>Bill Hamilton lists three possible scenarios:
>
><<1. The probabilities are correct but abiogenesis happened twice anyway.
>Highly improbable events do happen>>
>
>I agree, but the more highly improbably, the less one ought to hitch one's
>wagon to it as a plausible explanation, don't you think?
>
><<2. The probabilities are incorrect because of phenonema unaccounted for in
>the model.>>
>
>Sure, leaving naturalists with an "atheism of the gaps" argument, which I've
>never found compelling.
>
Let me try elaborating a little on Bill's post. This is not a case where
the "phenonema unaccounted for in the model" represent the "let's wait
for the advancement of science" argument. The "phenonema unaccounted for
in the model" are known phenomena, basic things such as, for example,
chemistry ;-). People seem to keep forgetting that there are many models
for abiogenesis. The probability calculations deal with only one of these,
the spontaneous origin of something like a protein or whatever purely
by chance in some primeval goo. This model has not been seriously
considered by people working in the field for thirty years. Why? Because
its so darned unlikely ;-). Thus, your reply to Bill's first point:
"I agree, but the more highly improbably, the less one
ought to hitch one's wagon to it as a plausible
explanation, don't you think?" -- Jim
Is right on the mark, that's why few are hitching their wagons to
to this explanation.
Anyway, to conclude, it seems rather odd to be talking about dealing
blows to an idea that's been dead for thirty years.
========================
Brian Harper | "People of that kind are academics, scholars,
Associate Professor | and that is the nastiest kind of man I know."
Applied Mechanics | -- Blaise Pascal
Ohio State University |
========================