Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sytek!syteka!jtm
From: jtm@syteka.UUCP (Jim McCrae)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: What is this thing called life?
Message-ID: <519@syteka.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 18-Apr-85 16:12:51 EST
Article-I.D.: syteka.519
Posted: Thu Apr 18 16:12:51 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 21-Apr-85 05:55:19 EST
References: cybvax0.453
Lines: 25

Open question here. Everyone can have a shot at it. Leif de HP's
sci-fi case for creationism opened with the assertion that 
the evolution paradigm demands that life arise from non-life.
Now I've never seen this anywhere and I've scarfed down more
than my share of text on evolution. In fact, I don't recall that
theorists discussing evolution even touch the subject of life
versus rocks except as personal opinion footnotes. If anyone has
any strong feelings, or better yet references, on this I'd
appreciate seeing them. Myself, I find the notion of life
separated from non-life to be a reflection of the conscious
being's conclusion that consciousness appears to disappear
at the time of death, so it must go to the non-life state.
Following, anyone? In other words, us humanoids have made up
"life" as an anthropomorphism describing how we are distinct
from the rocks and water et al, when there is in fact no 
evidence that the lack of functional organization in a rock
precludes it from membership in the club of things that
have "life". 
If I'm wrong about this and evolution does accept as a premise
that life emerged from non-living stuff, then someone please
straighten me out. (Is non-life dead? Or UNDEAD!!!? Aaaoooooo!!)

Jim McCrae / Sytek / Mountain View CA {hplabs,decvax}!sytek!jtm

The opinions expressed are true and sytek backs me 100%.