Text 601, 220 rader
Skriven 2004-11-01 06:16:00 av Brett Aubrey (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: Metabolism Forced
=============================


"TomHendricks474" <tomhendricks474@cs.com> wrote in message
news:cm3bn6$2jut$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
> I've lost the original thread to this,
> and so I start this new.
> >> But you and I have two different def. of life.
> >> I'm guessing you say it's what follows a fluke replicator
> >> that emerges out of nothing
> >Well, you guessed wrong.  I think that there's a chance that
> >there can be chemical replicators, and I wouldn't call it life.
>
> So you agree that before the first replicator
> there was a type of chemical replication going on.

As I said, I think there's a chance that there can be chemical replicators.
And I think if there was, the chances that life "emerged" or "was forced"
out of them is far more remote than some other process (unknown to me)
where there was no chemical replication going on.  This is because I think
that 2 rare, complex and overlapping events (replication, then life) are
less likely than 1 (life, which learns how to replicate, as we know it did).

> Was there also a type of 'chemical selection"
> I tend to think that there was in the loosest sense
> of hte word.

Possibly, but doubtful that a replicating one that led to life.

> But what causes their chemical activity?
> Do they have chemical activity outside of the sun cycle?

Yes, but the sun's a biggie.

> >> IMO It began the minute the sun began shining. Life is the
> >> echo - the sun is the voice.
> >Life began the minute the sun began shining?  Well,
> >you're right - we are worlds apart!
> The process could not begin before that.

Wrong.  But if life started here it *did not* begin before that, since the
sun was shining ~5.0 BYA(?).  And either way, the sun was likely a
major factor for life here (as we've agreed upon before).

> Whether it always leads to life - I doubt it.

Agreed.  Although by stating that life is part of the sun cycle, as
you did before, you were saying the reverse of this.  And as
your continued term "forced" seems to imply.

> But for all these processes that are needed -
> you have to have energy - and the only energy
> of note at this time was the sun (see chart)

Chart?

> Where else?

Volcanic activity, for example.  Possibly (major) impacts, as well.
Lightening for a third (and yes, even though the sun helps this
along, I'll still place it in the "else" category).

> (snipped)
> >> Now you are getting to the problem of the traditional views on the
> >> origin - it requires so much fluke events that it just didn't happen.
> >> It would be easier for me to sprout wings next week and fly away.
> >I'm saying this for *your* scenario.
> All I need is a heat cycle - something cyclical
> a variable but cyclical energy source - with
> certain other necessary conditions.

Until you can produce life from these, you can't be sure.  (I'll admit I
can't be sure of my case either but yours seems infinitely more improbable
to me.)

> >> No no no - there is no simple self replicator.  The simple way
> >> is to see what happened - the sun forced energy on chemicals -
> >> there was no
> >> emerged awareness that a chemical system had to get in gear
> >> and then (without energy) evolve to one.
> >> That is an unsurmountable catch 22.
> >Fair enough... then we must agree to disagree.  But I suggest you think
> >of your own scanario in terms of "at point in time T there was no life,
> >while at  point in time T' there was life".  The same Catch-22 exists in
> >both your scenario and my scenario, when it comes to the "spark of life"
> >(that which differentiates life and non-life), IMO.  You just delay it a
> >bit.
>
> There was no spark - that suggests a moment - and that
> before that moment there was not life, and after there was.

Not necessarrily.  I've said before - more than once - that I have never
placed a value on T' > T.  What I said above means current life.  Do you
disagree that you and I for instance, exist as living beings because of a
"spark of life"?  If you died tomorrow, is there not some spark of life now

that is no longer there a day later?  To study your physical body a minute
before death and a minute after would not reveal any atoms out of place (I
don't think), but something's changed.

Now take the same concept and reverse it.  At some time T, there was nothing
we would consider "life" on this planet while at time T' there was (true
whether T' > T was 1 second or 314,967,278 years.)  There'd be something
with a spark of life involved at time T'.  You simply *have* to agree with
this, don't you?  There are billions upon billions of sparks of life (or
come up with another similar term) on this planet at this time, but at some
point in time, roughly 3.8 to 4.2 billion years ago, there was not a single
one (I'm getting repetitive, but it seems necessary).

This is still relevant in a panspermia scenario, where life may not have
existed on the planet until a small sample fell to its surface, got stuck in
the high atmosphere, etc., etc.

> It was a gradual process forced by a cyclical heat source as first
> metabolism -through a series of events - that led to (along the way)
> a replicator in the Darwinian sense

But at some point you surely must admit that there was likely no life on the
planet, while at another point, there was?  This seems a no-brainer to me
but you keep fighting it(?).

> - that was no more than a notable step of the process - as was the ability
> not only to survive the heat but to utilzie it, or the ability to not only
> survive and use, but store, or the ability to hide in a cell, or the
> ability for the cell to divide, or etc. etc. etc. etc.
>
> We humans love a moment in time - a birth event.
> I think that does not apply here to the origin.
> Tom (the orignal)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Since you lost the thread, here's some of it to which I responded earlier:

> >And with yours, life never emerged, not at any "point" (or period) of
> >time?
>
> It began after the sun shone through - If not then
> suggest a way life started without the sun shinning on water.

We've agreed on this all along:  appropriate sun and water.  This is where,
for example, I stated that planets of varying sizes could be at varying
orbits with varying-sized suns, as long as there was water.  You were the
one arguing for limitations.  And I notice you used the word "began".  Here,
I'll also agree.  But "emerged", "started", "sprung forth", "arose",
"materialized", "appeared", etc., etc. all work, too.

> >> I'm saying its something that developed as a response to the heat
> >> cycle.  They are not alike at all.
> >OK.  But if life developed here, I too think it developed as a result
> >of the sun, as I've indicated before.  (Truth be told, if I had to put
> >money on it, I'd guess for some form of panspermia, as far as
> >Earth is concerned.)
> >> I would think you would define life as either replicating - or
> >> metabolism or cell or something else.
> Those are all sides of the same coin - they are what happens when the sun
> cycle shines down on a watery planet and the chemicals change because of
> it.  Do you really disagree with this?

(What are all sides of the same coin? You responded to your own comment.)
Of course I don't disagree with the relevance of the sun shining on a watery
planet.  Did I ever, IYO?  If so, where?         The crux of our difference,
ISTM, is that you cook up a fully developed, replicating non-animate object
with all the attributes of life before there is life, while I cook up a
simple living replicator which evolves things like cells.

And however you look at it, at point in time T, there was no life; while
at point in time T', there was life.  Do you really disagree with this?
(Of course you can't.)

> >> I say all that is part of chemical response to a heat cycle.
> >> We really are 180 degrees apart.
> >
> >This is the crux of our difference, ISTM.  You cook up a fully
> >developed, replicating non-animate object with all the attributes
> >of life before there is life, while I cook up a simple living replicator
> >which evolves things like cells.
> >
> >Even here with your scenario, at point in time T, there was no life;
> >while at point in time T', there was life (note that I have never stated
> >any value for T' > T).  Your scenario just places that time further
> >along the process and worsens the odds, IMO.
> >
> >> You suggest the sun was a PART.
> >> I suggest life was a PART of the sun cycle.
> >> How different can we get?
> >
> >Logically, this means that life was a 100% certainty with the sun's
> >presence(?)
>
> No - 100% uncertainty without it.
> You can't have an echo emerge without a voice.

Check your Logic 101 notes.  If life was a part of the sun cycle, this means
that life was 100% certain with the sun's presence.  If the sun cycle is a
part of the what makes life, then there's a 100% uncertainty without it.  I
think we're closer than you think.  The difference, once again, is where
(at what time) life became life.  And a symantic argument (perhaps)
on the word "emerge".

> >> Without the sun, you won't have liquid water, chemical reactions
> >> that lead to all these qualities, monomers etc.
> >
> >Is anyone arguing for a "no sun" scenario?  .
>
> Yes! You say the sun produced some monomers - then conveniently
> got out of the way when the replicator popped up and didn't disturb
> it on its mission to get to metabolism
> (which by the way it had no system of metabolism to move it forward)
>
> Then when all this magic is accomplished - the sun comes back from its
> vacation

Sorry, but where did I say all this?  (I've never even thought "no sun".)
Regards, Brett.
---
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 11/1/04 6:16:03 AM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)