>From: RDehaan237@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 11/16/01 9:56:23 AM, hvantill@novagate.com writes:
>
> << 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.
>
> >>
>
> Howard,
>
> I fail to see that I must do so. Specifically, in what ways must the
> addition of new formational capabilities that result in the first biological
> cell or protocell change the character of matter?
We seem to be having a communication problem here. The point is this: What
atoms & molecules _are_ and what atoms and molecules _are able to do_ is a
package deal. You cannot change the formational capabilities of atoms and
molecules independently of the rest of the "package." Unless the "character
of matter" (including such things as the rules of QM, the nature of
interaction forces, the values of the fundamental physical constants, the
nature of space, etc.) is modified in some way, the formational capabilities
of atoms and molecules cannot be modified.
That's why I said that if _you_ want to posit a change (by addition) in the
formational capabilities of atoms & molecules, then _you_ must allow for
some change in the "character of matter."
HVT:<<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.>>
Bob: I_also fail to see why this is true. Perhaps what you wrote below is
your
> explanation?
>
HVT: <<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.>>
>
> I agree, in so far as I understand it, with everything you said thus far.
OK. So far, so good.
> But are you saying this is the model of how life rose out of resident
> potentialities of atoms and molecules?__Is the next step that molecules are
> formed from potentialities resident in the character of atoms, actualized by
> further drop in temperature?
In some cases a simple temperature drop might be sufficient. But in general
it gets far more complicated than that. In the case of some of the
interstellar molecules I once mentioned, it appears that many of the
chemical reactions must take place, not in the gas phase, but on the
surfaces of interstellar "dust" grains.
> What is the relationship between inherent
> potentialities that you envision and the external environment in which they
> reside?
Clearly it's a very close relationship. Even now, given all of the
formational capabilities of atoms, molecules, cells, etc., what gets formed
is highly dependent on the environmental circumstances.
> Or was some other stimulus needed to actualize biology out of chemistry? I
> have questions both about just what those resident potentialities of
> molecules were and what was it that served as a stimulus to actualize them.
I guess the fundamental question that separates us is: Was some (as yet
unspecified) _non-natural_ stimulus required, or is the system of _natural_
stimuli sufficiently robust to make possible the actualization of the full
range of configurations, structures, systems, and life forms now present?
> It requires a leap of faith to use the scenario that you drew of the
> actualization of atoms as a model of how life arose. It's too large a leap
> for me to make, Howard.
It's clear that our judgments differ here. Yes, I do indeed have high
expectations of the system of "natural" (God-given) formational capabilities
resident is the Creation.
What I have been trying to do in our conversation is to understand your
proposal better, especially what kinds of non-natural _divine action_ you
are have in mind as the links between the "stages" you have proposed.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 19 2001 - 09:49:47 EST