Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!laura
From: laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.origins
Subject: Re: If You've Got the Time...
Message-ID: <4122@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 21-Jul-84 10:39:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: utzoo.4122
Posted: Sat Jul 21 10:39:56 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Jul-84 10:39:56 EDT
References: <896@akgua.UUCP> <895@pyuxn.UUCP>, <896@pyuxn.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 22

Rich Rosen and Alan Driscoll have nailed 2 of the problems with this
argument. There is (at least) a third. There are several competing
theories about the origin of life and the development of polymers.
For a while ``energy in the form of lightning'' was in vogue; these
days ``formation in clay beds'' seem to have more support. There are
other theories which use cosmic radiation and radiation from radioactive
minerals in the earth to provide for the required energy. No doubt there
are other theories which I haven't even heard of.

No matter which theory you use, however, your figures are not going
resemble the random combinations model. (and they had better not -- the
problem isn't in getting polymers in the first place, which is fairly
easy, but in getting them in such quantity and getting them to not
immediately decompose). The development of life thus seems far more
likely no matter which model you use (though some models make it more
likely than others.)

About 8 (I think) years ago there was a Scientific American Issue on
the topic. 

Laura Creighton
utzoo!laura