[...]
BH:==
>>>"Apparently you are unaware that the same word is often defined
>differently
>>in different fields."
>>>
KO:==
>>>Which is irrelevant, since abiogenesis is a biological/biochemical
>>phenomenon, so therefore the biochemical definition is the only one that
>>matters.
>>>
>>
BH:==
>>My main interest is in clarity. I will concede your point to a
>>certain extent in that greater clarity would be achieved by
>>using the biochemical definition for abiogenesis and then
>>simply referring to the origin of life as the origin of life.
>>I will try to do this in the future.<<BTW, do you have some
>>technical references that establish this definition. If you
>>presented them in the past I'm afraid I missed them>>
May I inquire again as to technical references?
BH:==
>>
>>But, if one is interested in clear communication then one should
>>take into account what meaning someone else might be attaching
>>to a word. This is not a biochem e-mail list after all.
>>
>
KO:==
>No, but that would be like trying to have a scientific discussion using a
>definition of work as "the sweat of one's brow".
>
This is a poor analogy. In the present instance the meaning being
attached to the word abiogenesis is the origin of life on Earth.
The origin of life on Earth is a concept suitable for scientific
discussion. If you know that this is the meaning that someone
is attaching to a word I have a hard time understanding what the
fuss is about.
Further, within the context of a discussion of the origin of
life (as opposed to a technical biochem discussion) abiogenesis
is taken to mean the origin of life. For example, in the
abstract of their paper "Impact Frustration and the Origin
of Life" [_Nature_ 331:612-614, 1988], Maher and Stevenson
provide the following definition of abiogenesis: "the development
of life through chemical evolution from inorganic materials".
[...]
>>KO:===
>>>You didn't answer my question, though. If "life is not metabolism based
>on
>>biomolecules, then please define
>>>>"life".
>>>
>>
BH:===
>>I didn't answer because I failed to see the relevance of your question.
>>
>
KO:==
>If we are discussing the origin of life, we need to know what "life" means
>to have a reasonable discussion. I simply wanted to hear yours since you
>seemed to insistant upon separating the origin of "life" from the origin of
>biomolecules.
>
Once again jumping to conclusions, in this case a truly phenomenal
leap. First of all, I previously stated that:
'...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".'--BH
This can hardly be taken as the separation of the 'origin of "life"
from the origin of biomolecules.'
Further, I have already expressed my preference for the hydrothermal
vent scenario which, I assure you, involves the origin of biomolecules.
[...]
>>>
>>
>>Yes, very good. I like this idea a lot and would not be surprised
>>at all if this is the way it turns out. But my point has to do
>>with necessity. It isn't necessarily so. For example, there may
>>be many laboritory abiogenesis experiments involving conditions
>>never present on early earth. All of these examples of abiogenesis
>>would therefore have nothing to do with the origin of life.
>>
>
KO:===
>And those that have already been done have been proved wrong fairly quickly,
>at least so my literature searches tell me.
>
Since you agree that it is possible to perform a laboratory
experiment qualifying as abiogenesis (technical meaning) under
conditions never present on early Earth then you agree with the
point Burgy and I were trying to make, which I will repeat again
for sake of clarity:
'...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".'--BH
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