Re: Life in the Lab -- Review Paper

Moorad Alexanian (
Tue, 18 May 1999 15:22:45 -0400

People have a notion of what it is to be alive and is obviously governed by
the living things that surrounds us. In a theory of the synthesis of life,
there will invariably be some "transitional" forms of life that would
neither be common nor obvious. Therein will reside the disputes of whether
life arises from nonliving matter or not.


-----Original Message-----
From: <>
To: <>;
Cc: <>
Date: Tuesday, May 18, 1999 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: Life in the Lab -- Review Paper

>In a message dated 5/18/99 11:28:24 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
> writes:
>> I have one advice and that is to make the definition of what is alive
>> and complete.
>Noted; thank you for your input. However, a definition of life can never
>complete, since there will always be people who will dispute any definition
>no matter how detailed. The key is to develop a definition that both
>the evidence and offers testable predictions about what may or may not be
>covered by it.
>> I think the notion of something being alive is not as trivial
>> as it may sound.
>Trivial no, but it may be far simpler than most people suppose.
>> One must also note that articles written on the synthesis
>> of life that do not mention the work of Fox may be viewed as critical to
>> claims make by Fox and Co.
>You might assume it, but in fact you cannot claim that a failure to mention
>any particular claim or concept is criticism of that claim or concept. It
>could be as simple as the authors didn't know about it, or it could be that
>they felt the claim or concept had no bearing on their discussion, or any
>a series of possibilities. Had they really wanted to be critical they
>in fact say something to that affect. To ignore a claim or concept you
>agree with is unprofessional.
>Kevin L. O'Brien