Text 549, 110 rader
Skriven 2004-10-28 06:18:00 av Brett Aubrey (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: Metabolism Forced Not
=================================


"TomHendricks474" <tomhendricks474@cs.com> wrote in message
news:cloelm$2n1n$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
> >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".)

> >> If we could, then life could start in space or at absolute zero or in
> >> the center of the sun.
> >
> >?  Regards, Brett
> >
> >> We really really really are talking about two different paradigms
> >> completely.
> >>
>
>
---
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 10/28/04 6:18:33 AM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)