World's Seed Origin: The Scientific Interpretation of Creation
nlandau at eden.rutgers.edu
Sun Oct 11 17:24:15 EST 1998
Your philosophisizng is poetic, but your grounding in the scientific
basis of what you are saying is weak. Let me try a philosophical
tack to persuade you (although I am no doubt less of a philospher
than you are a biologist.)
Your contention that abiogenesis, being unknown under the present
physical conditions on the Earth, must therefore always have
been unknown is not sound. You draw an analogy to the First Law
of Thermodymanics. It must be kept in mind that our belief in
biogenesis is not a physical law, and so is unlike the laws of
thermodynamics. Because biology deals exclusively with what we
call life, and not other matter, the "laws" of biology no longer
apply when we consider matter which could be defined as either
living or non-living.
Very simple self-replicating systems exist at the border of this
definition. It is the consensus among biologists that living
cells slowly evolved to their current state of complexity through
numerous steps and transitions from some much simpler self-replicating
system (although the exact nature of this system is the topic
of very vigorous debate.)
This notion of "chemical evolution" has never been believed to be
in disagreement with the biogenic original of extand living cells.
This idea was mentioned by Darwin (who I believe used the term
"primordial ooze") in the age of Pastuer. So far as I know, the
two gentlement were never known to attempt to refute one another
on this point.
I did mention this in my last response to one of your posting. I
never saw how you received it, though.
More information about the Microbio