Bill Hamilton:===
>A colleague of mine used to say that a decision that has been made can be
>changed, but a decision that has not been made cannot. When I was an ROTC
>cadet many years ago an officer said what seemed to be the height of folly
>to me at the time: It's better to make an incorrect decision and act on it
>than to make no decision and fail to act. The rationale behind these
>statements is that if you are making decisions and hypotheses and acting on
>them, and your objective is to learn from the results of your decisions and
>actions, then it is better to make a mistake and learn from it than to do
>nothing and learn nothing.
>
This reminded me of a rather amazing post to talk.origins by the
infamous deaddog (real name Andrew Ellington, a fairly well known
abiogenesis researcher) entitled "Origins of life: A redefinition".
Amazing in its candid appraisal of the RNA World scenario. For
example:
=======================================================
"In any case, in the meantime we should beware false prophets.
If we don't know how abiogenesis truly occurred, then why should
we bother to argue strenuously for it? At best we can provide
comfort for those who already agree with us, but for the most part
they don't need it. At worst we tie the fact and theory of evolution
to a bloated, blackened albatross that we'll have to pitch over the
side in two or three experiments anyway."
[...]
"All the RNA world arguments really tell us is that it is all even more
complex than we originally thought. We're separated from origins
not only by a long string of ancestors, but by at least one, and
possibly more, *major* changes in metabolism. Not just pathway
replacement, but likely wholescale catalytic re-organization. We
can't even begin to imagine what RNA-based life was truly like (my
own publications about what it was 'sort of' like to the contrary). So
what makes us think that we can extrapolate beyond that boundary
back to an even more outre event: the transition from prebiotic
chemistry to self-replication?" -- Deaddog
============================================================
But perhaps the most significant part of this post, especially wrt what
Bill wrote above, is the last paragraph:
> "So quit defending the RNA world, you howlers. If it can't defend
> itself it should be left to die on the vine, a useful idea that paved
> the way to other useful ideas." -- Deaddog
Science seems to me to be an amazingly robust process. Even failed
theories generally contain the seeds for the next round of inquiry.
"... a useful idea that paved the way to other useful ideas".
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
Ohio State University