Here you go again using the word "believe." Why can't you say that "life
has been reproduce in the lab by means of inert matter?" Kevin, just sit for
a while in a quiet room and think of what you are saying. We would all know
about such a breakthrough if it were true. Believe me!
Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: Biochmborg@aol.com <Biochmborg@aol.com>
To: alexanian@uncwil.edu <alexanian@uncwil.edu>; chadwicka@swau.edu
<chadwicka@swau.edu>; evolution@calvin.edu <evolution@calvin.edu>
Cc: asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
Date: Wednesday, May 05, 1999 11:26 PM
Subject: Re: Life in the Lab -- Fox and the Nobel Prize
>In a message dated 5/5/99 1:47:52 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
>alexanian@uncwil.edu writes:
>
>> Much of what we know is what we assume by faith from others who know.
>>
>
>In science you do not have to take anything on faith. If Fox simply
claimed
>that life could be synthesized in the lab, but provided no evidence to back
>up his claim, I wouldn't believe him either. The reason why I believe him
is
>because he can back up his claims with scientific evidence that
demonstrates
>he really has synthesized life in the lab. I don't have to have faith when
I
>can read his papers, and the papers support his claims.
>
>>
>> We
>> cannot be experts in everything. That I am no expert in biology does not
>> preclude me from learning from experts....
>>
>
>The problem is that you began by implying that you were enough of an expert
>to be able to dogmatically proclaim that life has not been created in the
>lab, but when I challenged you to provide some support for your claim you
>suddenly claimed you were no expert to avoid having to answer my challenge.
>You can't have it both ways, Moorad. If you are well-read enough to be
able
>to determine that life has not been synthesized in the lab, then you are
>certainly well-read enough to be able to explain why. If, however, you do
>not know or understand why life could not have been synthesized in the lab,
>how can you be so dogmatic that it has not? Simply because it hasn't been
>discussed in the popular press? That's a pretty thin argument to put your
>faith on.
>
>>
>> ...and not merely the proponents, that
>> life has been indeed synthesized in the lab.
>>
>
>Do those opponents present any evidence to back up their claim, or do you
>simply have faith that they are right because they say what you want to
>believe?
>
>>
>> There surely must be a
>> Scientific American type of magazine that discusses such a remarkable
feat.
>> You certainly are not an expert in physics but do know full well of all
the
>> fundamental, breakthroughs in physics. I can see the headlines in the
New
>> York Times: "LIFE CREATED IN A TEST-TUBE!."
>>
>
>What difference does it make whether such an article, or headline, exists?
>As a scientist, you should be persuaded by evidence, not appeals to a mass
>audience. As long as the evidence does exist, what difference does it make
>that it is in the scientific publications and not the popular press? Are
you
>saying the evidence is more believable in the popular press than in the
>scientific literature? More truthful? More accurate? All your rhetoric
>simply tells me is that you are looking for some justification for your
>refusal to read the evidence in favor of Fox's claims. Otherwise it would
>make no difference to you one way or the other.
>
>>
>> I do not believe that life is unusual, but its ubiquitous presence does
not
>> mean that people can readily go to be lab, thinker with chemicals and
bring
>> life into being!
>>
>
>Of course not, but since that is exactly what did happen, then there must
be
>some basic properties to life that can arise spontaneously from the known
>physiochemical laws. Go to the website I posted about and read the
evidence
>for yourself. If then afterwards you are still not convinced, tell my why
>and back up your claim with solid biological arguments, not metaphysical
>mumbo-jumbo about death. Or admit that you do not understand enough
biology
>to judge the evidence and your absolutist claim is based on your personal
>beliefs rather than science.
>
>>
>> It is easy to toss phrases like "life is simply a matter
>> of chemistry and organization," but to my ears that sounds as unfounded,
>> haughty claims--if not a nonsensical statement. Or else the terms
>> involved, "life" and "organization," are so defined as to make that
phrase
>a
>> vacuous tautology.
>>
>
>If you understood biology as well as you claim, you would understand what I
>meant. The fact that you did not indicates that you are not as
knowledgeable
>as you would like to believe, or would like others to believe. You can
>correct that, however; go to <www.siu.edu/~protocell/> and read the
symposium
>given by Fox. Then look up and read the articles cited at the website.
Then
>you will understand how the phrase is correct.
>
>Kevin L. O'Brien