Iain wrote (in part):
<< What I say is that this means that the model is incorrect and if you want to keep looking for a scientific explanation then you had better start to look for a better model that renders a much greater probability, rather than appeal to metaphysical concepts.? I'm no biologist, but aren't there supposed to be models of chemical evolution that don't rely (initially) on copying of information? >>
One other model that I have some familiarity with is from non-equilibrium thermodynamics.
The earth is not a closed system and certainly the surface of the earth (where life would
probably have originated) is certainly not.? The idea of a very stable gradient developing
and order coming out of the structure of the gradient is at least possible.? It allows some
room for all the rich imagination of Star Trek fame.? Life is quite non-equilibrium; or, for
living things, "equilibrium" is almost synonymous with "death".? So thermodynamics
rules.
One clear weakness in this model is that it essentially ignores the matter of
replication completely.? A stable gradient does draw out "patterns", that does
seem to be true.? It would follow that those patterns, if complex enough, might
replicate.? Whether it is enough to say you can get there, I simply don't know.
By Grace we proceed,
Wayne
________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Sep 8 17:14:53 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Sep 08 2007 - 17:14:53 EDT