Re: Metabolism Forced Not Emerged

From: Brett Aubrey (brett.aubrey_at_shaw.ca)
Date: 10/27/04 

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:44:04 +0000 (UTC)

"TomHendricks474" <tomhendricks474@cs.com> wrote in message
news:clkodt$1kn1$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
> >You're playing word games and/or creating strawman arguments,
> >methinks, Tom. I'd guess everyone agrees that the sun was an
> >energy source on the earth. Call it what you will, but at point in
> >time T, there was no life; while at point in time T', there was life
>
> No you are defining life as something unique that emerged
> at some specific point in time.

And with yours, life never emerged, not at any "point" (or period) of time?

> I'm saying its something that developed as a response to the heat cycle.
> They are not alike at all.

OK. But if life developed here, I too think it developed as a result of the
sun, as I've indicated before. (Truth be told, if I had to put money on it,
I'd guess for some form of panspermia, as far as Earth is concerned.)

> I would think you would define life as either replicating - or
> metabolism or cell or something else.
> I say all that is part of chemical response to a heat cycle.
> We really are 180 degrees apart.

This is the crux of our difference, ISTM. You cook up a fully developed,
replicating non-animate object with all the attributes of life before there
is life, while I cook up a simple living replicator which evolves things
like cells.

Even here with your scenario, at point in time T, there was no life; while
at point in time T', there was life (note that I have never stated any value
for T' > T). Your scenario just places that time further along the process
and worsens the odds, IMO.

> You suggest the sun was a PART.
> I suggest life was a PART of the sun cycle.
> How different can we get?

Logically, this means that life was a 100% certainty with the sun's
presence(?)

> Without the sun, you won't have liquid water, chemical reactions
> that lead to all these qualities, monomers etc.

Is anyone arguing for a "no sun" scenario? .

> If we could, then life could start in space or at absolute zero or in the
> center of the sun.

? Regards, Brett

> We really really really are talking about two different paradigms
completely.
>
>
>
> Tom Hendricks, Musea zine ed.
> http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com"
> http://www.hunkasaurus.com ( "30" - CD now available)
> Hunkasaurus & His Pet Dog Guitar
> Musea Review Service (see Musea)
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Theres still time to celebrate the TRUE meaning of this season
    ... PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF EARTH AND SOLAR SYSTEM NECESSARY TO SUPPORT LIFE ... If more than one sun in planetary system, ... The atmosphere has the correct mixture of gases: ...
    (uk.philosophy.atheism)
  • Re: Time Machine revised?
    ... Otherwise H G Wells must really have been a true visionary to come up ... the tides upon the spin of the earth will bring this planet ... to the sun. ... Whether there will be any life on the earth then ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • Re: No Grace Period for Metabolism Either
    ... >>I don't expect any life without the sun. ... > response to the sun heat cycle (remnants of which we see in every cyclical ... As far as I am concerned, another form of energy might pull of the same ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: OOL II - Building Blocks
    ... >>> theory regarding the origin of life on earth. ... > several miles below the ocean floor. ... The sun is completely ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Speculation on the fate of Earth and humanity
    ... In its 4.5 billion years, Earth has evolved from its hot, violent ... birth to the celebrated watery blue planet that stands out in pictures ... ever-expanding sun, transformed into a red giant, will engulf the ... In "The Life and Death of Planet Earth," Brownlee and UW ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)