Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxt.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!js2j
From: js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: What is this thing called life?
Message-ID: <799@mhuxt.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 22-Apr-85 17:04:04 EST
Article-I.D.: mhuxt.799
Posted: Mon Apr 22 17:04:04 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 23-Apr-85 06:39:30 EST
References: cybvax0.453 <519@syteka.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 34

> 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 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

    You're not wrong.  The theory of evolution applies to how speciation
occurs, not to how life arose origionally.  Whether life arose from
nonlife or was planted by aliens or was zapped into being by some
all-powerful godlike being is immaterial to the theory of evolution.
    However, the theory of creation addresses both the origin of life
and the origin of species, and since most creationists see evolution
as diametrically opposed to evolution, many creationists think that
the theory of evolution would be somehow deficient if failed to address
both issues as well.  (actually, the creationists' theory doesn't really
address the issue of the origin of life, they just say that gawd
created it, and fervently ignore anyone boorish enough to ask who
created gawd.)  
    Creationists also like to tie the idea of (life <= nonlife) to
evolution since there is comparatively little evidence for this idea (unless
you count the fact that we exist) and that makes it much easier to snipe
away at than at evolution itself.  
-- 
Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
    "But if we took out the bones, it wouldn't be crunchy, now, would it?"