Replies

I suggested that abiogenesis is theoretically possible in two ways. Does that make sense to you?

Yes, if I'm following you, cornelis. You suggest that ultimate causation for life could be either homogeneous or heterogeneous. If by "homogeneous" you mean fully specified by the physico-chemical laws, that would be one thing. If, on the other hand, you mean the physico-chemical laws as aided by another "heterogeneous" cause (which as you say we might expect would be a noncorporeal cause), that would be another.

But I'm not sure I have correctly grasped your meaning in this. So would be very glad to be corrected if I misunderstood you!

There is biogenesis, and then there is abiogenesis. My understanding of the latter term comprehends the idea of a sui generis cause for life, of the ability of "dumb" matter to "bootstrap" itself into a living condition, on the strength of the physico-chemical laws alone.

Yet my problem with the latter supposition (which I have reason to doubt is your own) is this: Absolutely everything that exists in the universe, living or non-living, is composed of exactly the same particles and fields. And yet living beings exhibit "behaviors" that we never see in non-living phenomena, such as for instance crystals. One supposes that the latter are fully specified by the physico-chemical laws. But it seems to me we cannot say the same thing about living organisms: Their behavior is not limited to what can be predicted on the basis of initial conditions and the operation of the physical laws. Indeed, they seem to be in total rebellion against the second law of thermodynamics, as the late, great Harvard biologist Gaylord Simpson pointed out. They can "change their course," they can heal themselves, they can coordinate all the various subsystems that compose their total organism, governing the macroscopic integrity of the organism. And so forth.

So what accounts for the difference between animate and inanimate systems in nature? This, to me, is the greatest question confronting the life sciences today. And yet to raise it, one must seemingly get used to the idea that such an honest question will be answered by somebody throwing "received doctrine" in one's face.

That sort of thing goes absolutely nowhere. Plus I am made to feel that I have transgressed against somebody's holy writ -- when science ought not to have anything to do with holy writ.

And that, to me, is the fundamental problem of "disputes" like the one we are having here, in the Religion Forum, no less.

Still many respondents are scratching their heads and expressing perplexity that such topical matter should find itself in the Religion Forum in the first place.

To which I have to say to such people: You've got to be kidding! Just look at yourselves! Your reaction to the things I've said reminds me of the reactions that Christians had to Serrano's photograph of the crucifix suspended in a glass of urine. Such a response, in my view, is not exactly rational....

I much admire your essay/post at #1553. Thank you so much for writing, cornelis!

Thank you for your reply. It is important to clarify. It often happens that disputes arise because two people are using terms correctly but meaning different things.

The question you ask about the difference between things animate and inanimate intersects with VadeRetro's comment about the origin of life being a one-time event. We are trying to discover the conditions that caused this transition to occur. In assuming that such a transition occurs homogeneously, we would wonder what you are wondering: could this not happen again to inaminate matter and why not? Of course the event has occurred once already, but why not again?

However, if this event occurred heterogeneously, our supposed conditions may imitate the event, but we would not have a handle on what actually happened.

These may be the reasons why Darwin admitted his agnosticism: "the whole subject is beyond the scope of man's intellect . . . the mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us."

I'll check in later.

One supposes that the latter are fully specified by the physico-chemical laws. But it seems to me we cannot say the same thing about living organisms: Their behavior is not limited to what can be predicted on the basis of initial conditions and the operation of the physical laws.

Indeed. If the physico-chemicals law were enough, the Frankenstein experiments would have worked.

As another example, Wimmer's creation of the polio virus in a test tube began with an information sequence converted from the DNA to RNA (RNA cannot be synthesized) - after which he provided a cell free juice (human cell with mitochondria, nucleus removed) whereupon the virus built itself.

The key element here - which was unknown to Urey/Miller 1950's experiments - was information, both the message and its successful communication.

Thank you so much for your excellent essay-posts!

Still many respondents are scratching their heads and expressing perplexity that such topical matter should find itself in the Religion Forum in the first place. To which I have to say to such people: You've got to be kidding! Just look at yourselves! Your reaction to the things I've said reminds me of the reactions that Christians had to Serrano's photograph of the crucifix suspended in a glass of urine. Such a response, in my view, is not exactly rational....

Can you be specific about which reactions warrant your characterization? I think you've asked some interesting questions, and I hardly expected the "Darwinism is just a religion" from you.