Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cadovax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cadovax!keithd
From: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: explanation granted.
Message-ID: <616@cadovax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 13-May-85 21:38:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: cadovax.616
Posted: Mon May 13 21:38:14 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 16-May-85 07:49:48 EDT
References: <285@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA>
Organization: Contel Cado, Torrance, CA
Lines: 36

[.........]
>> 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.
>
>Certainly.  There are certain qualifications that we use to define
>life.  A rock cannot satisfy any of them, therefore, we cannot con-
>sider a rock as a life form.  However, what about a virus.  It is
>capable of self-replication under certain circumstances, though it
>is most often dormant.  Is it a part-time life form?
>
>By the way, your first sentence in this past paragraph is self-con-
>tradictory.  Life cannot exist "in a form we would not recognize as
>life" because then we would not call it life.  There is also the
>misunderstanding that there is some continuum which someone (perhaps
>you are refering to me?) partitioned into life and non-life.  I am
>not quite sure what you are talking about.  I guess that you can
>metaphorically consider the development of life forms as part of
>some continuum.  Aside from that, I am forced to ask you for a
>clarification.

This would appear to point out a continuing problem the creationists
seem to have with classifying everything as either black or white.
Keebler points out here that there may be a transition point where
something is 'half life', or 'part life part chemical reaction' or
whatever.  I see no reason to try to draw hard lines between these
things as the creationists seem to.  I also see no reason to draw
hard lines between other things, such as bird/reptile, man/ape,
or to diametrically oppose such things as evolution/creation etc..

Keith Doyle
#  {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd