From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 17 Nov 92 15:48:52 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <Fuw9TB12w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>lking@athena.mit.edu (Loren King) writes:
>
>> |> If there isn't a model for abiogenesis "yet", then why do supposedly
>> |> reputable scientists make the premature claim that life arose from
>> |> non-life? Unless a model can be shown to be correct, then it is not
>> |> scientific to claim that the phenomenon occurred, is it? No one has ever
>> |> seen a living organism arise from an assemblage of lifeless matter, have
>> |> they?
>> 
>> Well, the "claim" is in fact a testable inference: if we can approximate the
>> conditions of early earth and generate living matter, then the inference is
>> validated.  Now, one might claim that, as we can never really "know" the init
>> conditions that existed on earth, we can never "really" validate this inferen
>> This claim, however, is tantamount to radical contextualism, and I think if y
>> buy into it, then the only way to compare competing explanations is to see wh
>> attempt to minimize the complexity and import of their unprovable assumptions
>>   I think evolutionary biology does a pretty good job of this.  Everything ho
>> together after the hypothesized genesis of life, regardless of the character 
>> this genesis; further, tests have replicated simple proteins from primordial 
>> gases and electrical stimulus, further consolidating the inference of biochem
>> genesis. 
>
>Good. Test the inference. Create a set of initial conditions (sole
>criterion--no living organisms of any kind present), allow the
>conditions to vary in whatever way you like, and see if you observe life
>coming into existence from non-life. Look for, say, an E. coli, or even
>a T4 phage. That shouldn't be too difficult.

You must be deaf, or dumb, or both (now, what meaning of dumb I am
using? Hmmmmm...). *Nobody* who thinks abiogenesis happened is saying
random molecules bumped into each other and, lo and behold, a cell
appeared.

*Furthermore*, evolution is not abiogenesis. Let's return to that topic
for a while, shall we? Do you or don't you agree that people, among
other things, evolved from the first replicating <whatever>, however
they were formed?


>       -------------------------------------------------------
>      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
>      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
>      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
>      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
>      |                                                       |
>      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
>      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
>       -------------------------------------------------------

Don't forget to chant
	Abiogenesis doesn't state fully functional cells emerged
		from random molecules
	Evolution != abiogenesis

	Tero Sand
-- 
	EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi   or   custts@cc.helsinki.fi
   "I feel most ministers who claim they've heard God's voice are eating
too much pizza before they go to bed at night, and it's really an 
intestinal disorder, not a revelation." - Reverend Jerry Falwell