FW: evolution

[Ken Kinman]

Peter,
    I couldn't agree more, and the strawmen at which he is tilting are
rather silly.  How could he seriously ask a question like: If nothing can
evolve without DNA, then how could DNA originate?   Sounds a bit like the
chicken and the egg.  Hasn't he ever heard of the RNA WORLD?  And the RNA
world was in turn preceded by molecular chains containing something even
simpler than ribose.  We don't know the details, but the outlines of life's
origins are slowly emerging.
     The only logical argument that the RNA World didn't exist is the
fragility of RNA under thermophilic conditions.  But once Woese's claims of
a thermophilic origin of life (or thermophilic LUCA/cenancestor of extant
life) is finally debunked, even that argument against the RNA World won't
hold water.
    "Universal information system"?  Does this guy write science fiction on
the side?   From what I saw, I might describe his ideas with some Joycean
term, like jabberwocky.  Hope they have fun with him at Cornell.
                        ------Ken Kinman

>From: Peter Rauch <anamaria at GRINNELL.BERKELEY.EDU>
>Reply-To: Peter Rauch <anamaria at GRINNELL.BERKELEY.EDU>
>To: TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG
>Subject: Re: FW: evolution
>Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 11:01:45 -0700
>
>On Thu, 9 Sep 1999, Mary Barkworth wrote:
> > I came across this by chance and thought I would throw it in the pot.
> >
> > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - August 6, 1999
> > 99-08-01-AG
> > U. of  S. Professor Rejects
> > Conventional Evolutionary Theory as
> > Political Ideology
>
>My too-quick reading and impression is that he's tilting at his
>own windmills, creating strawmen to topple. But, I'll leave
>thoughtful analysis and criticism to those who can and would.
>
>Peter

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com