RE: Probability question

John E. Rylander (rylander@prolexia.com)
Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:05:09 -0500

Here's where I wish I were a biologist or chemist. I'm not sure what the
current most widely accepted precursors would be -- abiogenesis is a very
controversial field.

Dawkins talked about replicating crystals and clays, more recently there's
been talk of replicating systems on surfaces near underwater thermal vents
(see http://www.budget.net/~jangles/volcano.htm, e.g.).

Numerous options, but all speculative. Not doubt some of these things
(e.g., crystals) can replicate, but with enough variation to lead to life
over less than a mere billion years?

Anyone with more expertise (that's just about all of you :^> ) want to chime
in on the current state of the art? Anything non-speculative,
non-controversial yet?

--John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: evolution-owner@udomo2.calvin.edu
> [mailto:evolution-owner@udomo2.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Randy Bronson
> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 1998 12:30 PM
> To: John E. Rylander
> Cc: evolution@calvin.edu
> Subject: RE: Probability question
>
>
> Thank you for the interaction. I have a follow-up question based
> on your response. You mentioned the evolutionary precursors to the
> present simplest forms of life and that got me to wondering if
> science has identified what it believes to be the simplest possible
> replicating system. If this type of system has been identified it
> seems to me that if would be possible to analyze the possibility of
> it's formation it the ancient oceans.
>
> Randy
>