Re: Logic Gives But One Choice On OOL. Can any find another?

On Feb 19, 2:19 pm, Tom Hendricks <tom-hendri...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
I am a physicist. I hate to see physics jargon misused.
Logic suggests that life must have began as a reaction to the sun/uv/

First a basic premise. There is no other way to start life then with
some force.
Neither the sun or uv is a force.

No chemical system can adapt to a force that is inconstant.
Does anyone think otherwise?
Chemical systems do not a priori adapt to forces, constant or
other wise. The word adapt is poorly used here. But let a biologist
tell you why.

No chemical system can adapt to a force that is not cyclical.
If there is no cycle, then either it continues to warm up till all
chemical systems are destroyed,
or irt continues to cool down until all chemical reactions are stoped.
Does anyone think otherwise?
How about chaotic forces? Chaotic systems are not technically
cyclic.

No chemical system can adapt without some variation.
Again, chemical systems can not a priori adapt.

The only force in our environment that is
constant,
cyclical
and allows variation

Is the sun/uv.
The sun is not a force, it is a ball of gas. UV is not a force, it
is an electromagnetic wave. They exert forces, some of which are
cyclic. However, they are not the only cyclic forces on the planet.
Convection is cyclic. This includes ocean convection caused by
geothermal heat, which goes on in the deep trenches. The tides are
cyclic. Atmospheric convection is cyclic. Atmospheric convection,
although powered by the sun, is not uv. Visible light, though it comes
from the sun, is not uv.

Name any other force that fits. There is none.
I just named about four other processes that fit. By forces, you
do mean processes right?

And
when you look with an overview of what life is, you
see it's constant, cyclical, and allows for variation
that leads to adaptation. it mirrors the sun cycle in
all its parts. It is obviously a reaction to the sun cycle.
It does not mirror the sun cycle in all its parts. It cycles,
yes. I don't think the origin of the cycle is obvious.

That means that we have to give up the idea of a one
time fluke event with odds that are beyond
astronomical, (let alone having this happen multiple
times). Instead we have a sun-forced response that, didn't LEAD to
life,
but FORCED it as the most stable response in that environment.
I think you misunderstand the theories of abiotic development.
All of them include a forced-response to a cycle, although not
necessarily to the sun. The deep trench hypothesis supposed a forced
response to geothermal convection.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Logic Gives But One Choice On OOL. Can any find another?
    ... The word adapt does have ... of the sun' process. ... Are you are saying that the chemicals related to life were ... If there is no cycle, then either it continues to warm up till all ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Water Experts Find Earths Warming, Rainfall Linked to Sun
    ... Water Experts Find Earth's Warming, Rainfall Linked to Sun ... One complete "double sun cycle" occurs every 20.8 ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Sun Cycle versus Chemical Fluke Even Scenario.
    ... Some say I have to prove that life was a reaction to the sun cycle. ... Then there's the fluke replicator scenario. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: analemmatic guy
    ... and if its orbit around the Sun were perfectly ... recommend that you include the apparent arc of the Sun across the sky ... course of an annual orbit.To spend time on this artificial 'analemma' ... The Equation of Time creates the 24 hour cycle and as the Sun's ...
    (uk.sci.astronomy)
  • Miller on Submarine Vents
    ... The chemical cycle can happen without the sun cycle. ... But you can't have constant conditions outside a sun heat cycle. ... That would means the planet is not spinning. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)