From: Jim Armstrong (jarmstro@qwest.net)
Date: Mon Jul 28 2003 - 13:25:05 EDT
Isn't there an underlying definitional question here as to what might
constitute the very simplest expression of life (or perhaps its
necessary precursor)? Assuming (for the moment) that this transition
from inanimate to animate did occur somewhere sometime, what might have
been the first manifestation that (slightly?) differentiates the new
kind of thing from the old? What might confirm the speculation of one
who thinks this transition did occur? What would have to be observed to
change the mind of one who does not?
Jim Armstrong
Richard McGough wrote:
>Hi Glen.
>
>Re post: http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200307/0580.html
>
>I had written:
>
>
>
>>>The problem
>>>is not that the equations describing animal evolution are harder
>>>to solve than those describing chemical evolution - the problem is
>>>that the equations for life do not exist! But we do have
>>>intellectually satisfying equations that describe the "evolution"
>>>of the elements even if we can't solve them exactly.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>To which you replied:
>
>
>
>>We have the equations of hydrodynamic flow, which can model the motion of
>>the cells, we have the equations for each chemical reaction, thus I would
>>say that we do have the equations for life.
>>
>>
>
>This misses my point. I specifically spoke of equations for the "evolution of life" with the intent of including abiogenesis which is the topic under discussion. The fact that we have equations for the chemical activity involved in a living organism is irrelevent to the discussion. We also have equations for the chemical processes in the engine of our cars, but we do not then assert that the engines are the *result* of said equations!
>
>The "equations of life" I refered to above are the same equations I said were lacking in the beginning of this conversation when I said (cf. http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200307/0460.html):
>
>---Quote ----
>I think the difference is that Life does not evolve in the same way as the heavy elements. These are two completely different kinds of "evolution." In
>physics we talk about the "time evolution operator" which is simply exp(-iHt) where H is the Hamilonian. This describes how a physical system
>changes (evolves) over time. This is radically different than the idea of Darwinian evolution through mutation and natural selection.
>---End Quote ---
>
>Why is it that no one has even acknowledged this point? It seems terribly obvious to me. Chemical evolution is a necessary physical process, by which I mean we have equations that describe what will happen if we prepare a physical system in a certain way.
>
>Nothing like this exists for darwinian evolution based on the mutation + natural selection model. It is an entirely different level of phenomenon. Think about the process hypothesised. A gene in some animal gets *randomly* zapped by a stray gamma ray or imperfectly copied so that the animal's progeny then would have some advantage in reproduction. This kind of thing can not be modeled with unitary time evolution operators that we use in regular physics. To confuse "evolution of elements" with "evolution of life" seems to be a fundamental logical error.
>
>I had also said:
>
>
>
>>>The only way evolution of elements could be equivalent to the
>>>evolution of life is in a fully reductionist sense where we have
>>>fully described everything in terms of elementary particles. The
>>>fact that this would involve equations that would probably be
>>>unsolvable is not a problem at all. The problem is that I really
>>>do not believe that evolution, even if shown to be the origin of
>>>life and species, could ever be fully described by appealing to
>>>nothing but the natural laws governing the underlying physical elements.
>>>
>>>
>
>To which you replied:
>
>
>
>>That of course, is a belief in vitalism. We do have before us living
>>creatures which show no sign of vitalism maintaining their existence.
>>
>>
>
>This response is based on the misunderstanding of my point discussed above. I was talking about equations relating to the origin and evolution of life, not the equations governing chemical processes in the cells.
>
>
>
>
>>And for the record, reductionism in the sense of full predictability has
>>been dead and gone since Heisenberg, von Neumann and Lorenz.
>>
>>
>>
>
>This also is a misunderstanding of my point, though different than the one above. I have repeatedly stated that we have known equations governing the evolution of the elements. Obviously, I was speaking about the equations of quantum physics. I never spoke a word about "full predictability" in the classical sense that died with the advent of QM.
>
>In service of Christ our Saviour,
>
>Richard Amiel McGough
>Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at http://www.BibleWheel.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jul 28 2003 - 13:25:35 EDT