Chris Cogan wrote: (10/11/00)
> Since no ID-theorist has answered my question about what changes would have
> had to have been made to early Earth to enable life to thereafter arise and
> evolve without further intervention, I've come up with an alternative question:
>
> Is it possible that life has arisen and evolved naturalistically
> someplace else in the "known" Universe? If so, how would
> this location have to differ from Earth? If no, why not? If no,
> how can we know that conditions are *nowhere* suited to the
> naturalistic origination of life from non-life replicators and to
> the evolution of life to a human-level of complexity?
>
> --Chris
Reply by DABradbury 10/17/00:
I here simply present the (unwelcome) modifying condition set forth by the
invited mathematicians Dr. Murray Eden and Marcel Schutzenberger at the Wistar
Symposium No. 5, "MATHEMATICAL CHALLENGES TO THE NEO-DARWINIAN INTERPRETATION OF
EVOLUTION", April 1966, Pg. 109. Namely:
"It is our contention that if 'random' is given a serious and crucial
interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is
highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await
the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws -- physical, physico-chemical and
biological."
Such new natural law simply being one duplicating the appearance of
intelligence. Random Mutation (RM) plus Natural Selection (NS), under even the
most optimistic frequencies and possible positive effects as provided by the
evolutionary biologists assembled (Medawar, Mayr, Eiseley, Lewontin, Sidney Fox,
etc., etc.), does NOT support biological macroevolution. It is clear that
something MORE is necessary ... and this "MORE" is readily recognized as some
guiding, purposeful and upward directing force capable of offsetting the cumulative
negative influences introduced by random genetic changes over the prolonged
periods postulated.
Researchers with a monistic (mechanistic, naturalistic) world-view philosophy opt
to seek such additional influence as an as yet undiscovered "new natural law" ...
while those having a dualistic personal philosophy equally consider the possibility
of this influence being of a yet to be scientifically identified non-physical
nature. However, until this troublesome little detail is better (empirically)
established, it would appear that all SHOULD be able to agree that neither option
can legitimately be claimed to be scientifically established.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 17 2000 - 23:25:36 EDT