RE: Life in the Lab -- Fox and the Nobel Prize

Pim van Meurs (
Mon, 10 May 1999 20:14:15 -0700

Moorad: My statement is the these protocells are what Fox thinks how life came into
being from the material. However, the protocells themselves are not alive. That is a theory since he cannot produce living things from these protocells that he "assembled" in the lab. Moorad

How do you know ? For all we know these protocells are alive. And you are still wrong, they are protocells irregardless of the theory.

-----Original Message-----
From: Pim van Meurs <>
To: 'Moorad Alexanian' <>; Ami Chopine <>; <>
Cc: <>
Date: Saturday, May 08, 1999 9:20 PM
Subject: RE: Life in the Lab -- Fox and the Nobel Prize

>Nope, they exist outside any theory. THe issue to be settled is "are they
life or not".
>From: Moorad Alexanian[]
>Sent: Friday, May 07, 1999 5:55 AM
>To: Ami Chopine;
>Subject: Re: Life in the Lab -- Fox and the Nobel Prize
>My guess is that the most you can say about these protocells is that they
>are the "protolife" in someone's theory of how life came into being.
>more. Moorad
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ami Chopine <>
>To: <>
>Cc: <>
>Date: Friday, May 07, 1999 1:13 AM
>Subject: Re: Life in the Lab -- Fox and the Nobel Prize
>>Is it possible that while the protein protocells may be alive, they are
>>the way life began on earth? IOW, they are not the common ancestor of all
>>life. If this is so, then we haven't truly achieved the goal of repeating
>>experimentation what happened at the dawn of life.
>>Also, why must we pick one scenario over another? Why not a combination of
>>say, random replicators, clay, and protenoids?
>>It is therefore possible that item 4 [information] may for
>>> some part describe more advanced features that did not appear until
>>> the history of the origin of life. Their absence would not disqualify a
>>> protocell from being alive if the protocell didn't need them to live.
>>> Kevin L. O'Brien