[...]
>Kevin:===
>You: >>You open up a major can of worms if you limit life
> to whole organisms. That
>means that none of their individual parts are "alive", yet the organism
>as a
>whole is. The only way to explain that is to claim that the organism is
>more than the sum of its parts, which leads straight to vitalism.
>Scientifically, you can't discuss vitalism, but you can discuss
>biomolecules
>as "living matter" if you define living as being part of a biological
>system.>>
>
Burgy:===
>Um. Interesting. Since I do hold that some organisms, at least, are 'more
>than the sum of their parts," does that make me a "vitalist? If so, I
>accept that label, with some trepidation, as I suspect a true "vitalist"
>would hold much more than my particular claim.
>
Don't worry Burgy, you're not a vitalist. Not as nearly as I can
tell anyway :). I believe it was Arthur Peacocke who coined the
term "nothingbutism" to refer to the type of reductionism apparently
espoused by Kevin. If Kevin is correct then practically all of
the scientists who associate themselves with the chaos/complexity/
self-organization "paradigm" would be vitalists. The whole not
being the sum of the parts is the nature of the beast for the
complex, highly nonlinear systems of interest to these folks.
There is nothing mysterious or mystical here. The equation
whole = sum(parts) is merely a (perhaps somewhat crude) statement
of the superpositioon property of linear systems. Nonlinear
systems violate this condition by definition.
Burgy:====
>I would prefer to say an organism, a dog for example, is "alive" in a
>sense that a chunk of the dog, a cell flaking off, for instance, is not.
>The dog can continue to "live" after the cell is gone; the cell cannot.
>------------------
>You: >>In any event, I see no difference between your two definitions of
>abiogenesis.>>
>
>Really? That does puzzle me. One is a process which, scientifically, we
>hold to have actually happened. The other is a process which many people
>believe can, and will be accomplished in the lab some day. If this ever
>happens, the lab process may, or may not, have any particular resemblance
>to what we assume (scientifically) to have actually happened.
>
>For instance. I, the mad physicist and computer engineer (my actual
>professions in the remote past) am able to build, from primitive (see, I
>abandoned "non-living) chemicals a robot/computer which, from every
>exterior measure, is a true android, living, emotional, rational,
>reproducing, etc. organism. In so doing, I happen to use
>elements/molecules not found in any current living organisms. The
>resulting creature simply does not "fit" with other living organisms on
>this planet.
>
>Now I'd call this an example of abiogenesis(2) and probably claim it has
>nothing at all to do with abiogenesis(1).
I must admit that I was somewhat taken aback by Kevin's statement
that the Miller Urey experiment was an example of abiogenesis.
This is due to the fact that I had always seen the term used as
Burgy is using it. But, in the past, I've always tried to follow
Pascal when he said that he would not complain about a word as
long as he knows what you mean by it (unfortunately I have to
paraphrase Pascal as I don't have my copy of Provincial Letters
handy). After some reflection, I believe Kevin's definition
may have its points for some situations. Nevertheless its almost
bound to lead to confusion.
In any event, Burgy makes a good point. In defining abiogenesis
as Kevin has one divorces abiogenesis from necessarily having
anything to do with the origin of life on earth. Let me try
to rephrase Burgy's point as follows. To avoid confusion we'll
try not to use the same word with different meanings in the
same argument. So we'll define abiogeneisis a la Kevin and then
refer to the specific historical process which led to the origin
of life on earth as "the origin of life on earth". Now, it
seems clear enough to me that "the origin of life on earth" will
have involved several abiogenetic processes and events. Burgy's
point is that not all abiogenetic processes and events necessarily
have anything to do with "the origin of life on earth". For
example, if "the origin of life on earth" occurred at a deep
sea hydrothermal vent, then the abiogenetic production of amino
acids by passing electrical discharges through a reducing
atmosphere probably had nothing to do with "the origin of life on
earth".
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"He who establishes his arguments
by noise and command shows that
reason is weak" -- Montaigne