Text 612, 113 rader
Skriven 2004-11-02 05:59:00 av Brett Aubrey (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: Metabolism Forced
=============================


"TomHendricks474" <tomhendricks474@cs.com> wrote in message
news:cm67ml$deu$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
> >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).
>
> No that's probably not true. At first the earth had an oppressive
atmosphere
> that , coupled with other aspects - made the atmosphere opaque.
> It was only when it cooled to the point where the steam began to turn to
rain
> and fall and form the oceans - that that rain took some of the atmosphere
with
> it and allowed the sun to shine through for the first time. Maybe around
4.2 at
> the earliest.

You're neglecting the possibility of life in the atmosphere or life
beginning via thermal vents, etc.?  And how sure are you that the atmosphere
was opaque?  Even then, enough radiation may have gotten through.

> >> 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,
>
> Please see other threads posted today.
> The sun is  40,000 x stronger than all
> other radiation combined!

Hey, you were the one to ask "Where else?".   Along with therval vents,
these are other possibilities, IMO.  (Didn't see your posts.)

> >> 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.)
>
> True but I can get you started - Miller's experiment
> was a heat cycle - the sun works well, and a problem
> leveled at Miller was that he introduced the 'lightning"
> charge in a very methodical way that would not be
> present in nature. So a heat cycle does work best so far.

You don't have any argument from me that the sun is the likely champion
here.  I just don't totally eliminate other energy sources, and I also still
don't see your chemical creation getting as far as you prior to "life".

> >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?
>
> I don't know how I would define it - why do we need
> to even have one?

Well if you're talking about the OOL, it seems discussing what it's about is
relevant.

> >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.
>
> If panspermia happens, I agree with you.

Holy cow!  Agreement!

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >Since you lost the thread, here's some of it to which I responded
earlier:
>
> >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.
>
> No:
> Here are the possibilites
> Sun comes first then life is POSSIBLE
> leads to two possibilities:
>
> Sun comes first - life then follows OR
> Sun comes first - but life doesn't follow.

If A is part of B, then the existance of A means the existence of all parts
of A, meaning B, in this case.  But I understand your argument directly
above, anyway.  Again, this precludes the possibility of hydrothermal vents,
which I do not think can be ruled out.  Similarly so with panspermia.

> >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".
>
> agreed.
>
---
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 11/2/04 5:59:32 AM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)