RE: Probing the Chemistry of Creation

Pim van Meurs (entheta@eskimo.com)
Sun, 8 Aug 1999 18:54:34 -0700

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"?

SJ: 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.

Kevin's argument is actually quite convincing. So rather than rely on what others think of Fox's model, why not stick to the relevant issues?

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

IMHO you want to ignore it because it shows how protolife might have started.