>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."
Chris
I won't bother to answer this point (again) except to point out that it has
long since been disproved by counterexamples (and it may even have been
disproved *before* the conference in 66). No "new natural laws" are needed.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 18 2000 - 14:58:46 EDT