John Antonioni wrote:
> I received so much response on my last posting to this newsgroup that I
> thought that I would again foster some discussion:
> As it turns out, a friend and I were recently discussing the theory
> of formation of life on this planet. Most scientists today blindly
> accept the theory that states life was formed through the random coliisions
> of all the "right" molecules and energy generated by lightning strikes.
...
> does the probability of an event occuring. I still say that we are
> missing some part of the puzzle. Something must have, at one point,
> happened to dramatically increase the probability of life spontaneously
> occuring. I am not proposing the existence of a great creator but I am
> saying that there has to be more to it than that.
Yes, something is missing -- reference to any of the literature on the
subject. Starting, for example, with Manfred Eigen and hypercycles but
including a great deal more.
I'm sorry to be dismissive and intolerant but discussion at this level is best
conducted on the newsgroup talk.origins where you will "foster" LOTS of
discussion without any need to do anything as boring as read the literature.
A reading of that literature would disclose that nobody is "blindly accepting"
anything.
-----
Joe Felsenstein, Dept. of Genetics, Univ. of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195
Internet: joe at genetics.washington.edu (IP No. 128.95.12.41)
Bitnet/EARN: felsenst at uwavm
