Re: Metabolism Forced Not Emerged
From: Brett Aubrey (brett.aubrey_at_shaw.ca)
Date: 10/28/04
- Next message: TomHendricks474: "Re: No Grace Period for Metabolism Either"
- Previous message: TomHendricks474: "Re: No Grace Period for Metabolism Either"
- In reply to: Brett Aubrey: "Re: Metabolism Forced Not Emerged"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 03:17:34 +0000 (UTC)
"TomHendricks474" <tomhendricks474@cs.com> wrote in message
news:cloelm$2n14$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;
>
> But you and I have two different def. of life.
> I'm guessing you say it's what follows a fluke replicator that
> emerges out of nothing
Well, you guessed wrong. I think that there's a chance that there can be
chemical replicators, and I wouldn't call it life.
> I'm saying life is any aspect of chemicals reacting to the sun
> cycle in such a way that some are more stable than others.
> We are worlds apart.
>
> while at point in time T', there was life.
> >Call it "forced", call it "emerged", call it "materialized", call it
> >"arose", call it "came into being" - life "began" between times T
> >and T'.
>
> IMO It began the minute the sun began shining. Life is the
> echo - the sun is the voice.
Life began the minute the sun began shining? Well, you're right - we are
worlds apart!
> >The factors involved were likely manifold, but I doubt
> >*anyone* thinks that life "emerged out of nothing", and there is,
> >therefore, no important difference here.
>
> Yet your replicating scenario suggests that over and over.
Whether it suggests that to you or not is immaterial. I am very definately
*not* saying "out of nothing". I simply don't have the information to know
"out of *what*".
> 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.
>
> All the rest is novel variants of surviving that (then later using that
forced
> energy to better survive - and replicate to better suvive, and hide in a
cell
> to better survive, and use chem energy storage to better survive etc.
> Then everything makes sense.
>
> >What all the factors were that played a part, no one knows, but
> >appropriate levels of sunshine (most or all frequencies) was likely
> >a major one, as likely was the existence of organic compounds.
> >The existence of water was likely a third major factor. Volcanism
> >also may have played a part. Location within the galaxy may have
> >been a factor as well. And luck, chance, fluke, etc., likely played
> >a part, too, whether for the initial appearance of life or for its
>
> disagree here - see above.
>
> >continued existence (e.g. had a Permian/KT-style event taken
> >place in the first few million years of likely tenuous life, it could
> >have been wiped out completely - just a guess).
>
> The sun would have started it up again - at least for awhile
> >
> >My issues with the (fairly popular) "chemical replication, then life"
> >scenario is that both replication and initial life are pretty unique
> >items, I think. To have (very rare) *life* piggyback on (rare)
> >*replication* seems to worsen the odds of life's emergence
> >phenomenally. That is, not only do these rare items - independent
> >replication and life - have to happen, but occurrences of them have
> >to actually intersect appropriately in both time and space).
>
> Now you are getting to the problem of the traditional views on the
> origin - it requires so much fluke events that it just didn't happen.
> It would be easier for me to sprout wings next week and fly away.
I'm saying this for *your* scenario.
> >If life is to "emerge" anyway (but *not* "out of nothing"), lets let a
> >simple life-form do the replicating
>
> No no no - there is no simple self replicator. The simple way
> is to see what happened - the sun forced energy on chemicals -
> there was no
> emerged awareness that a chemical system had to get in gear
> and then (without energy) evolve to one.
> That is an unsurmountable catch 22.
Fair enough... then we must agree to disagree. But I suggest you think of
your own scanario in terms of "at point in time T there was no life, while
at point in time T' there was life". The same Catch-22 exists in both your
scenario and my scenario, when it comes to the "spark of life" (that which
differentiates life and non-life), IMO. You just delay it a bit.
> >and not make the odds so much against
> >it. All that being said, I confess that my argument is mainly based on
> >gut feel and thinking of the odds and not much more. Regards, Brett.
> >
> >P.S. Personally, I like any of my terms in Para. 1 more than "forced".
> >
>
- Next message: TomHendricks474: "Re: No Grace Period for Metabolism Either"
- Previous message: TomHendricks474: "Re: No Grace Period for Metabolism Either"
- In reply to: Brett Aubrey: "Re: Metabolism Forced Not Emerged"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
