Some dialog we have going. I'm not sure where it's going, but let's make
at least one more pass on this thread. I'm combining two of your
messages, so this gets long. Apologies.
Me:>>It appears we differ on definitions.>>
You: >>I'm trying to establish workable, definitive scientific
definitions, not
ones based on subjective philosophical or emotional beliefs.>>
I see two problem surfacing here. (1) I'm necessarily talking in a
philosophical mode, since I do not have the vocabulary of biochemistry
and, at age 67, am not likely to acquire it. (2) You seem to combine the
three words "subjective," "philosophical" and "emotional" with the word
"beliefs" in a peculiar way.
Philosophy, an honorable profession, is not synonymous or necessarily
connected with either "subjective" or "emotion" of course.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me: >>You brought up 'biomolecules', not I!>>
You: >>Because "biomolecule" is more accurate than "living matter". And
it's a
term any biological scientist would instantly understand and accept.
"Living matter" has too much philosophical baggage, including vitalism,
to
be of any use in a scientific discussion.>>
Again, the discussion I pursue is philosophical, rather than scientific.
I understand your point though, and in order to get around it we will
simply have to agree on word definitions. In retrospect, I suspect that
"living matter"was a very poor choice of terms on my part. "Living
organism" would probably have been a better choice.
------------------------------------------------------------
Me >>I will agree that my definition (of abiogenesis) is much more
oriented
towards a philosophical discussion than yours is.>>
You: >>That's were I believe our real difference lies. You want to have
a
philosophical discussion (for whatever reason) and I want to have a
scientific discussion, since the ultimate questions of what is
abiogenesis
and how it works are scientific questions, not philosophical ones.>>
"whatever reason" was, of course, related to my feeble attempts to engage
Joseph in a rational discussion! My attempt to do so is that I find it
fascinating to dialog with some people -- up to a point -- and see if I
can "hook" their rational mind. I've run an origins-related forum on
Compuserve for about four years now and have had "fun" doing it as a
hobby. The forum is RELIGIOUS ISSUES and my two sections in it are
"Science & Religion" and "Religious Humor."
You say " the ultimate questions of what is abiogenesis
and how it works are scientific questions, not philosophical ones" and I
agree with that, of course. But the first question "what is abiogenesis"
is also a philosophical one. In such a discussion I will, of course,
"listen" to the scientific side, even comment on it from time to time,
but not argue it since I don't have the expertise to do so. As I don't
argue with friend Glenn on matters geological!
------------------------------------
Me:>>In mine, the words 'organic' and 'inorganic,' and the word
'biomolecule'
are of, at best, passing interest. It is the process, not the
intermediate
stages, less still the components of the intermediate stages, that I was
focusing on.>>
You: >>But I don't see how you can discuss the process without discussing
the
intermediate steps or the components. And to discuss them you have to
know
the proper terms.>>
I can certainly discuss the process of the manufacture of an automobile
without delving into production procedures. I suspect that any process is
quite easily discussed in this manner. Not, I will concede, to the
satisfaction of one with expertise in the discipline.
Me:>>Try this. Life, in the form of organisms, is assumed
(scientifically) to
have arisen initially from non-living chemicals. We define this process
as
abiogenesis(1). Life, in the form of organisms, might be possible to be
created in a laboratory from non-living chemicals. We also call this
process
abiogenesis(2).>>
You: >>You open up a major can of worms if you limit life
to whole organisms. That
means that none of their individual parts are "alive", yet the organism
as a
whole is. The only way to explain that is to claim that the organism is
more than the sum of its parts, which leads straight to vitalism.
Scientifically, you can't discuss vitalism, but you can discuss
biomolecules
as "living matter" if you define living as being part of a biological
system.>>
Um. Interesting. Since I do hold that some organisms, at least, are 'more
than the sum of their parts," does that make me a "vitalist? If so, I
accept that label, with some trepidation, as I suspect a true "vitalist"
would hold much more than my particular claim.
I would prefer to say an organism, a dog for example, is "alive" in a
sense that a chunk of the dog, a cell flaking off, for instance, is not.
The dog can continue to "live" after the cell is gone; the cell cannot.
------------------
You: >>In any event, I see no difference between your two definitions of
abiogenesis.>>
Really? That does puzzle me. One is a process which, scientifically, we
hold to have actually happened. The other is a process which many people
believe can, and will be accomplished in the lab some day. If this ever
happens, the lab process may, or may not, have any particular resemblance
to what we assume (scientifically) to have actually happened.
For instance. I, the mad physicist and computer engineer (my actual
professions in the remote past) am able to build, from primitive (see, I
abandoned "non-living) chemicals a robot/computer which, from every
exterior measure, is a true android, living, emotional, rational,
reproducing, etc. organism. In so doing, I happen to use
elements/molecules not found in any current living organisms. The
resulting creature simply does not "fit" with other living organisms on
this planet.
Now I'd call this an example of abiogenesis(2) and probably claim it has
nothing at all to do with abiogenesis(1).
-------------------------------
Me>>"The Miller-Urey experiments may, or may not, have anything to do
with a
successful abiogenesis(2) experiment. Many scientists think they do. Some
think otherwise.>>
You>>Only if you define life as a whole organism. If, however, you
define life
as biologists routinely define it, then the Miller-Urey experiments most
definately do have something to do with abiogenesis, in any sense.>>
OK. I think we agree here (whew!). You define the product of Miller-Urey
as "living matter," at least in some sense. Under that definition, I'd
have to agree.
Now I go to your next message.
Me: Do I understand, then, that 'organic' is a subset
of 'biomolecule'?>>
You: >>No, because (very nearly) all biomolecules are organic molecules,
but not all (or even most) organic molecules are biomolecules.>>
OK. Some biomolecules are not organic molecules, but most are.
And most organic molecules are not biomolecules, but some are.
Do I understand you right? Can you give me a rough quantification of
"some" and "most" in the above? (I'm just curious). Is the very word
"organic" used much anymore?
-------------------------------------
You>>And it is "biomolecule", not "bio molecule">>
Sorry - That was the Juno spell checker correcting me! I have re-educated
it.
---------------------------
Me>>You wrote 'Both terms literally mean "chemical (or molecule) of
life..."'
I am not real happy with that.>>
You>>I'm sorry to hear that, but those are the official scientific
definitions,
based on the Greek word _bios_ which mean life. I can understand your
discomfort; it's often not easy abandoning a prior false belief once you
hear the truth. All I can do is assure you everything I have told you is
the truth, as far as I know.>>
Don't be sorry! If I did not learn new things here, I'd probably be doing
something more productive! < G >
I would term my past position more as an "incomplete understanding" than
a "false belief," BTW.
--------------------------------
Me>>I assume it is 'true,' that other people in biochemistry accept it.>>
You>>You say that as if you are skeptical.>>
Of course. I am always a skeptic. That's a personality trait. You have
said something. I don't know you personally, nor do I know your
professional qualifications. I take them, however, as you state them; I
have no reason to doubt our assertions that I've read. But I am always
skeptical. You and I seem to know a "different Gish," for instance. < G >
------------------
You>>Ask some biologists if what I'm
saying is correct.>>
I figure if you mis-state something, someone else on this relector will
jump in!
I like that quotation you cited from your biochemistry text. Is it a
undergrad level or a graduate level text?
Of particular interest were the words:
"...has been responsible for a
change in our view of the natural world ... a consequence of the
development of a new way of approaching and describing the operation of
living systems--a new language--that makes possible the analysis of
biological processes in chemical terms, rather than in vague and
vitalistic terms. ... The new understanding of life is described largely
in the language of biochemistry. ...This record
of progress leads more and more biologists and biochemists to believe
that
most biological phenomena will eventually be understood in chemical
terms."
I hope that my snipping the quotation you sent I did not do violence to
it! What I see in the snippet is that language, and word definitions,
shape our world views, in many cases leading to great new research
programs; in some cases, possibly blinding us to others.
--------------------
Me>>One might as well define a piece of rubber as 'car' because it is
often
found in auto tires!>>
You>>That is a bad analogy for a number of reasons.>>
All analogies fail. That one fails rther quickly. Analogies are meant to
illustrate, not prove a point.
--------------------------------
You>> However, if
you feel that strongly about it, then perhaps you should write a letter
to
_Science_ or _Biochemistry_ explaining how the modern chemical concept of
life is wrong. Of course, you will be expected to offer some evidence to
support your claim, you will be asked to suggest an alternative
definition,
and you will be asked to supply the evidence that supports your
definition.
Better get cracking.>>
That sounds rather like a put down, my friend. I'll smaile -- and pass
on.
------------------
You>>Oh what the heck, how do you feel about this definition:
Abiogenesis is the
process by which biological materials are made from non-biological
materials
using non-biological systems. I would still define biological materials
as
those used exclusively in biological systems, and this definition would
still make a Miller-Urey experiment, Wohler's experiment or thermal
copolymerization experiments abiogenetic events, but I would also concede
that biological materials (like urea) are not "living matter" in the way
you
seem to mean it, i.e. whole organisms. Would you consider this
workable?>>
Sure
Burgy
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]