Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: notesfiles
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hp-pcd!hpfcrs!lief
From: lief@hpfcrs.UUCP (lief)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Origin of life
Message-ID: <14600002@hpfcrs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 28-Feb-85 15:23:00 EST
Article-I.D.: hpfcrs.14600002
Posted: Thu Feb 28 15:23:00 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 10-Mar-85 05:35:26 EST
Lines: 53
Nf-ID: #N:hpfcrs:14600002:000:2402
Nf-From: hpfcrs!lief    Feb 28 12:23:00 1985


The question was:

>>	2. Why do many evolutionists deny the possibility [sic] that
>>	   there is something more to evolution than just pure chance
>>	   which resulted in the one-time spontaneous generation [sic]
>>	   of an autonomous, self-replicating organism from random
>>	   amino/nucleic acids, especially in light of the lack of
>>	   evidence for continuous evolution in the restricted 
>>	   timeframe of 4.6 billion years (give or take a couple 
>>	   weekends)?
>>
The reply by Stanley Friesen was:

>	This question is based on misleading semantics.  Pure chance?
>Modern advances in cosmology and organic chemistry seem to be heading
>towards the conclusion that life is *inevitable* given the right
>initial conditions.  Random amino/nucleic acids? See previous point,
>the associtions of these chemicals which form under natural conditions
>are *just* those necessary for life to form. 4.6 *billion* years
>restricted?? Doyou have any idea how *long* that really is, especially
>considering the recent evidence for a relatively rapid pace of
>evolution.

I would ask Mr. Friesen:

1)  What are the right initial conditions to make *life* inevitable?
    If you say you don't know, then how can you assume that the right
    initial conditions exsist?

2)  You say "...the associations of these chemicals which form under
    natural conditions are *just* those necessary for life to form."
    Does this mean that the result of properly associating these
    chemicals results in *life*?

3)  "...recent evidence for a relatively rapid pace of evolution."
    Could you list some of this factual evidence for me?

Sounds to me like you are making an awfully large claim for evolution.
Has any scientist ever put *life* into anything?  According to you,
the scientific world knows what is involved in doing just this.  How
can anyone call it *scientific* when making claims which are based on
nothing more than imagination?

Mr. Friesen, it is easy to make general statements about anything.
But it's quite another to state facts and evidence.  Make one single
blade of grass, or put life into 1 amoeba, and maybe I'll listen to
you.  However, until you actually go out and make something as simple
as a carrot seed (should be no problem according to your above statements),
and it grows, don't try to tell us that you have a handle on making *life*!

Lief Sorensen
Hewlett Packard Co.