Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site bunker.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ittvax!bunker!garys
From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Of all the things, Ken!  TAKE TWO.
Message-ID: <833@bunker.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 8-May-85 09:44:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: bunker.833
Posted: Wed May  8 09:44:47 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 10-May-85 21:57:41 EDT
References: <272@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA>
Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct
Lines: 54

Reluctant as I am to leap into discussions such as occur in this
group, I want to ask Keebler (aka Ernest Hua) to explain himself.

Excerpted from Keebler:

>                  ... Evolution is a view of the natural flow of things,
> which is assumed to always have happened and always will...

Clearly, this *assumption* is one of the main, if not the main,
sources of disagreement in this group.  Why do you make this
assumption?  Exactly what does it mean?  Why does it upset you
that others do not choose to make this assumption?

Later, in the same paragraph:

>         ... By the way, where did I say that the evolution of life forms
> did not occur under different sets of conditions than today?

This question is one reason I don't understand what your assumption
means.  If the "natural flow of things" is "assumed to always have
happened and always will" then it sounds to me like you are saying
that the evolution of life forms occurred under the same conditions
as exist today.  If the "natural flow of things" is always the same,
then the conditions are not different.  (Maybe that's not what you
meant, but that's what it sounds like.)

So what *do* you say about the origin of life (if anything) ?

If you say that life arose from nonlife, under conditions
radically different from those of today, then the statement that
the "natural flow of things" has always happened doesn't mean much;
the "natural flow of things" is broad enough to allow anything.

If you say that life arose from nonlife, under conditions
substantially the same as those of today, then I should expect,
that, with a little tweaking, someone should be able to create
the conditions under which life could arise from nonlife.

If you say that life did not arise from nonlife, but has always
existed, in a form we would recognize as life, then I will eagerly
await your explanation of your reasoning.

If you say that life did not arise from nonlife, but existed in
a form we would not recognize as life, including the concept that
life and nonlife are two regions of the same continuum, then I
will have to find a different term and pose the same questions,
because I think it is clear that there is something substantially
different between a rock and man.

(Besides, if you really think that life had no "origin," why are
you posting to net.origins ?

Gary Samuelson
ittvax!bunker!garys