Re: Must have a Cyclical Energy Source to Start Life

Dear Tim,
Your comments do, indeed, seem very unconstructive. What you really
should do is give a logical rebuttal to my ignorant comments but,
instead, you take recourse in discourtesy. That does leave me
wondering why, after demanding to know my qualifications, you are so
reluctant to disclose your own. Could it be that it us actually you
who lacks relevant knowledge?

In my opinion, rebutting criticism is necessary if scientific
knowledge is to grow and, if my comments are as ignorant as you say,
the job of rebutting them should be quite a simple matter, especially
for someone who has expertise and qualifications in the field.

In any event, let's just focus on one of my criticisms. Your (and
Cairns-Smith's) approach to the origin of life is based on silicate
crystals which, as their name implies, are based on silicon atoms.
These, you assert, became the "genome" for replicating crystals and
the cryctals began to evolve - ultimately becoming life as we now know
it.

What you and Cairns-Smith have proposed is an evolutionary process
taking place in a purely chemical situation. That is a hard thing to
set up but, if it could work, it would be interesting and it might
lead somewhere. Unfortunately, from a purely chemical point of view, I
think that it would not work and that it therefore did not, in fact,
lead anywhere. Moreover, as you surely know, life as we now know it is
based on carbon chemistry, not on silicon chemistry and most organisms
do not require any silicon atoms at all. I therefore think that, even
if you could convince me that Cairns-Smith's mechanism for chemical
evolution might actually work, I would still think that it did not, in
fact, lead to life as we know it. I would still think it more sensible
to look for some form of chemical evolution based on carbon-chemistry.

I think such a carbon-based chemistry does exist because I have
described one - a purely chemical, evolutionary mechanism based on
carbon chemistry that seems workable (to me) and which, in my opinion,
could produce a chemical evolution capable of leading to life as we
know it. However, just at the moment I do not want to argue for my
particular mechanism and, I have to concede, other people may be able
to invent other carbon chemistries than mine with which I might be
obliged to compete.

So, for now, I just want to focus on this difference between carbon
and silicon. My problem is that I just cannot see why you want to
begin with silicon at all. My question is this, "Why do you insist on
advocating Cairns Smith's silicon-based chemistry as the origin of
life, rather than looking for some carbon-based alternative that might
also be able to evolve?"

I look forward to your answer.

Sincerely

John Hewitt


On Jan 30, 5:41=A0pm, Tim Tyler <seemy...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 29, 9:04=3DA0pm, verulam <johnhewit...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Yes they are. =A0You are *totally* clueless about the topic you
are rattling on about in public. =A0The theory makes no sense
to you - because you don't understand the first thing about it.

Now, I recommed *again* that you do what I have already once
recommeded you do - go away, and don't bother me again
with your tedious and tiresome blather until you have a got a
clue about the topic under discussion.

[moderator's note: Now, Tim. That's hardly constructive. Boys,
let's play nice. - JAH]

--
__________
=A0|im |yler =A0http://timtyler.org/=A0t...@xxxxxxxxxxx =A0Remove lock to
reply.


.

Quantcast