Let's not give them too much

From: DNAunion@aol.com
Date: Sat Oct 21 2000 - 02:10:22 EDT

  • Next message: Chris Cogan: "Re: Sinners vs. saints (i.e., DNAunion vs anti-IDists)?"

    DNAunion: The following is from SeJones' "RE: 47 aspects of evolution
    simulation programs (was Schutzenberger)", posted 10/19/2000.

    [...]

    >>CC: However, much about evolution can be studied *without* many of these
    features.

    >>RW:Yes. It's in the nature of a simulation that it's based on an abstracted
    model of reality. For total accuracy, we would have to simulate every
    sub-atomic particle, which is clearly impossible.

    >>SeJones: Not really. In the case of the origin of life, starting with
    amino and nucleic acids will do fine.

    DNAunion: But "allowing" OOL researchers to START with nucleic acids - and
    not requiring them to show purely-natural routes to their abiotic creation
    and accumulation - is not advisable since RNA is not prebiotically plausible.
     

    If OOL researchers ignore this fact - and start off assuming that many vast
    pools of homochiral (all right-handed) furanosyl ribonucleotides, bonded with
    3'->5' phosphodiester bonds into long polymers, were actually present on the
    prebiotic Earth - then any successes they might achieve that are based on
    such assumptions - even the creation of a self-sustaining, self-replicating
    molecule - would be *practically* meaningless in that they still would not
    have demonstrated the ability of life to arise from non-life by
    purely-natural means. The appearance of such dream pools of nucleid acids is
    a big hurdle that abiogenesis needs to explain and IDists should not be so
    willing to accept OOL researchers' unsupported assumptions that they would
    have been present.

    [...]



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Oct 21 2000 - 02:10:35 EDT