Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-edu1!hua
From: hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: re: What is this thing called life?
Message-ID: <258@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 2-May-85 00:20:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-e.258
Posted: Thu May  2 00:20:24 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 4-May-85 04:26:12 EDT
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 53

___________________________________________________________________

> From: jtm@syteka.UUCP (Jim McCrae)
> 
> 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  theor-
> ists  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 or-
> ganization  in a rock precludes it from membership in the club of
> things that have "life".

There is, for the sake of biology and stuff, a definition of what
"life" is.  You will notice, however, that if someone invents a new
machine that can take raw materials and convert it into brand new
replicas of its own parts, can install it properly to replace or to
expand, can reproduce itself via new parts, etc., it is a life form
according to the definition.  It only differs in that it is metallic
rather than organic.  But that is not significant.  Ultimately, the
creationists will want humans to be separated from the rest of the
organisms of nature because of pride, faith, or whatever.  I recall
an organic-chemist-turned-preacher that said that molecules are dead;
they have no life in them; there must be some life-giving force to
"start them up".  Thus the one more requirement that creationists
want is the spirit.  Since this is something that is, by definition,
beyond the scope of science, it must be discarded.  Therefore, in
the eyes of science, there is no clear-cut definition of life, ex-
cept through high-level criteria.  I guess creationists are probably
offended by the fact that they are, in some sense, on the same level
as molecules.

> 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!!)

You are right, sort of.  Evolution postulates that life forms came
from non-living entities.  But it is not as crisp a transition as
is indicated by your words.  It is far more accurate to say that
life form characteristics developed in non-living entities.
___________________________________________________________________

Live long and prosper.
Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }