Morons

[Colin McHenry <s172579@student.uq.edu.au>]

>I certainly agree  with Tom Holtz on the subject of Hoyle vs Archie.  And
>let's not forget thateven in his chosen field, astronomy, Hoyle is best
>known for the "steady state" theory of the origin of the universe - now
>discredited...

<snip>

>--
>Ronald I. Orenstein                           Phone: (905) 820-7886 (home)
>International Wildlife Coalition              Fax/Modem: (905) 569-0116 (home)
Home: 1825 Shady Creek Court                  Messages: (416) 368-4661




Much as I enjoy the vast majority of your postings, Ron, I feel I must take
exception on this occasion.  Hoyle is without doubt a bright man, and his
own field will be grateful to him for a long time to come for his pioneering
work on the organic chemistry of gas nebulae. This was the field that lead
him to believe that life originated in the stars, after he found evidence
for amino acids in space - and remember, this was at a time (even if it is
not wifely believed today) when most biologists were saying that the
building of amino acids was a crucial step in the evolution of life; recall
the excitement surrounding the Urey-Miller expts in '54?  His theories of
faunal replacement from outer space may be a little off the wall, (for some
reason physicists feel very comfortable when wading into our field)  but his
assertation that it was the gas nebulae that was the arena for the formation
of early biotic compounds is far leass extreme and is almost reasonable.
Even today the classic explanation for the evolution of life (chemical soup,
high EM radiation, lots of time) stands up to only the most perfunctory
examinations, and our present understanding of the origin of life remains
minimal.  In these circumstances Hoyle's ideas are certainly worth
consideration at the least.

As for being known as a suscriber to the 'steady state' theory of universe
evolution, he is not the only one, and that branch of physics is a very long
way from being so secure that alternatives can be dismissed out of hand.
The Big Bang may be the current best model, but I would have a LOT less
confidence in it being right than I would in, say, plate tectonics or
Darwin's theories.  And let us not forget that science is supposed to
benefit from being examined by alternative theories.  Without people like
Hoyle we would have no science worth talking of.

This may only be a discussion group, but the written word has a life of its
own.  I would be very upset if, for example, in 20 years time it was
'trendy' to believe that Birds Came First, and the Turtles not 'reptiles'
but the sister group of the Synapsids, that Tom Holtz was subject to the
level of ridicule that we've seen lately for saying in 1995 that Birds are
derived maniraptorians, and that turtles are reptiles!  That would be a
preposterous situation.  Perhaps if some posts (maybe including this one)
get the blood boiling we should go and do something else for 30 minutes
before responding, instead of sending an adrenaline fired message that will
turn sour in the net.

And as for 'proof' (which someone has used a few times lately), it is a word
that makes me feel very uncomfortable, as I am neither a priest or a politician.

Yours,

Colin McHenry