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

On Mar 14, 4:34 pm, Tom Hendricks <tom-hendri...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 12, 11:32 pm, Lorentz <drosen0...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Having water in liquid form is proof of a sun temperature cycle.
Absolute nonsense. Liquid water is a proof that there is a heat
source, regardless of cycle. There doesn't have to be any cycle to
melt ice.

Sea as origin? Problems - no dry phase means no polymerization,
Total nonsense. Polymers form in liquids. They sometime
precipitate out of the water, but not always.

and
most
chemistry is too diluted in the sea.
Your half truth is accepted. Your exact statement is wrong.
Chemistry is too diluted in the BULK liquid of the sea. There are
solid objects that form surfaces. Even a liquid hydrocarbon floating
on the surface of the water can form a surface where chemisticals can
be concentrated. Colloids in the sea can concentrate chemicals on
their surface.
Do you know what micelles are? Please look them up. There is
plenty of surface area on colloidal particles, such as micelles.

Plus many more problems.
Tidal pool or shores - maybe - they would have both a dry hot phase
and a
cool wet phase.
Okay. Maybe tidal pools had a role. But this is sand in the eyes.
Tidal pools don't have true solar cycles and don't involve UV. Their
cycles are caused mostly by the gravity of the moon, with contribution
of gravity from the sun.
And in tidal pools there are cycles. The daily cycle of a tidal pool
is 12 hours, very different from the 24 solar cycle. The

UV is flooding the earth and growing stronger from 4.5 - 1.5. How can
you not talk about it? If not the sea, and not the vents (same
problems
with an added one - vents sterilize the ocean)
Illogical argument. Vents don't sterilize the ocean.Vents don't
sterilize ALL life. Just some life.
It the same problem up or down. Either life started elsewhere and
moved into the vents, or life started in the vents and moved
elsewhere. In either case, your premise is wrong. Any arguement
starting with that premise is wrong, regardless of where life
started.
Many forms of life not only live in the vents, they can't live
anywhere else. Where in the vents is life sterilized? Only deep down.
It is actually the sulfuric acid, the chemicals generated by
geothermal heat, that allows life to live down there.
Can you and I live deep in a vent? I can't, but maybe my
ancestors did. We may have adapted to life in the oceans. If life did
start on the surface of the ocean, starting with UV, we have the
opposite problem. Bacteria had to adapt to living in the vents using
the sulfuric acid.
So I go back to my original questions. Why is UV magical? Why is
the solar cycle so magical?

then you are left with
places that are flooded with UV.
Okay, your nonsequitor is done. Back to my original question. What
is magical about UV?
Just for nostalgia, I will refute an argument you once made long
ago. The aromatic amino acids happen to have an absorption band in the
UV spectral range. Your idea (which was never developed fully) is that
the existence of such an absorption band implies that UV started
life.
This argument is irrational for several reasons. One reason is
that most amino acids are completely transparent to the UV that could
reach the ground in ANY atmosphere. The aromatic amino acids are an
exception, not the rule. Glutamic acid (of Chines restaurant fame) is
completely transparent to UV. Another reason: the absorption band may
have helped the pioneers that reached the surface of the oceans
survive. Life could have developed and evolved in a vent, and then
some brave procaryotes with tryptophan colonized the surface. The
tryptophan is very likely to be the earliest form of sun screen.
Note: I am not clinging to the idea of vent. All theories of AOL
are interesting to me (including yours). However, your arguments
concerning the inadequacy of other theories are illogical.
So I go back to my original questions. Why is UV magical? Why is
the solar cycle so magical?

The sun is the strongest source of
energy at this time. It is also the most constant.
I thought you said it cycled? In any case, geothermal energy has
been around almost as long. Gravitational forces even longer.
It is also the
thing
that keeps the earth at the temperature of liquid water.
Agreed. Without the sun to keep water liquid, other models don't
work. However, the visible and infrared energy of the sun could keep
us just as warm. And there doesn't have to be a cycle to keep us warm.
The cycle, if one is needed, can come from something other than the
sun.
So I go back to my original questions. Why is UV magical? Why
is the solar cycle so magical?

It seems to
be both the most damaging force, and the most powerful force for
change and for chemical selection - that whichis not destroyed,
survives..
Duh.
There are other energy sources but they are not constant and cyclical.
Not true. For one thing, the two statements logically contradict
each other. For another thing, there are many energy sources that
cycle independently of the solar cycle, and have cycles that are as
persistent or more as the solar cycle. I have mentioned them before,
when you made the same incorrect statement before. Are you reading
anything I write?

How can you build a stable chemistry system on unstable energy events?
One catch about Miller's experiment is that his recreated lightning
was
a constant and predictable energy source in the LAB. But in nature
lighting is not so regimented. Neither is any other energy source
except the SUN.
What are you talking about? Lightning occurs every time there is a
thunderstorm, which in my area is several times a year. The
probability per unit time per unit volume is well defined. The
functional dependence on time is not predictable, but there is no need
to predict the timing exactly. Even in Miller's laboratory, I am not
sure the timing was determined experimentally. The arcing wasn;t set
by a timer. There was no "regiment.">
Note that though everyone tries to devise a scenario to avoid
the damage of UV, we have photosynthesis (and probably our oldest
real evidence of life at 3.5 is very similar to bacteria that
photosynthesize.)
And very similar to autotrophic bacteria that digest sulfuric acid.

The toughest question for you is why would first life
a. run from UV because of its damaging affect, but at the same time
b. get its power source from UV/sun as photosynthesis.
That doesn't make a bit of sense.

There is that study (see my UV recent posts and my paper's referendes)
that UV was actually helpful in
the development of nucleotides.
Some nucleotides have an absorption band in the near UV. I give the
same counterarguments I offered for amino acids.
If we look at life as my definition -
that chemistry which
best stabilizes under the UV bombardment and in that environment, you
see that every definition of life
is just that. Cell's, metabolism, replication, coding, they are all
just tricks to help
survive the UV infested environment.
Or the acidic environment?
No origin scenario can go on without talking about UV. Like I said
it's the
500 pound gorilla in the room.
Which probably couldn't live in strong UV.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Human capitol
    ... ..Change happens most often via the death and rebirth cycle. ... Its the cycle of life ... then clubs are used...and that lasts until the ... Ideas however are bullet proof. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Wet/dry
    ... power source for every aspect of life, ... is that chemical system that is stable in a sun'heat cycle. ... The importance of hydrophobic (water hating) vs. hydrophilic ... amino acids in the makeup of the early genetic code. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Life likely on Mars
    ... Maybe as recently as the last ice-age cycle on Mars. ... Life needs what some might call a persistant temp gradient. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • 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)