From: RDehaan237@aol.com
> In a message dated 11/15/01 1:44:27 PM, hvantill@novagate.com writes:
<< But all formational capabilities (both old ones or new ones) are
intimately
related to each of the factors that I listed: the rules of QM, the values
of the fundamental constants, the nature of interaction forces, the nature
of space, etc.
How can any new formational capability be added without a modification of
some sort? >>
> Howard,
> I'm not clear. Are you suggesting that the aspects of the prebiotic universe
> that you mentioned -- the rules of quantum mechanics; the values of one or
> more of the fundamental constants; the nature of interaction forces; the
> nature of space -- were changed as the result of, or in order to effectuate,
> the formation and appearance of the first living cell?
No, Bob, exactly the opposite. I'm saying that if you wish to posit the
addition of new formational capabilities, then you have to posit changing
the character of matter in one or more of the ways I suggested.
My hypothesis, on the other hand, is that there is no need for such a
change; that the character of atoms and molecules includes -- without
further additions or modifications -- the formational capabilities to
actualize the system of life.
> Perhaps I'm not putting the question well. You continued:
<<Any one of these modifications would indeed alter the formational
capabilities of atoms, molecules and cells. >>
> If your answer is yes, then I would like to have you elaborate on
> how and why they were changed or modified.
No, that was my question to you.
> You continued: <<My hypothesis (and that's the correct term) is that the
> exact same formational capabilities now present were able, in the
circumstances that
> prevailed early in earth history, to actualize potentialities for
> metabolizing systems that eventually became cells and multi-cellular
> organisms.>>
> Thanks for that clear statement. I must say, I think you have about as much
> chance of testing and confirming/disconfirming your hypothesis as I have of
> mine. But you have a problem that I don't have, and that is answering the
> question, where were these formational capabilities located or hidden before
> the conditions prevailed on earth in which they could actualize the
> potentialities for metabolizing systemsąG©°?
I envision them as resident in the system of the Creation's potentialities,
a system that is an integral aspect of the Creation's being.
Example: Very early in the formational history of the universe there was a
brief period of time when free quarks existed, but it was too hot for them
to form nucleons (protons and neutrons). At that moment nucleons were
potentialities resident in the character of quarks. As the temperature
dropped (as a result of the universe's expansion), nucleons formed;
potential structures became actual structures as the constituent parts
exercised their formational capabilities.
In a similar manner, there was an extended time period (most of the first
few hundred thousand years after the beginning) during which the temperature
of the universe was too high for atoms to form from the plasma of atomic
nuclei and electrons. During this period atoms were potentialities resident
in the character of nuclei and electrons. As the temperature dropped (as a
result of the universe's expansion), atoms formed; potential structures
became actual structures as the constituent parts exercised their
formational capabilities.
> Or let me ask another question, if I may.
> Would a scientist, knowing all that we now know about the universe
> and living organisms, have been able to predict the appearance of the first
> living cell if he/she had been standing on the prebiotic earth? If so, on
> what would the scientist have based his/her prediction?
Would a scientist, knowing all that we now know about the universe and
living organisms, be able to make that prediction? God only knows!
More seriously, I do not claim that we now know exactly how, or in precisely
what form, life first appeared. The Nobel Prize for that has not yet been
granted. I presume, however, that there are many scientists who have some
reasonable hunches about what kinds of formational processes are worthy of
consideration as likely candidates. Biologists, your comments are welcome.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 16 2001 - 09:54:32 EST