Re: Two Points
- From: "g" <gillawton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 22:40:31 -0400 (EDT)
<TomHendricks474@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:d9o3nf$1l7$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Looking at the origin - there are two basics that
> I think many miss.
>
> 1. If the sun heat cycle is not the power source for the origin,
> then take it out of your scenario and suggest how life
> could begin without it. I don't think anyone can.
> Nor can they take out the sun/ temperature cycle that puts
> the earth in the temperature zone that allows for
> liquid water.
I am totally with you on sun source, but would see that as
being capable of being broken down a little farther by going
back another step -- where the intergalactic dust of another
star, or stars, was gathering and heat was being generated by
physical laws impacting that process. The accumulation
that became the sun reached a critical mass (and accordant
heat) at which a kind of "burn" began, whereas Earth and
the other planets coalesced to less than such critical mass.
But the center of the Earth is also quite hot, and if I am not
mistaken microorganisms continue to be disovered in cores
taken from deeper and deeper strata of Earth... with no sign
the deepest is yet ascertained. Some theorists (again, if my
memory is correct) believe life COULD have started below
the surface of the earth and worked its way outward. As for
me, I cannot help but wonder if scientists of the future will
ever come up with irrefutable evidence to rule that in or out.
The earth absorbs energy from the sun and (again, if my
information and understanding are correct) the sun might be
the source of life origin, in EITHER case. Would you
rule out the possibility that life could have started deep down
and from the energy emitted from Earth's core. I know of no
way to establish that, but if you have some facts or reasoning
that would tend to rule it out, I would welcome more on your
thinking on it.
> So I would suggest we are left with the fact that there
> must be a sun/heat cycle for the origin. The real question
> is how much emphasis should we put on it - not if we should
> consider it or not.
Science moves forward BECAUSE such questions are not
swept under the rug, not in spite of the fact they are not.
Think on !
> 2. Another aspect of the sun/heat cycle that I've never
> heard anyone but me mention, is this. If there was no
> variation in the sun heat cycle then life could not have
> variants - and could not further 'adapt' or become more
> stable in that environment.
> We are left with only these other possibilities -
> a heat source that is not cyclical but random and/or
> a heat source that is constant without variation.
> Neither would allow for the origin.
>
> Tom Hendricks
Tom, I appreciate the sun/heat cycle as giving variety to
things... but also some other things, including but not
limited to: tides (primarily lunar driven), the earth's
wobble, the alternation of electrical polarity, the
subduction cycle (or process); the movements of
tectonic plates (affected by tidal forces, by Earth's
rotation, by shrinkage during cooling, volcanism,
comet collisions, etc. Come to think of it, even the
interaction of flora and fauna themselves with the
atmosphere have altered the atmosphere, in a way
that is to some extent reciprocal in introducing new
changes, in some ways cyclical, and in some ways
sporadic or intermittent, in some ways acute, and
in some ways chronic. Are these included in your
picture? If so, good. If not, then have you ruled
them out of it somehow. I am enjoying your thinking
on it, and wish only to suggest these possible additional
variables into it if they are useful to you.
g
.
- References:
- Two Points
- From: TomHendricks474
- Two Points
- Prev by Date: applause for admin.
- Next by Date: Re: specialization momentum
- Previous by thread: Two Points
- Next by thread: Two Points
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
