Re: Chemicals Do Not Benefit
- From: "Ron O" <rokimoto@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 01:35:55 -0500 (EST)
Tom Hendricks wrote:
> > > You've certainly NOT proved that life only requires replication.
> >
> > SNIP:
> >
> > Chemicals exist. None of the chemical reactions needed for life are
> > thermodynamically impossible. Life is made of the chemicals, and
> > nothing else that we can determine at this time. Got any evidence for
> > vitalism that amounted to anything in the last few hundred years? Life
> > replicates. Got any evidence for anything else that is needed?
> >
> > Ron Okimoto
>
> For life to have begun it needed a long list of things. Where did these
> chemicals come from? They need a stable long life sun for forced
> energy, they need a heat cycle that neither keeps getting warmer
> for ever or the reverse, they need a planet gravity that holds in
> some but not all gases, they may even need a jupiter type planet
> to safeguard it, a moon, etc. etc.
> Life can only replicate at a certain HZ in certain temps under
> certain conditions and never independently from its forced energy
> by the sun. There is no self replication.
Your original proposition was:
"There is only one - any chemical that survives longer
has a benefit from those that do not survive.
Thus stability and stability alone is the single sole
advantage. "
Chemicals turn over. It is the replication of the lifeform that allows
the same type of chemical, like DNA, to exist over millions of years.
They aren't made of the same atoms, but are replicated.
Life did need a long list of things to happen, but it wasn't what we
call a lifeform until it could do what?
Ron Okimoto
.
- References:
- Chemicals Do Not Benefit
- From: TomHendricks474
- Chemicals Do Not Benefit
- Prev by Date: evolutionary success of humans
- Next by Date: Re: Article: On Noise in Gene Expression
- Previous by thread: Re: Chemicals Do Not Benefit
- Next by thread: Re: Chemicals Do Not Benefit
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
