-----Original Message-----
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
To: 'Moorad Alexanian' <alexanian@uncwil.edu>; Ami Chopine <amka@vcode.com>;
evolution@calvin.edu <evolution@calvin.edu>
Cc: asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
Date: Saturday, May 08, 1999 9:20 PM
Subject: RE: Life in the Lab -- Fox and the Nobel Prize
>Nope, they exist outside any theory. THe issue to be settled is "are they
life or not".
>
>----------
>From: Moorad Alexanian[SMTP:alexanian@uncwil.edu]
>Sent: Friday, May 07, 1999 5:55 AM
>To: Ami Chopine; evolution@calvin.edu
>Cc: asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: Re: Life in the Lab -- Fox and the Nobel Prize
>
>My guess is that the most you can say about these protocells is that they
>are the "protolife" in someone's theory of how life came into being.
Nothing
>more. Moorad
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ami Chopine <amka@vcode.com>
>To: evolution@calvin.edu <evolution@calvin.edu>
>Cc: asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
>Date: Friday, May 07, 1999 1:13 AM
>Subject: Re: Life in the Lab -- Fox and the Nobel Prize
>
>
>>Is it possible that while the protein protocells may be alive, they are
not
>>the way life began on earth? IOW, they are not the common ancestor of all
>>life. If this is so, then we haven't truly achieved the goal of repeating
>by
>>experimentation what happened at the dawn of life.
>>
>>Also, why must we pick one scenario over another? Why not a combination of
>>say, random replicators, clay, and protenoids?
>>
>>It is therefore possible that item 4 [information] may for
>>> some part describe more advanced features that did not appear until
later
>>in
>>> the history of the origin of life. Their absence would not disqualify a
>>> protocell from being alive if the protocell didn't need them to live.
>>>
>>> Kevin L. O'Brien
>>
>
>
>
>