Re: Life in the Lab -- Review Paper
Brian D Harper (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Thu, 20 May 1999 18:41:47 -0700
At 07:09 PM 5/18/99 EDT, Kevin wrote:
>In a message dated 5/18/99 1:22:47 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
>> 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.
>Most lay common sense notions of physical reality turn out to be wrong; as a
>physicist you should know that very well. So a common sense notion of life
>is irrelevant. The dispute over whether protocells are life will not be
>resolved until people realize that the only definition really significant to
>the debate is a biological one, and a biological definition of life will be
>closely tied to molecular and cellular biological theory.
May I assume then that you will be skeptical about an author who gives
a definition of life obtained from Websters dictionary?
The Ohio State University
"All kinds of private metaphysics and theology have
grown like weeds in the garden of thermodynamics"
-- E. H. Hiebert