From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Mon Jul 28 2003 - 13:39:59 EDT
Richard McGough wrote:
>
> 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 ---
I may be wrong, but I do not believe that a chemical reaction (such as hydrogen and oxygen combining to make water) can be described in this manner. In fact, it seems as though chemical reactions fall into the realm of "observations", or "collapse of the state vector" (as when a photon strikes a photographic place). I could be wrong, but (if so) would like see an example. Do you have one?
Also, why is DNA not a chemical?
Walt
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jul 28 2003 - 13:48:18 EDT