From: duffy@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com (Joseph Duffy)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: To Joe Duffy and T.O. et al.  - re: Abiogenesis (fwd)
Date: 2 Sep 92 15:07:27 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Inc. Irving, Texas

In article <9209021222.AA10544@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov> jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
>Forwarded message:
>From jgacker  Tue Sep  1 17:48:17 1992
>From: jgacker (James G. Acker)
>Message-Id: <9209012148.AA10230@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov>
>Subject: To Joe Duffy and T.O. et al.  - re: Abiogenesis
>To: rec.arts.tv.soaps@news.cs.indiana.edu
>Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 17:48:16 EDT
>Cc: jgacker (James G. Acker)
>X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4dev PL73]
>Content-Type: text
>Content-Length: 3845      
>
>
>
>	At the end of his most recent post (on my system, anyway)
>Joseph Duffy hits the same conundrum that a previous poster, whose name
>is now forgotten, also hit -- if it is possible to prove that there is
>a point, a spot, a mere trivial connection, in the abiogenetic chain of
>events which could NOT happen unless it was given a supernatural "push",
>this would be outstanding evidence for the action of God.
>
>	I apologize upfront -- Chris Stassen has provided good references
>on abiogenesis which I have not had time to look up.
>
>	I believe that the proper way to proceed in attempting this 
>examination is to hypothesize that a supernatural "push" is _not 
>necessary_, and therefore construct a natural chain of events which would lead
>to a primitive cell.  This is what abiogenetic research is attempting to
>do.  As stated before, the leading candidates are "RNA world" and
>"clay life".  I believe either could take place at ocean floor "warm
>springs", my favorite site for the reaction "chamber".
>
>	I can't do anymore with abiogenesis without reading these leading
>opinions.  I encourage others to take this up - I believe someone is
>constructing an abiogenesis FAQ (which is sorely needed;  is that you,
>Dan?)
>
>	But briefly, these are some useful preliminary steps:
>
>	1.  Synthesis of chemical precursors
>
>	2.  Reaction of chemical precursors to form complex 
>intermediates, specifically peptides --> proteins --> nucleic acids.
>
>	3.  Formation of a lipo"sphere", creating high concentrations
>within the sphere and a membrane exclusion process to help
>eliminate harmful destructive species (free radicals).
>
>	4.  Self-replication of a chemical entity.
>
>The trigger for self-replication -- 
>RNA self-catalysis, clay-surface catalysis, or 
>other -- appears (to me) to be the "clincher".  Make this happen,
>and God/supernatural intervention is not necessary for abiogenesis.
>There are a lot of steps between self-replication and what would be
>called "life", but these steps are primarily energy-related and 
>"organizational" in a pre-cell.  By energy-related I mean the 
>maintenance of energy-producing processes and elimination of by-products
>(including heat).
>
>	So, Joseph, and this is mild criticism -- making "life" might be
>difficult.  Note, if we could prove abiogenesis end-to-end without the 
>need for supernatural intervention, it still would not (and could never)
>prove that supernatural intervention did not occur!  Only if a step
>in the process was proven to REQUIRE supernatural intervention would 
>a question arise in the minds of all scientists -- and they would then
>devote their utmost powers of intellect to prove that supernatural
>intervention is NOT required for that step.
>	Why?
>Not because they have a severe hatred of God, or any prior leaning
>in a religious sense -- but because to entertain any semblance of 
>creation and supernatural intervention in the natural history of the Earth
>is anathema to science.  I.e. no scientist worth a whit will consider
>the supernatural until all other avenues are exhausted.  So, it is going to
>take a MOUNTAIN of evidence to convince "science" that even a modified
>creation scenario should be entertained.
>	This is as it should be.
>
>	To paraphrase myself:  "The first glimmer of life on this planet,
>by whatever process gave it rise, is the closest thing to a miraculous
>event which, beyond the writings of science and religion, we all know
>had to occur in Earth's entire history.  Perhaps it was a miracle --
>we will never know for sure."
>
>	I might add -- even if in the far future it is shown that life
>is ubiquitous in the Universe, the organization of inorganic 
>constituents into a living entity (even if it is only a proto-cell) will
>constitute an astonishing process.  Can anyone deny that?
>	Why would anyone want to?
>
>	That is all.
>
>	Jim Acker
>	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
>
>

Jim, I really appreciate your comments. One thought I am struggling with
is why does science choose to rule out the "supernatural" as you suggest above?
Now before I get flamed let me explain further.

Let me illustrate: Suppose that we somehow created an autonomous android
and placed him by himself on an isolated planet. Now, assuming that this
android can think (remember this is not a "proof" illustration, only an
analogy to convey my thoughts) let's say he (it?) begins to ponder his
origin. He decides to call the name of his pursuit "science". He decides
that somehow he arose on this planet and that he his going to find a way
to explain it in terms of the processes that he sees operating on the planet.
He decides that "no scientist worth a whit" would even consider that he
was a result of outside processes. Now in this admittedly hypothetical
example, is the android/scientist unnecesarily limiting his scope?

It seems reasonable to assume that there might be forces acting beyond
our universe that are beyond the "natural" things that we observe. Is the
Big Bang an example of where science has been able to dip its toe into
the possibility that processes beyond  the current state of nature brought
the universe into existence? Sometimes I wonder if the term "supernatural"
has become a loaded term and invokes to many images of angels and such to
the point that we lose our objectivity. Maybe we should coin a new phrase
such as "ultranatural". 

Anyway Jim, I do agree that the origin of the first cell must be considered
an astonishing process. Later.
Newsgroups: talk.origins