Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!lll-crg!dual!mordor!ut-sally!utastro!ethan From: ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: Creation of Life Message-ID: <131@utastro.UUCP> Date: Fri, 24-May-85 14:23:03 EDT Article-I.D.: utastro.131 Posted: Fri May 24 14:23:03 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 27-May-85 06:36:07 EDT References: <1124@uwmacc.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX Lines: 27 > > It seems to me that abiogenesis scenarios suffer from a similar > problem: the natural laws were supposed to be the same, but the events > that occurred were unique and unrepeatable. (That is, historically > unrepeatable. One may still hope to simulate the conditions thought to > prevail on the early earth and produce results similar to those thought > to occur then. It is more difficult to conceive how one might simulate > creation.) > | > Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- > | I don't see how you can equate the two. In one case, we are being asked to accept the idea that whatever happened is unknowable in principle. In the other case we are being asked to believe that whatever happened conformed to laws that are discoverable to this day. In principle we can hope to construct a detailed model of how life originated on the Earth that is completely consistent with the present rules by which the universe operates. In fact, there is a considerable body of research aimed at just this goal. It may be true that we can never be absolutely sure that we know what happened, but the same comment could be applied to my whereabouts yesterday. After all, my family and I have only our imperfect memories to go on. Maybe we were all brainwashed. :-) "Don't argue with a fool. Ethan Vishniac Borrow his money." {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan Department of Astronomy University of Texas