Reflectorites
On Sat, 21 Oct 2000 02:10:22 EDT, DNAunion@aol.com wrote:
>>>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.
>SJ>Not really. In the case of the origin of life, starting with
>>amino and nucleic acids will do fine.
>DU>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.
Apologies for the misunderstanding. I did not mean that they did not have
to simulate the abiotic production of amino and nucleic acids of sufficient
quantity and quality from non-living chemicals that there is evidece existed
on the early Earth. They do.
What I was saying was the simulation could start by taking "sub-atomic
particle[s]" (as well as the inorganic chemical elements and compounds that
there is evidence existed on the early Earth), as givens.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"These are all questions over which biologists-who, in the past, would not
have hesitated to call themselves Darwinists- are now deep in argument. In
some cases the doubts have actually caused once-committed neo-
Darwinists to reject the `faith' and seek a new synthesis. Because science is
notoriously 'blinkered', many workers are unaware that the doubts they
may have about their own area of evolutionary theory are shared by others.
So who is right? Are the attacks valid? Will Darwinism survive?" (Leith B.,
"The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism,"
Collins: London, 1982, pp.24-25)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Oct 21 2000 - 18:32:08 EDT