has been previously
noted, many Creationist 'scientists' must sign an affadavit to the
effect they 'believe' the Bible cannot be wrong.  What evolutionist has 
ever had to sign an affidavit that evolution cannot be wrong?  Creationists,
truly approaching their theory from the perspective of science must
admit that the Bible cannot be assumed to be truth as there is
no evidence to that effect.  However, this is in direct conflict
with the Creationist cause.  A true scientist should not close a
door to a possibility just because he would prefer it to be
impossible.

Keith Doyle
#  {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
"You'll PAY to know what you REALLY think!"

friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (03/13/85)

In article <1392@hao.UUCP> ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) writes:
>
>Genesis does not have anything to say about gravity,  so there
>can be no conflict.  Genesis has too much to say about the origin
>of life.  If any theory of evolution is correct, then Genesis
>is wrong.  This means that the Bible is wrong.  If the Bible
>cannot be wrong then either science is wrong, or evolution is
>not science, and/or the Biblical account of creation is science.
>
>This is a kind of dilemma I hope I never have to resolve.

	This depends on how you interperate the Genisis account.
Your "literal history" interpretation is far from universal among
theologans.  This approach causes many problems. the Bible talks
about the sun setting and rising, and at one place it "stops in
the sky", all of whichj imply a geocentric cosmology.  Or how
about the passages which talk about a "firmament" above the earth,
and the "ends" of the earth - or do you seriously propose accepting
a flat Earth covered a bowl-shaped heaven, with stars poked in it?
This *is* the cosmology of the Bible writers.
	Much of the Bible is allegory and metaphor, or do you believe
that the events in Jesus' parables *really* occured?  The Bible is
not a uniform piece of literature, it is a composite of many different
sorts of literature, each of which must be taken on its own terms.
I prefer to see the Genisis account as an allegory of God's creative
power in the universe, and his absolute rulership thereof.


P.S Did you know that the Genesis creation account is a *direct*
adaption of the Babylonian(or maybe Chaldean) creation myth,
with all references to the pagan pantheon replaced by references
to God.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

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

dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/23/85)

I got this bit of information from Paul Dolber.  He said I could post
it.  I thought it might be of interest to some in this newsgroup.

> 	at the June 3-7, 1985 Association
> for Biology Laboratory Education workshop/conference, one of the workshops
> is entitled and described as below:

> 	Origin of Life by Phillip Mason, Berry College. I. Pro-
> 	tenoid and Microsphere Production. Techniques and
> 	materials will be provided for the production of
> 	protein-like amino acid polymers (protenoids). After
> 	protenoid formation, primitive conditions will be
> 	simulated to synthesize microspheres, observe their
> 	behavior, and compare and contrast certain properties
> 	(osmotic activity) with "primitive" eukaryotic cells.

Paul's not sure about the location.  Las Vegas, perhaps.

-- 
                                                                    |
Paul DuBois	{allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois        --+--
                                                                    |
"Danger signs, a creeping independence"                             |