Re: Metabolism Forced Not Emerged

From: TomHendricks474 (tomhendricks474_at_cs.com)
Date: 10/27/04 

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:25:42 +0000 (UTC)

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

It began after the sun shone through -
If not then suggest a way life started without the sun shinning on water.

>> 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.

Those are all sides of the same coin - they are what happens when the sun cycle
shines down on a watery planet and the chemicals change because of it.
Do you really disagree with this?

>> 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(?)

No - 100% uncertainty without it.
You can't have an echo emerge without a voice.
>
>> 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? .

Yes! You say the sun produced some monomers - then conveniently got out of the
way when the replicator popped up and didn't disturb it on its mission to get
to metabolism
(which by the way it had no system of metabolism to move it forward)

Then when all this magic is accomplished - the sun comes back from its vacation

>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Metabolism Forced Not Emerged
    ... >time T, there was no life; ... I'm saying life is any aspect of chemicals reacting to the sun cycle in such a ... As I've said there is no advantage for a replicator - no advantage to using ... energy - the only advantage is surviving the heat cycle Period. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • 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: Problems in OOL Scenarios
    ... > Before the first successful replicator, ... My point is first these chemicals must be stable in this environment. ... That suggests life needed food, ... And if you suggest that the sun forced denaturation of all nucleic ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Which Came First
    ... > raw materials.") While I would say that restricting his OOL ... life is somehow an independent start - as if life awoke from ... It comes first and everything is a slave to the sun - PERIOD. ... Sun energy force doesn't change ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Metabolism Forced Not Emerged
    ... and I wouldn't call it life. ... > IMO It began the minute the sun began shining. ... > said there is no advantage for a replicator - no advantage to using ... > energy - the only advantage is surviving the heat cycle Period. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)