Text 434, 283 rader
Skriven 2004-10-20 16:29:00 av Tomhendricks474 (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: No Grace Period for M
=================================


>> Let's turn things around. Take out the sun - tell me
>> how that would lead to life. I coudn't.
>> We have taken the heat cycle for granted. I think life
>> is a reaction to a heat cycle and  life is just that which best adapts
>to
>> the heat cycle (and later other adaptations when that prime survival need
>> is solved)

>I don't expect any life without the sun (or other source of energy).
>Again: I don't think anybody is disputing that.

But none see its importance - life is not that which
emerged independent of its environment , instead it was that which in response
to the sun heat cycle (remnants of which we see in every cyclical element of
life) was able to survive.
Life didn't evolve to get to us
It evolved to survive the heat cycle.
(One can see the sun cycle in every living thing
Note how all life shuts down in low energy, and speeds up in high - its clear
as 'day and night" that only in a very few instances can any living thing do
anything outside of the sun cycle)

>> I think we will and soon. But not if you are looking
>> for a fluke replicator out of thin air. IF you  accept
>> that life is that which best survives a heat cycle at the time of the
>> origin - then recreating the exact conditions of that heat cycle,
>> atmosphere, earth spin, tides, etc. will recreat the origin.. We are so
>> close I can almost taste it IMO.

>Well... what gives you that certainty?
>What if the chances for 'sponanious creation' of selfreplicating molecules
>is extremely small, even under the 'right' conditions?
>What if you need to run an experient on a planeary scale for 500.000.000
Because a. I don't think there was a spntanious creation, and b. I don't think
anything is 'self' replicating. Its a completely different paradigm and looks
at every action of life in completely different terms - terms that now make
sense.

Once you know that life is a reaction to a specific sun/heat cycle - you
recreate it as best you can - and it
should recreate life. (Miller's experiments where nothing but a heat cycle - in
which the lightning was the cyclical energy source instead of the sun)
It is like a basic chemistry experiment - you start with  same materials,
subject them to the same changes, and get the same product.

The difference now is that IF I am correct we know why life is here - its not a
fluke event , its the planet wide reaction to a heat cycle in a specific
environment and temp range.
Up until now the best we knew was that life
was descent with modification. I asked, descent of what?
And IF I am correct, its the descent of something that is an energy moderator
(a reaction to the heat cycle
Energy moderation with modification of that energy moderating system - through
descent) Now we can make fast progress IMO.

(snipped)
>That aside, lets look at your argument:
>
>> Let's make it not a fluke but a sure thing -
>> Let's say
>> 1. the sun powered all prebiotic processes.

Wrong assumption here. You are still thinking
of life as that which independently uses energy and
has turned to the sun for that. No.
Every aspect of prebiotic life is that which is pushed by energy - Chemicals
have no desire for metabolism.
If they did salt, water, and rocks would replicate.
Life is not the voice - its the echo, the sun is the voice.

>
>Sorry, bad assumption. We already know of lifeforms living on 
>Sulfer-energycycle deep down the sea where the sun is not delivering 
>energy. The sulfer is delevering energy, no photosyntesis.

But can you prove that that was not an evolved alt
to sun based energy?

>I think it is just a safer bet to say that energy in some form is needed.

Why?
No chemicals need energy or metabolism. It's just the opposte - the sun FORCED
energy on an inert planet - and
it FORCED every step of the way from chemicals who, if they had any desire
whatever - was probably to be left alone! Do you think bases want to replicate?
I'm being outrageous to prove a point and to clear the way for a new way of
looking at the origin.

(snipped)

>> Thus order is everything.
>> 1. 'sun selection.
>
>What do you mean by sunselection?
>Do you mean that if our planet was in the outer regions of a red giant, life
>would have a really hard time?

Two different things here. As to the 2nd one about a red giant - as you
probably know there are all kinds of restrictions on the HZ or habitable zone
of a planet  for it to have a possibility for life - and a red giant may not be
workable.
But I meant 'sun selection' as something new. It is that which survives the sun
cycle. It could be zircon, or it could be that prebiotic material that is not
burned up.

>> 2. chemical selection when sun cooled
>This means that on the surface of the planet some molecules can only exist
>when the temperature doesn't exceed certain values, right?
>Or do I miss your point?

Well I didn't say that correctly. Sun didn't
cool, the planet did.
When our new planet began to cool, temperatures dropped.
Any life that could utilize energy other than the sun's forced energy, would
have an advantage. If they could use chemical energy/ stored energy, that would
be a big advantage over that which  used sun energy alone. But remember all
these chemicals are forced to use sun energy or they become inert or shut down
(another advantage to evolving to chemical energy - then you are seldom shut
down)
>
>> 3. natural selection when chemical selection produced the first
>> replicator. Now nothing is a fluke or a dream or a perchance.
>> It's clear and obvious.

>I don't agree.
>
>I DO agree with you that the circumstances must meet certain criteria, like
>
>restaints on the temperature. Complex molecules fall appart at high 
>temperature.
>That far I agree.
>The problem is with the chemical beginning of life.
>The bottomline is that nor you, nor me, nor anybody can tell how things
>evolved in the very beginning.
>What are the chances of creating a self-replication molecule 

We are in two completely different worlds.

The first replicator is nothing but a reaction to
a heat cycle (it may well be nucleotides denaturing
in high heat or cells dumping waste) . You act as if it must be there because
we need it to get to us. Or  that it has to emerge- so we
have to think up how it could. 

I'm thinking from a completely different paradigm.
Think about what survives another day - not what
biology leads to us - there was no goal oriented
first replicator - agreed?
Think of replicating as forced changes by the sun's
heat. Nothing more at the origin.


You recreate setting a match to tinder and you get fire.
You recreate sun cycle heat on primal soup, you
get life. It has to happen - its that chemical reaction
that continues the process. What  isn't life is burned up
or shut down.
It's true you can't recreate a fluke or a magic moment
but this wasn't one - it was a planetary lab in which that that survived and
had novel ways of reacting to the forced heat had a novel name - life
It was not a single moment - it was a planetary selection process.

>DNA/RNA replicating system, which needs a whole bunch of supporting 
>molecules to deliver that trick.

You are doing wish fullfillment - take that completely
out of the equation. The only thing we should be thinking of is what best
survives that day under that sun and in that environment. Answering that is
life.

(On the fluke self replicator)
>I am not doing any of these things, and I don't know of any respectable
>scientist who does.

Yes you are, you replace creationist moment with
first replicator moment as if the latter was not divine
but a fluke - it was neither. It was the reaction to what went before and the
only cyclical heat source that went before, during, and after was the sun heat
cycle.

(snipped)

>That is why I postulated that it is likely that the first selfreplicating

They weren't self replicating at all. That is a term that is false and
shouldn't be used anymore by either of us.
If they were 'self replicating' 
they could replicate anywhere  by themselves. That is the def. of self in self
replicating.

OK take it beyond pluto and self replicate.

It is a reaction to a heat cycle - again there is no
separate independent emerged life form -
it is a REACTION to the sun cycle. It can't self
replicate
If it could it could do so not only at absolute zero
but in the center of the sun.

Again we are giving these chemicals human behavior
we think we are independent and separate from that which is around us. So we
project this on chemicals
reacting to heat.

>molecules were in an energyrich environment. That makes is many/many times
>
>more likely to create the complex molecules capable of selfreplication.
>
>Futhermore: This energy has to be available in a form suitable for those

Why - to fulfill our destiny? You act as if metabolism
was a goal not a reaction to what went before.
We are 180 degrees a part.

>>  that on the spot where the first replicating molecules where
>>>forming, the environment contained similar energy-rich molecules.

If using energy was such a positive step, why didn't
salt, water or rocks use it too?  Metabolism was not a choice, nor did it
emerge as a fluke event.

>>>Most probably NOT ATP of course, but just energyrich molecules ready to
>>>
>>>react and making their energy available to the first replicating
>>>molecules.

Cause these inert molecules wanted to get to us?
Why metabolism? 
Your way, we never ask 'why metabolism', my way it is easy to answer - it was
forced energy from the sun that was later utilized by novel variants.
Don't you see how different those two ideas are?

False scenario:
>> 1. first replicator pops up 
>
>Yup.

Magic? or fluke?  Now remember if you say fluke,
we are going to have another fluke for cells, another
for protein , another thrown in for using ATP, another
for getting them all in one place at one time, another for getting them to work
in sync,  - so the odds are still good for you that this happened?  You can't
seriously defend this can you? 
Magic is more logical.


>> 2. It has a grace period that is
>> unexplainable in any scientific rational where it is not destroyed in
>a
>> hadean time period.
>
>This Hedean period was not one of the friendliest in Earths history.
>But why is it impossible to survive this period?

With a magic wand it's a piece of cake.
Otherwise there was a 'sun selection' that weeded
out anything that was burned up.

>But maybe you should explain more about this 'grace-period'.
>Or point me to some source. I'll be happy to read some (online preferably)

It's an original idea with me. But I think it's clear
enough - you can't have energy while you are 
evolving to a system that uses the energy you need to do anything. It's a catch
22.
>
(snipped - I'm repeating myself from here
on.)

And forgive my 'bops to the head' sarcasm.
It's hopefully to suggest novel ways to look
at life that IMO help see it more clearly.

Tom (th)
---
ū RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info@bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2á˙* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 10/20/04 4:29:07 PM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)