Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Origin of Species
Message-ID: <1148@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 24-May-85 17:56:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.1148
Posted: Fri May 24 17:56:16 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 26-May-85 20:18:46 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center
Lines: 55


>> [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
>> 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!!)

> [Jeff Sonntag]
>     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.

How does one account for the origin of species without accounting for
the origin of the first species?  That seems just a little too
convenient.  But your statement is false in any case.  The notion that
chemical evolution is integral to the theory of evolution is widespread.
(Miller and Fox come to mind.)  The BSCS (high school biology
curriculum) "Blue edition", for example, is titled "Molecules to Man".
I just saw this in a library the other day, so I looked in it out of
curiosity.  The chapter preceding the one on (what Jeff calls)
evolution was about - you guessed it - abiogenesis.  Evidently there
was no such false dichotomy between the beginning of life and
speciation of existing life in the minds of the editors.

>     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.  

I.e., it is unscientific to critically analyze something.  I get it.

Abiogenesis easier to "snipe away at"?  Now I understand why you say
it's not part of the theory of evolution...
-- 
                                                                    |
Paul DuBois     {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois        --+--
                                                                    |
                                                                    |