Re: There was never a moment in time when
- From: "Tom Hendricks" <tomhendricks474@xxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 11:49:18 -0400 (EDT)
> There is nothing anthropomorpic in what I'm saying. The point I am
making
> about learning is just that evolution is a process of trial and
error, and
> that once it finds a new and better solution, then it must 'remember'
to
> keep this solution. If it is unable to remember the new solution,
then it
> will diverge in a random way to some new behaviour. This is
equivalent, in
> your terminology, to saying that the new behaviour must be stable.
But ask this 'better solution to what"? And the answer is to better
adapt to the sun heat cycle. All life is chemistry in a temperature
zone -
a very narrow temperature zone. No life can live or exist outside of
that
temperature zone (excluding some weird novelties).
The reason all the aspects of life came together is that because they
are all chemically active within the same temperature zone. Thus there
is a temperature zone symbiosis going on.
Sun is not one of many options. It's the only option.
For any ongoing chemical system you need first an energy source that is
1. non - random so it is stable enough to build on
2. variable so there will be variants produced in that stable system
3. a very specific temperature zone for liquid water.
4. Lasts for billions of 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.
> >
> I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.
See below.
>
> > Take out the sun and all stops. Nothing is independent in life IMO.
> >
>
> Certainly energy is needed to drive it. A lifeform avoids increasing
its
> entropy by using energy to ensure that the entropy increase occurs in
the
> the environment. This is a fact about what is required to maintain
life in
> a world subject to the second law of thermodynamics, but it doesn't
explain
> the origin of life.
Life is the echo not the voice. The sun is the voice. Every aspect of
life
can be defined as that chemical system which better adapts to the
sun/heat cycle.
The sun is not a component of life. That's like saying when I wake up,
that I think
I'll choose that my body is mass today. I'll choose that its made up of
atoms.
That is anthropomorphic. There is no choice. No aspect of life is a
choice -
other than adapt to the sun and be more stable or be destroyed.
Again the challenge. Name any aspect of life that doesn't better adapt
it to
the sun heat cycle. Start with metabolism and replication and a cell -
all better stabilize. Evolution, diversity, etc. etc. - all better
stabilize
and adapt to the sun heat cycle. Thus life can be defined as that which
best survives a sun heat cycle. Thus energy moderation with
modification
through descent.
It's not vague entropy IMO, as its the very definite sun forced
energy,
that has to be dealt with. Life did not pop then adapt to what was
around it.
What does explain life is first to see life as not an independent fluke
event that led to natural selection in a 'pop and adapt' scenario.
Instead it was what
was forced into existence by the sun heat cycle. Forced to change every
step of the way, every day, and forced out of existence when it wasn't
adapted well enough.
>
> > 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.
>
> That's fair enough, but again it doesn't explain the nature of the
first
> such chemical system. I am interested in the idea that some sort of
> metabolic network played the crucial role. The general concensus
seems to
> be that a template replicating molecule was the key mechanism. I
don't
> think that the difference between these two points of view is a
detail. We
> can't say we understand the origin of life unless we have a
reasonable
> model of the first evolving system.
We have lots of clues. We have a temperature heat cycle somewhere
between
0-100C that forced into being this system of adaptation of which one
aspect is its replicating system.
(Natural selectionists see that as the main thing as if metabolism was
a
foot note. I see both as two sides of a coin of sun adaptation).
I think I can
further refine the temp cycle to somewhere nearer the 100C end. See new
post today.
Best wishes,
Tom
> --
> Chris Gordon-Smith
> London
> http://graffiti.virgin.net/c.gordon-smith/
.
- References:
- There was never a moment in time when
- From: TomHendricks474
- There was never a moment in time when
- Prev by Date: Re: Reproductive Excess: Is Required
- Next by Date: Re: Single Chance for Origin
- Previous by thread: Re: There was never a moment in time when
- Next by thread: Paper: Metal ions and RNA folding: a highly charged topic with a dynamic future
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
