Text 512, 257 rader
Skriven 2004-10-25 22:54:00 av Erwin Moller (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: No Grace Period for M
=================================


TomHendricks474 wrote:

>>> Stop there - 'self replicating?  then it can do it
>>> without external help - right?
>>> First let's clear that up - nothing is self replicating.
>>> And you've jumped over the tough question - why
>>> would replicating be an advantage? Why would it just
>>> be certain chemicals?
> 
>>No of course not.
>>Self-replicating has a completely different meaning than your literal
>>interpretation of the word.
>>As we discussed already in the other thread: Biologist mean by
>>selfreplication the ability to make copies of themself under certain
>>circumstances.
> 
> And those are?
> IMO they are a cyclical heat cycle.
> Agreed?

No, that is just ONE of the things that matter.
Why not name them all?
Why don't you talk about required chemicals?
You seem to be fxated on the heatcycle.
Believe me: If you enforce that heatcycle on pure water, you will never 
evolve life.
You need a whole bunch of atoms to deliver that trick.


> 
>>>>2) These molecules are submitted (of course) to environmetal pressure,
>>>>giving rise to evolution.
>  
>>> And in this period when they are submitted to
>>> environmental pressure - they are destroyed on
>>> the first day - if they arent' already safe and stable
>>> in that environment. So the scenario stops here
>>> unless you call in magic and a grace period where
>>> this is free from the environment.
> 
>>???
>>Why is that?
>>Do YOU have a magic wand too that destoys them?
> 
> I do - heat/uv from the sun! Water that dissolves them
> tides, etc. etc. The hadean is a tough environment.

Yes, so??

Are you stating here that certain molecules, that we didn't define, are 
destroyed on the whole earth by heatcycle/uv?
How can you possibly make that claim?
We didn't even define which molecules!
(How could we?)


> 
>>Why don't you think in gradual processes instead of yes/no black/white
>>constructs?
> 
> Because its not up to me its what the environment
> was then.  I suggest the hadean period - and that
> was pretty black/white.

Maybe in your perception that is black and white.

I still see gradients, tides, nutrients, complex molecules, etc.

That is not black/white, that is a complex environment.


> 
>>I can easily imagine a set of molucules drifting away from favorable
>>circumstances to less favorable.
>>It is a gradient.
> 
> Yes and as it does it looses its energy source. You can't
> both have the energy but not have the uv/energy damage.

What makes you say that?
That completely depends on the excact situation, which we didn't define.

I can conjur up many scenarios where I use the energy but hide from direct 
UV/heat.
To name a few:

1) What about my molecules using the sunenergy indirectly? (for example by 
using another molecule's excited state?)

2) What about molecules that can resist UV themselfs? (Which is were you 
want to go. I know that. For me it is just one of the possibilities.)

3) What about molecules that use a non-sun source of heat, like the earlier 
mentioned sulpher-bateria living near underwater volcanoes?


My point: 
Your statement: "You can't both have the energy but not have the uv/energy 
damage."
is false.


> And anything that could both stay in the sun AND use its energy would have
> every advantage.

yes, which sounds good to me too.
I wouldn't be surprised if early selfreplicating systems had a rude way to 
use sunlight directly. (some early photosynthesis.)

Bottomline is: we don't know.


> 
>>For example: The abovementioned sulpherbased lifeform
> can drift 10 meters
> 
> This is about the origin - I don't think sulphur based
> life forms were
> near the origin.

Why not?


> 
> (snipped)
> 
>>Yes true.
>>So what is our contradiction?
>>Who is claiming that heat-resistance is something unimportant?
>>It IS important.
>>It is just not the whole story...
> 
> What is outside of it? Are we back to our
> grace period when something outside the
> environment is making life - so it can
> later adapt to it?  That's a grace period
> and a catch 22 and not probable.
> 
> There are limited choices in the energy
> on earth at this time - and the sun
> is much more powerful
> than all other energy sources
> combined.
> 
> Energy sources available for organic synthesis:
> total solar - 260,000
> all the rest - lighting, radioactivity, cosmic rays volcanoes, =  2
> (Origin of Life, Miller, Orgel)

So you conclude that early life developed under the naked sun because that 
was the most prominent source of energy?

I don't know enough of complex molecule stability under direct harsh 
UV-bombardment, but it only sounds logical to me that circumstance, JUST 
OUTSIDE the direct bombardment were just a little bit friendlier..

Yes, the sun delivers most of the energy.

So does the exhaustpipe of a 747, but you don't want to sit right there when 
you use an airplane, do you?


> 
>>> The best survive.
>>> Best at what? Replicating or stable in that environment?
> 
>>Both of course.
> 
> No, the best replicator that is not stable in
> that environment will be destroyed.
> What defenses against sun/uv does it have if
> it is not stable in that environment?

Don't you listen?
BOTH of course means that both have a survivalvalue.

You don't have to explain that a molecule that falls appart in a millisecond 
doesn't survive very well. I understand that.
I am only pointing out that BOTH have survivalvalue.
It is childish to ask what is the most important.
It is like asking you what you think is most important for you: Your brains 
or your heart. Make you pick.

Let's look at it mathematically:
Molecule(Complex) X

X has a 0.9 chance of being destroyed every day in Hadean Earth.
X replicates itself 20 times a day.

That could work. It makes more copies than are destroyed.

The point is that every complex molecule is unstable.
After some time it will fall appart.
What matters is: Did it copy itself earlier?

And if it copies more than being destroyed, you can call that 
molecule(complex) unstable, but the population of that moleculecomplexes is 
stable.


> 
> (snipped)
> 
>>Why is using energy a plus?
>>I don't know. Neither am I claiming it is a plus.
>>That is not the point.
>>The point is that replication costs energy.
>>So IF we happen to have a bunch of selfreplication molecules AND they have
>>the energy to pull off that trick, THEY USE ENERGY AND NEED A SOURCE.
>>That is all there is to it!
> 
> 
> No - that is not all there is. You have refused
> the most obvious scenario and the only one that
> fit.
> What if first came the energy - then came the use
> not the other way around like you said.

Huh?
Did I say that?
Don't think so...
Of course first was the energy there.
The sun was shining before the first selfrepicating molecules popped up.
Stop putting words into my mouth.


> First came the sun energy, then chemicals used it.

Yes indeed.

> You say first comes life (emerging out of nothing)
> then comes its ability to use the energy all around it
> How can you defend that ?

I am not saying that, and I am not planning on defending that rediculous 
statement.

Why don't please please take your time and re-read what I wrote?
I am writing it for you, and would appreciate it if you read it carefully.
You will find that on many occasions you put words into my mouth that I 
didn't write, nor suggested.

I have spend several hours writing in this thread, only to discover you 
didn't even read my postings carefully, which is a little frustrating for 
me. 

Regards,
Erwin Moller
---
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 10/25/04 10:54:27 PM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)