Steve is most welcome.
>
> Note: I have put "MB>" where the quote was of Mike Behe's review of
> Davies' book, "The Fourth Miracle", in order to distinguish Behe's words
> from mine.
>
> >MB>Well, we all have our preferences about the way things should be. A
> >>professional scientist, however, is supposed to put aside personal
biases
> >>as much as possible and let the facts speak for themselves.
>
> KO>It is interesting that Behe should write this. When he published an
> >editorial in the Daily Telegraph in which he said that the inevitable
> >result of any origin-of-life experiment was goo and not living cells, I
> >wrote to him and described the research involving proteinoid
> >microsphere protocells.
>
> But before I can comment on the above, I would appreciate it if Kevin
> could post Behe's "editorial in the Daily Telegraph" (which I am not aware
> of), as well as details, with references of this "research involving
> proteinoid microsphere protocells".
>
My apologies; it was in the Weekly Standard, back on June 7th. I had thought
it had been posted to this listgroup, but I cannot find it in the archive.
Therefore, I will repost it separately.
The details of the research are quite simple (references will be provided in
a separate post): anhydrous mixtures of amino acids that contain at least 1%
glycine, aspartate, glutamate or lysine can, upon being heated between 50 and
200 degrees C, selectively copolymerize into nonrandom polyamino acids called
proteinoids or thermal proteins. These spontaneously form, when rehydrated,
hollow double-layer membraned spheroids called microspheres of uniform size
and shape. These microspheres look and act like modern cells in every
important detail, except that they do not contain genetic material. Thus
they are called protocells, and those that are capable of transforming
sunlight into chemical energy and which use that chemical energy to
synthesize polynucleotides, from which they synthesize polypeptides, are
called metaprotocells.
>
> KO>Having thus demonstrated that at least some origin-of-life experiments
> >result in living cells instead of goo, I asked Behe if he would retract
his
> >statement. Naturally he refused, but he never once challenged the
validity
> >of the research itself.
>
> Without seeing the article, I would assume that what Behe meant by "
> origin-of-life experiment" resulting in "goo" was the *Miller-Urey* type
of
> origin-of-life experiment.
>
As I stated above, Behe said "origin of life experiments"; he used the
plural, indicating that he was referring to experiments other than just
Miller-Urey. Here is the relevant quote: "Isn't it 'the constraint of
lawful regularity' that turns chemicals in origin-of-life experiments into
goo at the bottom of the test tube, rather than into primitive cells?" The
context of this sentance indicates that Behe is talking about the inevitable
results of any experiment in general, not the results of one or a few
specific experiments. Besides, Behe made no such correction as Steve suggest
when I asked him about it. His responses to me indicated that he included
proteinoid microsphere research in with his "goo" statement. Since he knows
that such research does not produce "goo" but in fact living cellular
structures, he knew that his statement was factually incorrect when he wrote
it. What would Steve call the deliberate writing of a statement that the
writer knows is incorrect, if Steve doesn't call it a lie?
>
> KO>Indeed, he gave every impression of not only knowing about the
> research.
>
> This seems unlikely that Behe did not know about "research involving
> proteinoid microsphere protocells" because Behe actually *wrote* about
> Fox's proteinoids in "Darwin's Black Box":
>
> "For example, a scientist named Sidney Fox proposed that perhaps some
> amino acids got washed up from the primordial ocean onto a very hot
> surface, such as the rim of an active volcano.
>
To my knowledge, Fox never proposed this scenario, though others have. What
he instead proposed was an environment similar to the Yellowstone hot springs
of today. The springs would provide the water and other ingredients to
create the amino acids, and the underlying geothermal heat would provide the
energy necessary to dry-up isolated pools of water, then copolymerize the
anhydrous amino acids into proteinoids. Rain or overflow from a nearby
spring would then rehydrate the proteinoids and cause them to form
microspheres. But this is by no means the only plausible scenario. All that
is really needed is periodic dehydration/rehydration and enough heat to
perform the copolymerization.
>
> There, the story goes, they
> would be heated above the boiling point of water....
>
As I pointed out earlier, this is not necessary. Simple evaporation under a
hot sun, such as you can find in any arid region nowadays, would be
sufficient.
>
> ...with the water gone, the
> amino acids could join together. Unfortunately, other workers had earlier
> shown that heating dry amino acids gives a smelly, dark brown tar, but no
> detectable proteins.
>
This is essentially true, but Behe leaves out two important details. First,
all the earlier experiments involved trying to thermally polymerize single
amino acids, not mixtures. In other words, they would heat up a few grams of
alanine all by itself to try to make poly-alanine; this is known as
homopolymerization. Fox was the first person to try heating mixtures of
amino acids; he called this copolymerization. Second, Behe neglected to
mention that at the turn of the century two German scientists managed to get
a pure mixture of aspartate to thermally homopolymerize into poly-aspartate,
thus proving that thermal polymerization of amino acids is possible. As
such, before Fox even began his experiments he knew that aspartate could form
thermal proteins.
>
> Fox, however, demonstrated that if an extra-large portion....
>
Yes, Fox's proof-of-concept experiment used a mixture of amino acids
consisting of 1/3 aspartate, 1/3 glutamate and 1/3 mixture of all remaining
amino acids, but he supsequently discovered that as little as 1/10
aspartate/glutamate would work as well, and others have shown that as little
as 1/100 aspartate/glutamate can promote thermal polymerization of amino
acids.
>
> ...of one of three different amino acids is added to a mix of purified
> amino acids and heated in a laboratory oven, then the amino acids do join.
> But even then they do not join to give proteins the structure they form is
> chemically different.
>
Incorrect; Fox and others have proven that thermal polyamino acids are true
polypeptides, that is, the amino acids form peptide bonds. That is all that
is needed to make a protein. In fact, Chemical Abstracts, the authoritative
word in chemistry on nomenclature, categorizes proteinoids as proteins, under
the subheading thermal.
>
> So Fox and collaborators called the structures
> "proteinoids," then went on to show that the proteinoids had some
> interesting properties, including modest catalytic abilities, that were
> reminiscent of real proteins.
>
Fox called them proteinoids to distinguish them from modern proteins;
nonetheless they are real proteins.
>
> The scientific community has remained deeply skeptical of these
> experiments.
>
This is a logical fallacy called a sweeping generalization. Most scientists
have never even heard of these experiments (but then most have barely heard
of any origin-of-life experiment). That who are familiar with proteinoids
are skeptical about any form of abiogenic scenario, though very few question
the evidence. Among those who do research in abiogenesis skepticism is based
either on a bias in favor of genetic material as the determinator of life or
on certain misconceptions such as the belief that the first functional
macromolecules had to be a result of random polymerization formations, or
both. I therefore find it significant that no other scenario has the same
degree of experimental continuity, the same degree of environmental and
evolutionary relevance, and the same degree of success at producing living
protocellular structures that the proteinoid model has had.
>
> As with our imaginary baker, a heavy odor of investigator
> involvement hangs over proteinoids. The special circumstance needed to
> make them-hot, dry conditions (putatively representing rare spots such as
> volcano rims)....
>
Incorrect; such spots were more likely to be quite numerous, even common.
>
> ...with exact amounts of already-purified amino acids
> weighed out in advance casts dark shadows over the relevance of the
> experiments.
>
The amino acids don't need to be purified, or of the alpha configuration, or
even of the L stereospecificity, and proteinoids have been successfully made
from a wide variety of amino acid mixture proportions, including those found
in meteorites, lunar soil samples and in simulated origin-of-life experiments
such as Miller-Urey. And in fact no scientist has questioned the relevance
of proteinoid microspheres simply on the basis of experimental protocol.
>
> Worse, because proteinoids are not really proteins, the
> considerable problem of producing authentic proteins remains.
>
As I have already pointed out, there is no problem because they are real
proteins.
>
> In his
> book reviewing the difficulties of origin-of-life theories, Robert Shapiro
> notes that work on proteinoids has produced a startling unanimity of
> opinion:
>
> `The proteinoid theory] has attracted a number of vehement critics,
> ranging from chemist Stanley Miller..to Creationist Duane Gish. On
> perhaps no other point in origin-of-life theory could we find such harmony
> between evolutionists and Creationists as in opposing the relevance of the
> experiments of Sidney Fox.' (Shapiro R., "Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to
> the Creation of Life on Earth", Summit Books: New York, p192)
>
Which only goes to show that both evolutionists and creationists can be
fooled by the same biases and misconceptions. For example, both Miller and
Gish argue that genes must have come first, and both argue the first gene had
to have been produced by random processes. Proteinoid microsphere research
has demonstrated that proteins came first, and that they were formed by
deterministic processes.
>
> Other researchers have proposed some other ways whereby amino acids
> might join to give proteins. All suffer more or less from the problems
that
> plague proteinoids, and none has attracted much support from the
> scientific community."
>
On the contrary, none have the same experimental support as proteinoids do.
>
> (Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to
> Evolution", 1996, pp169-170)
>
> KO>(thereby demonstrating that he had willfully lied when he
> >wrote his statement), but also accepting it as valid.
>
> This does not follow. In the context Behe might have been thinking of the
> dominant paradigm of the Miller-Urey type of experiment, regarding Fox's
> proteinoids as unrealistic and implausible.
>
And he thinks that Miller-Urey is more plausible? Highly doubtful. No, Behe
wrote "experiments"; plural. He meant more than just Miller-Urey, and the
context suggests that in his opinion all experiments have failed.
>
> And of course, Behe could simply have been mistaken.
>
Mistakes are based on ignorance, not willful blindness. Had Behe not known
about proteinoid microsphere research, or had not understood it, that would
be a mistake, but to willfully ignore or even -- as Behe does -- willfully
mischaracterize the research is dishonestry, plain and simple.
>
> Indeed, I find it most interesting that evolutionists seem to have a need
to
> prove that non-evolutionists are not only intellectually wrong (ie. made
a
> mistake), but that they are *morally* wrong (ie. "lied"). This suggests to
> me that deep down evolutionists feel insecure about their theory and feel
> the need to eliminate their doubts by eliminating its critics.
>
Or, as is most likely, their opponents are lying in an attempt to hide or
mischaracterize the truth, as is the case with Behe.
[snip]
>
> If evolution was just another scientific theory, I would expect
> evolutionists to: 1) *welcome* criticism; 2) be friendly to critics;
> and 3) admit openly where there are problems with the theory.
> That they don't is evidence that evolution functions as a *religion*
> in the lives of its adherents....
>
Had Behe simply been mistaken about proteinoid microsphere research, I would
have expected him to: 1) *welcome* my correction; 2) be friendly to me
rather than attack me personally as he did; and 3) admit openly his error by
retracting his statement. That he didn't is evidence that he uses his biases
to determine the validity of evidence and to interprete it as well, rather
than letting the facts speak for themselves.
[snip]
>
> Berlinski cites some of the literature against Fox's proteinoid hypothesis
> and notes that Fox " ...has not persuaded the biological community of its
> strength" and that "criticisms of it are overwhelming":
>
Except that none of these "criticisms" seem to have been published in the
scientific literature, because I can't find any.
>
> "There is no widely accepted, remotely plausible scenario for the
> emergence of life on earth. The proteinoid hypothesis of Sidney Fox and
> his colleagues (S.W. Fox, "Molecular Evolution to the First Cells," Pure
> and Applied Chemistry 34, 1973) has not persuaded the biological
> community of its strength.
>
Since none of Berlinski's sources are more recent than 1983 (all of which
have been effectively refuted by Fox and his colleagues) I hardly think that
Berlinski knows what the current opinion of the "biological community" is.
For example, in 1994, Aristotle Pappelis and Sidney Fox proposed at an
origin-of-life conference the creation of a new taxonomic classification --
Domain Protolife -- for proteinoid microspheres and other protocells. There
has been not a single published objection to this proposal from the
"biological community". Apparently then more biologists are starting to be
persuaded by the mounting evidence.
>
> Criticisms of it are overwhelming (W. Day, Genesis on Planet Earth....
>
Day is a creationist; hardly an unbiased observer.
>
> ...K, Dose, "Ordering Processes and the Evolution
> of the First Enzymes," in Protein Structure and Evolution, eds. J.L.Fox,
Z.
> Deyl, A. Blazy, 1976....
>
At the same time Dose was writing this supposed "criticism" he was also
co-authoring with Fox a book that supported both the validity and the
relevance of proteinoid microsphere research. In point of fact, this article
is no criticism; it simply points out areas that at that time still needed to
be investigated.
>
> ...C.E. Folsome, "Synthetic Organic Microstructures
> and the Origin of Cellular Life," Die Naturwissenschaften 7, 1976; C.
> Ponnamperuma, "Cosmochemistry and the Origin of Life," in
> Cosmochemistry and the Origin of Life, ed. C. Ponnamperuma, 1983; and
> so forth). " (Berlinski D., "Denying Darwin: David Berlinski and Critics",
> Commentary, September 1996.
> http://www.commentarymagazine.com/9609/letters.html)
>
And again, these last two articles are not really critiques at all, just
conservative statements of what still needs to be verified. Assuming
Berlinski even read these articles, I tend to doubt he understood what he was
reading.
>
> Indeed, Davies, in his "Fifth Miracle", which Behe was reviewing, rejects
> Fox's proteinoids:
>
Because of three misconceptions and factual errors.
>
> "One possible escape route from the strictures of the second law is to
> depart from thermodynamic equilibrium conditions. The American
> biochemist Sidney Fox has investigated what happens when a mixture of
> amino acids is strongly heated. By driving out the water as steam....
>
Misconception 1: This is not what happens during thermal copolymerization,
even at higher temperatures. At any temperature, the mixture must first be
dry. At low temperatures (under 100 degrees C), glycine acts as a solid
matrix that catalyzes the formation of the peptide bonds by isolating the
water molecules produced by the reaction. At higher temperatures (above 100
degrees C) aspartate and glutamate melt and form intermediate structures that
readily form peptide bonds with the other amino acids, as well as catalyze
the formation of peptide bonds using acid catalysis, in which water actually
helps the formation of subsequent bonds. During this process, aspartate and
glutamate revert to their normal amino acid form.
>
> ...the
> linkage of amino acids into peptide chains becomes much more likely. The
> thermal energy flow generates the necessary entropy to comply with the
> second law. Fox has produced some quite long polypeptides, which he
> terms "proteinoids', using this method. Unfortunately, the resemblance
> between Fox's proteinoids and real proteins is rather superficial.
>
Misconception 2: The research demonstrates that this is incorrect.
>
> For
> example, real proteins are made exclusively of left-handed amino acids
(see
> p. 42), whereas proteinoids are an equal mixture of left and right.
>
Irrelevant. **Modern** proteins are made exclusively of L-amino acids, but
real proteins are nothing more than chains of amino acids linked by the
peptide bond. Whether the amino acids are L-, D- or a mixture of both is
immaterial to real proteins.
>
> There is a more fundamental reason why the random self-assembly of
> proteins seems a non-starter. This has to do not with the formation of the
> chemical bonds as such, but with the particular order in which the amino
> acids link together. Proteins do not consist of any old peptide chains;
they
> are very specific amino acid sequences that have specialized chemical
> properties needed for life. However, the number of alternative
> permutations available to a mixture of amino acids is super-astronomical.
A
> small protein may typically contain 100 amino acids of 20 varieties. There
> are about 10^130 (which is 1 followed by a 130 zeros) different
> arrangements of the amino acids in a molecule of this length. Hitting the
> right one by accident would be no mean feat.
>
Misconception 3: An equimixture of all 20 amino acids produces large amounts
of only about a dozen different proteinoids, not tiny amounts of 10^130.
Each proteinoid has a specific sequence, and the same mixture of amino acids
will **always** produce the **exact same** proteinoids with the **exact
same** sequences. On top of that, different mixtures will produce different
sets of proteinoids, each with their own sequence, and each specific mixture
will produce only its own set of specific proteinoids. This is not a random
process as Davies believes, but clearly a deterministic one.
>
> Getting a useful
> configuration of amino acids from the squillions of useless combinations
on
> offer can be thought of as a mammoth information retrieval problem, like
> trying to track down a site on the internet without a search engine."
>
Every known proteinoid is catalytically active, and a wide variety of
catalytic functions have been produced, further evidence that this is not due
to random processes.
>
> (Davies P.F.C., "The Fifth Miracle: The Search for the Origin of Life,"
> 1998, p60).
>
> KO>So in point of fact, Behe doesn't follow the law he would impose on
> >others: rather than letting the facts speak for themselves, he prefers to
> >follow his own personal biases.
>
> Without seeing the article and Kevin and Behe's private email, we have
> only Kevin's word for this. And Kevin has already revealed his own
> "personal biases" by calling Behe a liar.
>
I freely admit I am biased, but against scientists who know the research and
who deliberately mischaracterize it. Such people are liars, and Behe is one
such person.
>
> But even without seeing the actual article and email, it is perfectly
> understandable why Behe's declined to privately debate with Kevin, since
> Behe is no doubt a busy person and hasn't got the time to debate privately
> with everyone who knows his email address.
>
I wasn't seeking a debate. I believed Behe was mistaken and I was trying to
correct him. The fact that he avoided the issue and tried to engineer a
debate over an irrelevant topic, a debate he subsequently avoided when I
confronted him, indicates that he wasn't mistaken as I first thought, but
deliberately mischaracterizing the truth.
>
> >MB>The fact is, from all we know of physics and
> >>chemistry, one undirected origin of life already looks impossible.
>
> KO>As I note above, Behe knows that this "fact" is false, yet he pretends
> >otherwise because of his personal biases.
>
> And as *I* note above, Kevin's own obvious "personal biases" colour his
> perception of Behe's motives.
>
As I explained, I thought that Behe was mistaken at first, until he
demonstrated otherwise. Behe's own actions colored my perception of him; my
bias had nothing to do with it. In fact my bias for Behe was not formed
until after our exchange.
>
> I personally share Behe's assessment that "from all we know of physics and
> chemistry, one undirected origin of life already looks impossible". The
way
> origin-of-life theorists speak today of the difficulties, shows that to
them
> the origin-of-life "looks impossible", even if they don't actually admit
> that it *is* "impossible". For example, Francis Crick said that "the
origin life
> appears...to be almost a miracle":
>
Francis Crick believed that genes must have come before proteins or even
whole cells, and believed that the first gene would have been created
randomly. When he couldn't prove it, he fell back on panspermia as an
explanation. The fact that Crick has given up the search, and is too biased
in favor of the gene-first view to recognize viable alternatives does not
mean that his view of abiogenesis must prevail. Even Nobel Laurettes can be
wrong, after all.
[snip]
>
> >MB>Some of the unresolved questions that Davies rediscovers include
> >>the following: Amino acids can be made under prebiotic conditions,
> >>but a whole lot of interfering chemicals get made too, so how does
> >>one separate the wheat from the chaff?
>
> KO>Again, since Behe knows the relevant research, he also knows that
> >this is no problem. Experiments have been done in which mixtures of
> >amino acids, including non-proteinaceous amino acids, have been
> >copolymerized in the presence of a wide variety of other chemical and
> >physical material, yet proteinoids with catalytic activity still form. In
> >other words, those "interfering" chemicals in fact do not significantly
> >interfere with the formation of thermal proteins.
>
> First, Behe is referring to what Davies said in his book, and Kevin would
> have to argue that Davies was wrong too.
>
Davies is wrong, as I explain earlier.
>
> And since Davies is not even a
> theist, let alone a Christian or a creationist, Kevin's "personal biases"
> argument would wear even thinner in Davies' case.
>
Hardly. Davies has his own set of personal biases that blind him to the
truth, but in his case it is his ignorance of the relevant research that is
more important.
>
> But second, Kevin is talking about two different things. The Miller-Urey
> experiments start with gases and produce amino acids (plus "goo").
>
Steve's use of "goo" here implies that the composition of the results of the
Miller-Urey experiment is largely unknown. That is not the case; only about
a half-dozen compounds, out of nearly a hundred, were unidentifiable. The
result didn't even look like goo.
>
> The "Experiments...in which mixtures of amino acids" are polymerised,
> *start* with pure amino acids:
>
And if you start with a mixture of compounds indentical to those produced by
Miller-Urey, in the same proportions, you still get functional proteinoids.
So in fact I am not talking about two different things here, but about one
continuous series of experimental results.
asks instead for details and references. References will be posted
separately; specific details for all his questions will take too much space,
but if he wants to ask specific questions one at a time, I would be very
happy to provide the details he wants, as much as I know.
[snip]
>
> >MB>Davies also cites a recent paper that compares the genetic code to
> >>energy levels of atomic nuclei, but only to concede that the
> >>"correspondences may be purely coincidental." He even trots out
> >>Sidney Fox's proteinoids and Cairns - Smith's clay crystal life - ideas
> >>that are fifteen to twenty - five years old and have led nowhere.
>
> KB>Behe implies here that the original work by Fox in the Sixties is all
> >that has been done, and that researchers have ignored his work. In
> >point of fact, proteinoid microsphere protocell research has been a
> >highly active field for the past four decades, and there are still at
least
> >two dozen scientists world-wide who continue the work today. .
>
> Well, that doesn't seem like much if "proteinoid microsphere protocells"
> can do all the things that Kevin claims for them!
>
Considering that there are only about 100 dedicated abiogenicists, this
constitutes one-quarter of the field. Besides, as Steve should know, the
validity of the research is not determined by how many people accept it. So
far, no one has been able to refute any of it.
[snip]
>
> >MB>Using language reminiscent of William A. Dembski (see "Science
> >>and Design," FT, October 1998) he writes that "Living organisms are
> >>mysterious not for their complexity per se, but for their tightly
> >>specified complexity....In short, how did meaningful information emerge
> >>spontaneously from incoherent junk?"
>
> KB>Molecular self-organization. Biomolecules, whether simple precursors
> >or macromolecules, possess specific structural and chemical information
> >that permits them to selectively self-assemble into biologically useful
> >structures.
>
> Sounds like more `hand-waving' to me.
>
Only because Steve doesn't understand the concept.
>
> I would appreciate Kevin
> explaining *exactly how* "did meaningful information emerge
> spontaneously from incoherent junk?"
>
Steve needs to define exactly. If he means down to the actions of each
individual quark, that is impossible; we don't know that even for simple
chemical reactions. This much I can say for now. Dembski is assuming that
amino acids are like playing cards, in which the shape and chemical nature of
each is identical except for certain identifying marks, but that combinations
of amino acids are determined purely by probability. Because of this he sees
a mixture of amino acids as "incoherent junk". In reality, however, the
shapes and chemical natures of amino acids are NOT identical, and it is these
shapes and chemical natures that determine in what sequence they will
polymerize, depending upon their proportions. In other words, what to
Dembski is "incoherent junk" already possesses meaningful information, which
in turn is capable of directing the formation of specified structures.
Remember, the same mixture of amino acids will always produce the same
specified proteinoids.
>
> >MB>As a matter of principle Davies balks at the obvious hypothesis of
> >>specific design. "Science takes as its starting point the assumption
that
> >>life wasn't made by a god or supernatural being: it happened unaided
> >>and spontaneously, as a natural process." The notion of God pushing
> >>molecules around strikes him as distasteful. But it would pass muster
> >>with science, he thinks, for God (or whoever it is - Davies doesn't
like
> >>the word "God") to make "biofriendly laws" at the beginning and then
> >>butt out, allowing life to develop on its own. So from his perspective
> >>the key is to find a natural law or laws that would produce life.
>
> KB>These laws are already known to exist; even researchers who don't
> >like proteinoid microspheres know about them and use them for their own
> >scenarios.
>
> I would appreciate Kevin stating what these natural "laws" that "are
> already known to exist" are that can "allow life to develop on its own."
>
They are the standard physiochemical laws, the same laws that govern
biochemical activities, since in the end, that is all that life is. In fact,
one of the most powerful laws governing the formation and sustenance of life
is the second law of thermodynamics. Life and evolution are caused by
increases in entropy.
[snip]
>
> >MB>Nonetheless, boxed in by his presuppositions, he proposes that there
> >>may be a new type of "law," an information - generating law for which
> >>we have no evidence. He thinks the law might be something along the
> >>lines of Stuart Kauffman's complexity theory, where systems can self -
> >>organize. Davies acknowledges that Kauffman's ideas have met with
> >>considerable skepticism and have little evidence to support them.
>
> KB>That may be true of Kauffman's specific theory, but the basic idea that
> >systems can self-organize was first proposed by Oparin in the Twenties,
is
> >generally accepted as the theoretical basis for modern abiogenesis and
has
> >been experimentally verified for at least six decades, beginning with
> >Alfonso Herrera's sulfobes and Oparin's coacervate droplets.
>
> This sounds like more `hand-waving'. I would appreciate Kevin giving
> details and references from the scientific literature to these other
> theories, apart from "Kauffman's specific theory" which are "generally
> accepted as the theoretical basis for modern abiogenesis" and have
> "been experimentally verified for at least six decades..."
>
I didn't say that there were "other theories"; I said it was a basic concept.
In fact it is a fundamental principle of modern abiogenesis that life,
biomolecules and cellular structures are self-organizing. Like most
scientific principles it is generally accepted without being proven, but in
fact most research verifies its validity.
[snip]
>
> >MB>The bottom line is that life's origin and meaning remain as elusive as
> >>ever, at least within the (semi -) naturalistic framework of Paul
Davies.
> >>Yet his struggle to write a book that sticks to a general-law framework,
> >>even while marveling at life's extravagant information content, makes
> >>The Fifth Miracle a valuable and cautionary example of blinkered
> >>thought in action.
>
> KB>And much the same can be said about Behe's review.
>
> Only when Kevin substantiates all his assertions with details and
references
> from the scientific literature, can he make this claim stick. At the
moment
> all we have is Kevin's `hand-waving' assertions.
>
Steve believes this only because he is unfamiliar with the research. Once he
reads the references I will provide he will have a better understanding of
the validity of my statements. Meanwhile he is welcome to ask specific
questions, but please one at a time.
Kevin L. O'Brien