Re: There was never a moment in time when

Chris Gordon-Smith wrote:
> TomHendricks474@xxxxxx wrote:
>
> > There was never a moment in time when life began.
> >
> > OOL scenarios suggest that when a first replicator
> > replicates, and those survive to replicate again, and that
> > leads to life; then that
> > first replicator signaled the beginning of life.*
> >
> > The OOL was a long reaction to the sun cycle that in every
> > step was more stable and better 'adapted' to its environment
> > through stability selection (that which is most stable in that
> > environment).
> > This process began with the sun (forming the planets, forming
> > their atmosphere, forming the seas, the prebiotic soups, the
> > prebiotic chemicals, processes, etc. etc. ) . We must count the
> > origin as no independent development of one replicator,
> > but instead as an outgrowth
> > of sun forced chemistry on an entire planet.
> >
> > Comment?
> >
> > *No - that suggests the scientific version of a creationist moment
> > with the god being a fluke, or luck, or blind chance, or fate.
>
> Here are some quick thoughts on this:-
>
> I tend to think that if we want to understand the origin of life,
then we
> need to understand the origin of evolution.
>
> Evolution is a process of learning from trial and error that can lead
> systems to organise themselves in more efficient ways.
>
> The precise point at which such systems are regarded as 'alive' could
be
> regarded as a matter of definition.
>
> The idea that the origin of life has to be based primarily on a
template
> replicator (I call this the Genetic View) seems narrow and
implausible to
> me. I say this (in the case of RNA World theories) mainly because
there is
> no explanation of homochirality and no convincing answer to Eigen's
> Paradox.
>
> I do however think that separating proto-organisms out as distinct
> individuals subject to natural selection (not necessarily Darwinian)
is
> probably important as part of the trial and error process.
>
> To talk about the origin as the "outgrowth of sun forced chemistry on
an
> entire planet" is fair enough, but I don't think it gets us very far.
I
> think its probably correct (although it appears to rule out thermal
vents
> and panspermia). The question is however: How did a sun forced
chemistry
> lead to a system that could learn to adopt more efficient ways of
> organising itself by a process of trial and error?

We must not anthropomorphisize chemicals. The idea is wrong that they
want to be separate
or are self acting, or are independent etc. I know what you mean but
we have to be careful, chemicals don't learn. Changes were forced on
chemicals by
the heat cycle into reactions to that heat cycle. If they were more
stable
then they lasted. If not they were probably destroyed. IF you look at
life
as that which is more stable then you see that it's lasted about 4
billion years.

IF you see it as anthropomorphic steps - each independent - (even the
idea
of life as indy organism, versus life as a genetic stream is
anthropomorphic)
then it is not stable. Its a matter of definition.

Again I challenge all to find any aspect of what we call 'life' or any
process
of life, that makes it LESS stable in its environment.

Take out the sun and all stops. Nothing is independent in life IMO.

Also I would add this. natural selection tells us how a chemical system
(LIFE)
changes and evolves. But it does not tell us what is being replicated.
And Darwin must have seen that problem though he never mentioned it.
We can't just say life is a replicator that replicates a replicating
system.
That is meaningless loop logic.

What is being replicated is a chemical system that better adapts to its
environment through novel ways such as metabolism, replication, cell
membrane,
etc.

Best wishes,
Tom

>
> More on my views (esp. the case for the Metabolic View) are to be
found at
> the URL mentioned below.
>
> --
> Chris Gordon-Smith
> London
> http://graffiti.virgin.net/c.gordon-smith/


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Origin - the wrong word?
    ... Yet for me it is clear that life is not a beginning, ... Here comes the magic, 2 doses: first we pop up a replicator, then ... The chemicals involved are stable in that environment and stable ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: There Was No Grace Period (copy)
    ... > every aspect of life before the replicator, ... > survives or is more stable in its environment. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Origin - the wrong word?
    ... which when combined with the rest of the chemicals already ... All life is a reaction to a sun/heat cycle. ... Had the environment been a single temp - no life. ... but already at that point billions of copies of the replicator ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: OOL II - Building Blocks
    ... what he expected would be produced, and answered "Beilstein". ... I would expect the very earliest life, such as the first replicator, ... not blocking random chemicals from ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Life in Universe Lecture
    ... > Life in the Universe ... > the total amount of disorder, or entropy, in the universe, always ... How could they pop up outside the environment, ... Again why would any chemicals do anything unless forced to by ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)