In a message dated 11/16/01 9:56:23 AM, hvantill@novagate.com writes:
<< No, Bob, exactly the opposite. I'm saying that if you wish to posit the
addition of new formational capabilities, then you have to posit changing
the character of matter in one or more of the ways I suggested.
>>
Howard,
I fail to see that I must do so. Specifically, in what ways must the
addition of new formational capabilities that result in the first biological
cell or protocell change the character of matter?
<<My hypothesis, on the other hand, is that there is no need for such a
change; that the character of atoms and molecules includes -- without
further additions or modifications -- the formational capabilities to
actualize the system of life.>>
I_also fail to see why this is true. Perhaps what you wrote below is your
explanation?
<<I envision them as resident in the system of the Creation's potentialities,
a system that is an integral aspect of the Creation's being.
<<Example: Very early in the formational history of the universe there was a
brief period of time when free quarks existed, but it was too hot for them
to form nucleons (protons and neutrons). At that moment nucleons were
potentialities resident in the character of quarks. As the temperature
dropped (as a result of the universe's expansion), nucleons formed;
potential structures became actual structures as the constituent parts
exercised their formational capabilities.
<<In a similar manner, there was an extended time period (most of the first
few hundred thousand years after the beginning) during which the temperature
of the universe was too high for atoms to form from the plasma of atomic
nuclei and electrons. During this period atoms were potentialities resident
in the character of nuclei and electrons. As the temperature dropped (as a
result of the universe's expansion), atoms formed; potential structures
became actual structures as the constituent parts exercised their
formational capabilities.>>
I agree, in so far as I understand it, with everything you said thus far.
But are you saying this is the model of how life rose out of resident
potentialities of atoms and molecules?__Is the next step that molecules are
formed from potentialities resident in the character of atoms, actualized by
further drop in temperature? What is the relationship between inherent
potentialities that you envision and the external environment in which they
reside?
Or was some other stimulus needed to actualize biology out of chemistry? I
have questions both about just what those resident potentialities of
molecules were and what was it that served as a stimulus to actualize them.
It requires a leap of faith to use the scenario that you drew of the
actualization of atoms as a model of how life arose. It's too large a leap
for me to make, Howard.
Bob
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Nov 18 2001 - 21:22:07 EST