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

Tom,
OK, you feel the nucleotide problem can be solved but I do not agree.
I think nucleotides can only arise as part of an established
metabolism, which is a "metabolism first" viewpoint.

Further, I disagree with your comments about life being a stable
response to the environment. I disagree both in general and in the
context of your opinions on nucleotides.

Nucleotides are high energy compounds and are not likely to be a "most
stable" response to anything. Also, from a thermodynamic point of
view, life in general seems to consist of what Prigogine called
dissipative structures - structures that are formed as a result of
ongoing energy fluxes. Dissipative structures are high energy
"objects" - using the word object very generally - and physicists
usually cite waves, oscillations and vortices as examples.

So, I think the oscillations I talk about are dissipative structures
but I cannot see any chemical mechanism that would lead directly from
temperature cycling to nucleotides.

Sincerely

John Hewitt


On Feb 26, 6:44 pm, Tom Hendricks <tom-hendri...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

No I agree that there is a nucleotide problem.

Personally I think once we can make nucleotides (if we can), then that
will lead
to our understanding replication as a forced heat cycle that leads to
a denaturation and annealing
process of those first nucelotides - much like PCR - which would
force daily
"replication' of all nucleotides in the heat, and form new variations
in the annealing cool part of the cycle.
But that to me is a subset of the bigger issue - life is the most
stable response to the environment

And I think it is wrong to look to a pop and adapt scenario alone -
where
magic chemistry pops up and then magically it is not destroyed until
it has a chance to safely adapt. I call this the fluke squared
scenario of life.
How do you handle the fluke squared problem?

But in my case, if life is a response to the environment - the most
stable response.
There is never a fluke factor. It is there because it was always the
most
stable reaction to that environment, not a fluke event, and because it
was
always the most stable, it needed no fluke time to adapt. It was
always
adapting - that is what life is. I also see a lot of anthropomorphism
in these
scenarios that should be avoided.
Life is, like upper class, outside of the environment and independent
of the 'lower' environment. I say it was a response to, and never
independent
from - in other words there was never a self anything - it was always
a
forced response to forces in the environment - the largest being the
sun/uv etc.


.

Relevant Pages