Original Message Follows:
=========================
evolution-digest Sunday, May 9 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1437
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 18:22:29 -0700
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Life in the Lab -- Fox and the Nobel Prize
Nope, they exist outside any theory. THe issue to be settled is "are they life
or not".
- ----------
From: Moorad Alexanian[SMTP:alexanian@uncwil.edu]
Sent: Friday, May 07, 1999 5:55 AM
To: Ami Chopine; evolution@calvin.edu
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Life in the Lab -- Fox and the Nobel Prize
My guess is that the most you can say about these protocells is that they
are the "protolife" in someone's theory of how life came into being. Nothing
more. Moorad
- -----Original Message-----
From: Ami Chopine <amka@vcode.com>
To: evolution@calvin.edu <evolution@calvin.edu>
Cc: asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
Date: Friday, May 07, 1999 1:13 AM
Subject: Re: Life in the Lab -- Fox and the Nobel Prize
>Is it possible that while the protein protocells may be alive, they are not
>the way life began on earth? IOW, they are not the common ancestor of all
>life. If this is so, then we haven't truly achieved the goal of repeating
by
>experimentation what happened at the dawn of life.
>
>Also, why must we pick one scenario over another? Why not a combination of
>say, random replicators, clay, and protenoids?
>
>It is therefore possible that item 4 [information] may for
>> some part describe more advanced features that did not appear until later
>in
>> the history of the origin of life. Their absence would not disqualify a
>> protocell from being alive if the protocell didn't need them to live.
>>
>> Kevin L. O'Brien
>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 18:23:08 -0700
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Life in the Lab -- Fox and the Nobel Prize
That is illogical, we have certainly not detected all material entities.
- ----------
From: Moorad Alexanian[SMTP:alexanian@uncwil.edu]
Sent: Friday, May 07, 1999 6:07 AM
To: Pim van Meurs; Ami Chopine; asa@calvin.edu; evolution@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Life in the Lab -- Fox and the Nobel Prize
If God were material, then we would have detected him in the lab. Man is the
detector of God and man is not only matter.
Moorad
- -----Original Message-----
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
To: 'Moorad Alexanian' <alexanian@uncwil.edu>; Ami Chopine <amka@vcode.com>;
asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>; evolution@calvin.edu <evolution@calvin.edu>
Date: Thursday, May 06, 1999 10:52 PM
Subject: RE: Life in the Lab -- Fox and the Nobel Prize
>How do you know ?
>
>----------
>From: Moorad Alexanian[SMTP:alexanian@uncwil.edu]
>Sent: Thursday, May 06, 1999 12:28 PM
>To: Ami Chopine; asa@calvin.edu; evolution@calvin.edu
>Subject: Re: Life in the Lab -- Fox and the Nobel Prize
>
>God is not a material entity. Moorad
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ami Chopine <amka@vcode.com>
>To: asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>; evolution@calvin.edu
><evolution@calvin.edu>
>Date: Thursday, May 06, 1999 1:40 AM
>Subject: Re: Life in the Lab -- Fox and the Nobel Prize
>
>
>>Is God alive?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Death is an essential feature of something that is alive. If it does not
>>> die, then it was not a material entity that was previously alive. Moorad
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 18:23:49 -0700
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Life in the Lab -- Fox and the Nobel Prize
I guess it's too hard to draw the conclusions yourself ?
- ----------
From: Arthur V. Chadwick[SMTP:chadwicka@swau.edu]
Sent: Friday, May 07, 1999 8:12 AM
To: evolution@calvin.edu
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Life in the Lab -- Fox and the Nobel Prize
At 01:31 AM 5/7/99 EDT, you wrote:
>In a message dated 5/6/99 4:23:06 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
>chadwicka@swau.edu writes:
>
>> References, Please.
>
>I see you are still playing games. I told you where you can find references
>(at <www.siu.edu/~protocell/>), including a symposium by Fox describing his
>work. I will give more when I post my essay. You in turn ignored my post
of
>Fox's symposium, you ignored my posts explaining where you could find
>references, you refuse to discuss the scientific merits of Fox's work,
>prefering to bad-mouth him instead, and you won't provide any substantial
>biological argument for why Fox could not have created life in the lab. You
>could easily find those references yourself by going to MedLine (your
>university library webpage whould have a link to it) and searching for
them.
>Why should I do your work for you, when you will probably just ignore me
even
>if I did?
Thanks, Kevin, but what I wanted was articles claiming the proteinoid
microspheres were alive. Non of the cited references make such a claim.
Art
http://geology.swau.edu
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 18:24:53 -0700
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Life in the Lab -- Fox and the Nobel Prize
Art: Thew absurdity of the proteinoid microsphere route to a living cell begins
not with the proteinoid microsphere for which Kevin claims living
properties, but with the very idea that proteinoids could ever have been a
part of the prebiotic world.
Strawman argument... The issue is "are the proteinoid microspheres alive or not"
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 18:26:38 -0700
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Life in the Lab -- Fox and the Nobel Prize
William: Moorad is correct that God is not a material entity. Ever since =
Philo was
alive "philosophy and theology" traditionally defined God as =
transcending
all known realms, that includes the material.
So it's a definition that captures God ? Is that ll that God really is =
then ?
William: The Bible states that God is a spirit as well. The arguments =
are: With or
without a body, and whether a body that is natural or supernatural. In =
as
far as "orthodox christianity" is concerned -> it is supernatural.
So it's a belief and not really something that can be determined in an =
objective fashion? Then perhaps you also agree that it is OUR =
interpretation of the Bible which lead us to define God to be =
non-material?
Pim van Meurs wrote:
>=20
> How do you know ?
>=20
> ----------
> From: Moorad Alexanian[SMTP:alexanian@uncwil.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, May 06, 1999 12:28 PM
> To: Ami Chopine; asa@calvin.edu; evolution@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: Life in the Lab -- Fox and the Nobel Prize
>=20
> God is not a material entity. Moorad
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ami Chopine <amka@vcode.com>
> To: asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>; evolution@calvin.edu
> <evolution@calvin.edu>
> Date: Thursday, May 06, 1999 1:40 AM
> Subject: Re: Life in the Lab -- Fox and the Nobel Prize
>=20
> >Is God alive?
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Death is an essential feature of something that is alive. If it =
does not
> >> die, then it was not a material entity that was previously alive. =
Moorad
> >>
> >
> >
- --=20
William A. Wetzel
icq-uin# 13983514
http://home.pacbell.net/n6rky
http://www.qsl.net/n6rky
mailto:n6rky@pacbell.net
mailto:n6rky@qsl.net
------------------------------
End of evolution-digest V1 #1437
********************************