Re: Probing the Chemistry of Creation

Stephen E. Jones (
Mon, 09 Aug 1999 05:32:46 +0800


On Mon, 2 Aug 1999 20:17:04 EDT, wrote:


>SJ>Here is a two-year old Los Angeles Times story I found today on the Web at:
>>...Kevin might note that Fox's proteinoid theory is not even mentioned as
>>an option!

KO>Not surprising. Every scientist mentioned or interviewed in that article is
>an advocate of the gene-first RNA world model. Having accurately and
>painfully described the problems with their model, is Steve really so naive
>as to believe that they would turn around and say, "But there is another
>model, one that has been more successful than ours, that has been able to
>find answers where we could not"?

Kevin's argument is unconvincing. If Fox's proteinoid model was half as
good as Kevin says it is, then *all* scientific materialists would embrace it
with open arms.

KO>And considering that the proteinoid microsphere model is not as well known in
>the popular press -- for the simply reason that it did not have Nobel
>lauriettes shamelessly promoting it as the right answer to the question of
>how life originated before there was even any experimental evidence to back
>it up -- I am also not surprised that the reporter didn't ask them, "What
>about proteinoid microspheres?"


Kevin's `explanation' that the "gene-first" theorist, two of whom are Nobel
laureates, are too interested in "shamelessly promoting" their own theory to
admit that Fox's proteinoid model is "more successful", is simply absurd
and demeaning to the scientists concerned.

The fact is that some of the scientists against Fox's proteinoids are
*protein-first* advocates, like Shapiro and Orgel. Even Dose, another
protein-first advocate, who has collaborated with Fox, cannot accept Fox's
proteinoid theory.

Fox's proteinoid model is ignored these days in origin of life discussions
because it is *irrelevant*.


"What excites Margulis is the remarkable *incompleteness* of general Darwinian theory.
Darwinism is wrong by what it omits and by what it incorrectly emphasizes. A number of
microbiologists, geneticists, theoretical biologists, mathematicians, and computer scientists are
saying there is more to life than Darwinism. They do not reject Darwin's contribution; they
simply want to move beyond it. I call them the `postdarwinians.'" (Kelly K., "Out of Control:
The New Biology of Machines", [1994], Fourth Estate: London UK, 1995, reprint, pp470-
471. Emphasis in original).