to David: He does make some mathematical errors, but we've only been able to measure time at this scale for a few years: all his statistical calculations assume (as I made mention of in previous posts) 1 try per second. This does NOT take into consideration the actual amount of time needed for any rxn (shorthand for 'reaction' for the uninitiated) to occur. And I'm sorry for waiting so long to read this!-I kept telling you. Shapiro teaches you to be skeptical, and how to think along those lines. His latest offerings suggest an entirely inorganic energy cycle as a starting point.


> > C'mon David, saying that is like saying Aristotle's arguments and observations aren't dated. 24yrs is a VERY long time in science. 
> 
> 
> Except when there is no progress, other than learning what paths not to follow. His book is 35-40 years after the start of the quest for origin of life. If he wrote something now it would just be more negatives.-Well so far I'm through to the 3rd chapter; and his criticisms of the first two paradigms ring true on such "results" as this: -http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=how-did-life-begin-on-earth-2010-06-29-When you read the blog... it DOES read more like propaganda than a real scientific statement. However, so far--Shapiro has caused no "paradigm shift" in my own thinking. Though so far his skepticism in general is a mirror image of my own; continuously stating that we cannot say "x" is true if we really cannot know "x" is true, or have evidence "x" is true. He rightly shoves the "watch" argument right into the nethers where it belongs.


> C'mon David, saying that is like saying Aristotle's arguments and observations aren't dated. 24yrs is a VERY long time in science. -
Except when there is no progress, other than learning what paths not to follow. His book is 35-40 years after the start of the quest for origin of life. If he wrote something now it would just be more negatives.

Amazingly, the university library didn't have this book; I had to track it down on amazon. 
> > 
> > I'm puzzled as to why Shapiro's book is no longer in print. Dating from '86/'87, I also will have to state my concern that its arguments are also dated; we shall see. 
> 
> I had to get a used copy when I read it. Arguments and observations are not dated.-C'mon David, saying that is like saying Aristotle's arguments and observations aren't dated. 24yrs is a VERY long time in science. -I've completed the prologue and the first chapter. As it stands, so far it's just a textbook review of science, taken with the mention of Kuhn's seminal work. So far--boring--but a refresher is never a bad thing. I could have skipped it but I always feel guilty doing that.

Amazingly, the university library didn't have this book; I had to track it down on amazon. 
> 
> I'm puzzled as to why Shapiro's book is no longer in print. Dating from '86/'87, I also will have to state my concern that its arguments are also dated; we shall see. -I had to get a used copy when I read it. Arguments and observations are not dated.