Re: David Deamer's Ideas

Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
"Tim Tyler" <seemysig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:fqpb7m$u4o$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The other main possibility for an energy source is
geothermal energy - mosly resudual energy from the
earth's formation - which fuels most of the rest
of life on earth via subterranean vents.

Some OOL enthusiasts do think geothermal energy was
important at the origin - but IMO, the idea doesn't
fit in terribly well with the other clues we have.

No one (except maybe Antonie Muller) thinks that it is
the 'thermal' part of geothermal that supplies the energy.
Instead the hypothesis is the proximate cause of the
energy is chemical deviations from equilibrium. Of course,
the ultimate cause of these deviations (and the source of the
continuing replenishment of the deviations) is geothermal,
but the causation is very indirect.

I understand all this - but I'm sure you can also understand
how I still think the other clues we have nontheless point
elsewhere for the origin of the first organisms.

The last thing the first organisms would have needed is a
whole bunch of sticky, reactive molecules to gum up their
works.

Molecular self-assembly without errors depends on
the reactions involved being easily reversibile - so any
mistakes can be easily undone.

That's not what you are likely to get around a black smoker.
Instead, what you will get are tars.

Having said all that, I myself /do/ invoke geothermal energy here:

http://originoflife.net/location/

.....though it plays a negligible role as the source of the
organisms' energy.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@xxxxxxxxxxx Remove lock to reply.

.

Relevant Pages
Loading