Responses to assorted posts
- From: TomHendricks474@xxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 00:57:56 -0400 (EDT)
> 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?
Tom has never answered that. Perhaps he never will.
I thought it was obvious. Perhaps an analogy will help.
Photosynthesizers use the sun's energy. Are you asking how
could they learn to adopt more efficient ways of organising themselves?
Any aspect of a sun forced chemistry that can utilize that forced
energy for work will have an advantage.
_______
TOM:
Comment: I am continually amazed at how those with OOL
scenarios have such a fetish for chance,luck,fluke, fate,
kismet, odds, and all the rest.
I would think scientists of all people, would be the last - not
the first - to conjure up luck for 99% of their origin scenarios.
I think generally speaking the hypothesis with the least
dependence on luck and most dependence on evidence will
be the closets to the true origin.
________
Poster said,
Actually many molecules *are* self-acting, in the sense that they have
preferences for chemical reactions they'll engage in, which other
molecules they'll react with, not anything emotional, just a fact of
their physical nature.
Tom
But carry the thought back to see clearly. All chemical reaction
preferences are within a narrow temperature range. Thus for any
chemical reaction to happen the chemicals must be at the correct
temp parameters. In the origin these are established mostly by
the sun. You end up with chemical symbiosis - chemical reactions
that work together because they work best within certain
temp zones. Try your origin scenario in the middle of the sun - temp,
or at absolute zero temp, and tell me how they work. Thus temp
zone is everything (liquid water for ex.)
Poster said:
If they have free energy trapped in a
meta-stable state, they can release that energy in a reaction, thereby
performing work upon whatever the other molecule was in the reaction,
TOM:
Here we anthropomorphisize - there is no advantage for inert chemicals
to work - except that it helps origin theorists to get their chemicals
closer to their def. of life. Only when energy is forced into the system will
inert chemicals have any chemical reactions. Radiation, vents, lightning,
just aren't enough. That leaves the sun cycle.
_______
TOM said:
> Changes were forced on chemicals by the heat cycle into reactions to
> that heat cycle. If they were more stable then they lasted.
Poster
Lasted how long?
Tom:
> If not they were probably destroyed.
Poster
Got destroyed how quickly? What was the halflife of the "stable"
molecules you so-often tout, and what was the halflife of the "not
stable" molecules you so-often demean?
TOM
The point is not how long, but longer than the other molecules.
Poster:
It seems to me that any molecule that had a half life of even as long
as ten million years would be totally gone by now, whereas a less
stable molecule that replicated could still be around today, not the
original molecule, but many many copies of the same molecular species.
TOM
But you're thinking of life as single organisms, instead of a continuous
run - thus your replicator would be the most stable in my scenario too.
Both replication and metabolism are WAYS that make certain chemicals
more stable (not less). That's my whole point. The best ways to survive
were selected, and replication and metabolism were the best ways to
survive (and adpot further during that survival)
But I will add this about time - "It can be calculated that virtually
all the water in the oceans must circulate through hydrothermal vents
every 10 million years. Because vents were probably more plentiful
on the early Earth than they are today, the cycling time was
probably even shorter." and more importantly this passage throws
'cold water' on ventists, "When samples of water from hydrothermal vents
are analyzed, no amino acids are detectable, even though they were
present in measurable concentrations in the seawater before it
was transported through the hot vent systems." Though this does
not apply to water in rocks and ponds. (quotes Wills, Bada)
Also there is this - the Earth alone of Venus, E, Mars, has plate
techtonics. This moves the vents - thus life would move or
perish with little constancy. AND with the collision era,
it would be very hard for any ventist scenario, life to survive the changes.
Also there is no wet/dry cycle which I think is necessary for OOL.
Yet in this regard Mars has constant volcanoes - note the
solar system's largest, Olympus Mons. Perhaps ventists should
take their theory to Mars. Their the vents would never shift.
And if there was water at one time, and the UV was strong enough
that far out....
________
Poster
whereas a less stable molecule that replicated...
TOM
I don't think that replicating molecule would be less stable -
through it and its copies it would be much much more stable.
a stable line, not an instable connected group of separate beings.
Let's not anthropomorphisize life into human like separate entities.
Along with metabolism, replication is one of the two most
stable aspects of life. And two that best adapt life to the
sun cycle.
________
Poster
.... Very nicely put. That author is a bit brighter
than Tom Hendricks.
TOM:
I doubt it. I have the sun behind me - remember! LOL
_______
Poster:
Despite searching quadrillions of molecules, it becomes clear that
such a spontaneous RNA-replicator is unlikely to be found (11).
Tom: agreed 100%
Reports of self replication of nucleotides (2, 4, 6) and peptides (12)
still depend upon human intervenience (for instance by changing the
environmental conditions between two rounds of replicaton or by
denaturing the double strands). The problem of how to denature the
double nucleotide-strand in a nonenzymatical manner has been
overlooked and has contributed to the failure to establish molecular
self-replication.
TOM: agreed - the obvious denaturing and annealing cycle caused by
the sun has been overlooked and has contributed to the failure.... etc.
Hey Tom, why don't you tell that author about how the heat cycle caused
by day/night cycling of solar input does the task just fine? :-)
TOM:
I did. See above.
___________
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Responses to assorted posts
- From: Perplexed in Peoria
- Re: Responses to assorted posts
- Prev by Date: Re: Felsenstein and reproductive excess
- Next by Date: Re: There was never a moment in time when
- Previous by thread: Re: There was never a moment in time when
- Next by thread: Re: Responses to assorted posts
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
