Home| Letters| Links| RSS| About Us| Contact Us

On the Frontline

What's New

Table of Contents

Index of Authors

Index of Titles

Index of Letters

Mailing List

subscribe to our mailing list:


Critique of Intelligent Design

Evolution vs. Creationism

The Art of ID Stuntmen

Faith vs Reason

Anthropic Principle

Autopsy of the Bible code

Science and Religion

Historical Notes


Serious Notions with a Smile


Letter Serial Correlation

Mark Perakh's Web Site


[Write a Reply] [Letters Index]

Title Author Date
Divine Farce -- ID vs Science Chalmers, John H. Nov 09, 2005
Your article is an excellent discussion of science vs ID, one of the best I have seen. However, few exobiologists/astrobiologists or origin of life researchers think that DNA is primordial. Most accept that an RNA world
preceded the present RNA-DNA-Protein world because RNA is both catalytic and informational. That said, many prebiotic chemists also think that RNA may be too complex and that something simpler, more stable, and perhaps easier to make under primitive earth conditions came first. Candidates are threose-RNA, peptide-RNA, or some other polymer with a backbone simpler than the chiral ribose phosphate of RNA.
Related Articles: Divine Farce: A Scientific / Philosophic Romp Through Intelligent Design

Title Author Date
Divine Farce -- ID vs Science Danielson, Sheldon Nov 12, 2005
Professor Chalmers,

Thank you very much for your generous comments on my paper. I am eager to get as many comments on it as possible both for my own information, and for revisions of it. I've found your paper "Extremophiles May Be Irrelevant to the Origin of Life" and will certainly read it. You have no doubt figured out that I am not a biologist, so suggestions/corrections are particularly welcome from those who are.

Concerning the first reproducers, I think I said the same things, more or less, that you did. At the end of Section IV, is this:

"But while we're here at the creation (so to speak), it's appropriate to point out that the first "life" -- the first reproducers -- need not have been DNA based at all. [29] Some simpler, therefore more probable but less stable, reproducer might have kicked things off and later evolved into DNA."

If this is chaged to "more stable", then it seems almost identical to what you said. I really didn't mean to lean on stability at all, not being qualified to do so. What I had in mind was that the first reproducers (I think we can assume) lacked the elaborate defenses against miscopying that modern DNA, aided by its various "helpers" has. Anyway, this will go into my revision list.

Are you the John H. Chalmers who is a Harry Partch expert? I'm no expert, but I am a fan. I have an old LP recording of "Delusions of the Furies" which must be something of a collector's item by now.

Thanks again,
Sheldon Danielson
Related Articles: Divine Farce: A Scientific / Philosophic Romp Through Intelligent Design