Logic suggests that life must have began as a reaction to the sun/uv/
heat cycle.
It alone fit the 3 criteria:
1. Force that is constant over time
2. Force that is cyclical.
3. Force that includes variation within it.

First a basic premise. There is no other way to start life then with
some force.
There on my table my salt does not want to eat, and my pepper does not
want to replicate.
Chemicals will not do anything unless there is FIRST a force pushing
them to chemical action.

No chemical system can adapt to a force that is inconstant.
Does anyone think otherwise?

No chemical system can adapt to a force that is not cyclical.
If there is no cycle, then either it continues to warm up till all
chemical systems are destroyed,
or irt continues to cool down until all chemical reactions are stoped.
Does anyone think otherwise?

No chemical system can adapt without some variation.
Variation leads to the ability to adapt. Without it no chemical system
can adapt to its environment.
Does anyone think otherwise?

The only force in our environment that is
constant,
cyclical
and allows variation

Is the sun/uv.

Name any other force that fits. There is none. And
when you look with an overview of what life is, you
see it's constant, cyclical, and allows for variation
that leads to adaptation. it mirrors the sun cycle in
all its parts. It is obviously a reaction to the sun cycle.

That means that we have to give up the idea of a one
time fluke event with odds that are beyond
astronomical, (let alone having this happen multiple
times). Instead we have a sun-forced response that, didn't LEAD to
life,
but FORCED it as the most stable response in that environment.

If after bombardment phase, or any specific time period, does not fit
the sun
scenario, then it had to begin before or after. We can rule those
times out.

The constant, cyclical, with variation, force, trumps
all other factors , including the bombardment
barricade. I don't see how it could not.
Does anyone disagree?

Comments welcome

I

Logic suggests that life must have began as a reaction to the sun/uv/

First a basic premise. There is no other way to start life then with
some force.
Neither the sun or uv is a force.

No chemical system can adapt to a force that is inconstant.
Does anyone think otherwise?
Chemical systems do not a priori adapt to forces, constant or

No chemical system can adapt to a force that is not cyclical.
If there is no cycle, then either it continues to warm up till all
chemical systems are destroyed,
or irt continues to cool down until all chemical reactions are stoped.
Does anyone think otherwise?
How about chaotic forces? Chaotic systems are not technically

No chemical system can adapt without some variation.
Again, chemical systems can not a priori adapt.

The only force in our environment that is
constant,
cyclical
and allows variation

Is the sun/uv.
The sun is not a force, it is a ball of gas. UV is not a force, it

Name any other force that fits. There is none.
I just named about four other processes that fit. By forces, you

And
when you look with an overview of what life is, you
see it's constant, cyclical, and allows for variation
that leads to adaptation. it mirrors the sun cycle in
all its parts. It is obviously a reaction to the sun cycle.
It does not mirror the sun cycle in all its parts. It cycles,

That means that we have to give up the idea of a one
time fluke event with odds that are beyond
astronomical, (let alone having this happen multiple
times). Instead we have a sun-forced response that, didn't LEAD to
life,
but FORCED it as the most stable response in that environment.
I think you misunderstand the theories of abiotic development.

Dear Tom,
Yes, in fact I do agree with your comments below. To me it does seem
the only logical mechanism. That said, I did not really follow the
logic you used to arrive at your conclusion.

There are another couple of relevant points I should make. You may be
aware of my own work on prebiotic evolution and the origin of life
which is onhttp://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk

Just follow the prebiotic evolution link and the files that open up
there. The discussion pretty much begins with your argument and
progresses to more or less describes a mechanism whereby a "metabolism
world" could arise via the kind of driver you envision.

This sort of thermal/energy cycling mechanism makes a lot of
thermodynamic sense but gets little mention in the scientific
literature. The earliest references I have come across come from
Anthonie Muller - if you search for thermal cycling you will find his
work. Another relevant study is a very short piece from an Italian
physicist, Giorgio Careri, which is called "Prebiotic Selection
Induced by Periodic Starlight." It's in a book "First Steps in the
Origin of Life in the Universe" by Chela Flores et al. (2001).

Neither seem to be cited very much and I hadn't found them when I
wrote my stuff but they are both making essentially the same point as
you make.

Sincerely

John Hewitt

On Feb 19, 7:19 pm, Tom Hendricks <tom-hendri...@att.net> wrote:

Logic suggests that life must have began as a reaction to the sun/uv/
heat cycle.
It alone fit the 3 criteria:
1. Force that is constant over time
2. Force that is cyclical.
3. Force that includes variation within it.

First a basic premise. There is no other way to start life then with
some force.
There on my table my salt does not want to eat, and my pepper does not
want to replicate.
Chemicals will not do anything unless there is FIRST a force pushing
them to chemical action.

No chemical system can adapt to a force that is inconstant.
Does anyone think otherwise?

No chemical system can adapt to a force that is not cyclical.
If there is no cycle, then either it continues to warm up till all
chemical systems are destroyed,
or irt continues to cool down until all chemical reactions are stoped.
Does anyone think otherwise?

No chemical system can adapt without some variation.
Variation leads to the ability to adapt. Without it no chemical system
can adapt to its environment.
Does anyone think otherwise?

The only force in our environment that is
constant,
cyclical
and allows variation

Is the sun/uv.

Name any other force that fits. There is none. And
when you look with an overview of what life is, you
see it's constant, cyclical, and allows for variation
that leads to adaptation. it mirrors the sun cycle in
all its parts. It is obviously a reaction to the sun cycle.

That means that we have to give up the idea of a one
time fluke event with odds that are beyond
astronomical, (let alone having this happen multiple
times). Instead we have a sun-forced response that, didn't LEAD to
life,
but FORCED it as the most stable response in that environment.

If after bombardment phase, or any specific time period, does not fit
the sun
scenario, then it had to begin before or after. We can rule those
times out.

The constant, cyclical, with variation, force, trumps
all other factors , including the bombardment
barricade. I don't see how it could not.
Does anyone disagree?

Comments welcome

I

I think you misunderstand the theories of abiotic development.
All of them include a forced-response to a cycle, although not
necessarily to the sun. The deep trench hypothesis supposed a forced
response to geothermal convection.

On Feb 19, 2:19 pm, Tom Hendricks <tom-hendri...@att.net> wrote:
    I am a physicist. I hate to see physics jargon misused.> Logic suggests that life must have began as a reaction to the sun/uv/

First a basic premise. There is no other way to start life then with
some force.

    Neither the sun or uv is a force.

No chemical system can adapt to a force that is inconstant.
Does anyone think otherwise?

    Chemical systems do not a priori adapt to forces, constant or
other wise. The word adapt is poorly used here. But let a biologist
tell you why.

No chemical system can adapt to a force that is not cyclical.
If there is no cycle, then either it continues to warm up till all
chemical systems are destroyed,
or irt continues to cool down until all chemical reactions are stoped.
Does anyone think otherwise?

     How about chaotic forces? Chaotic systems are not technically
cyclic.

No chemical system can adapt without some variation.

     Again, chemical systems can not a priori adapt.

The only force in our environment that is
constant,
cyclical
and allows variation

Is the sun/uv.

    The sun is not a force, it is a ball of gas. UV is not a force, it
is an electromagnetic wave. They exert forces, some of which are
cyclic. However, they are not the only cyclic forces on the planet.
Convection is cyclic. This includes ocean convection caused by
geothermal heat, which goes on in the deep trenches. The tides are
cyclic. Atmospheric convection is cyclic. Atmospheric convection,
although powered by the sun, is not uv. Visible light, though it comes
from the sun, is not uv.

Name any other force that fits. There is none.

    I just named about four other processes that fit. By forces, you
do mean processes right?

And
when you look with an overview of what life is, you
see it's constant, cyclical, and allows for variation
that leads to adaptation. it mirrors the sun cycle in
all its parts. It is obviously a reaction to the sun cycle.

      It does not mirror the sun cycle in all its parts. It cycles,
yes. I don't think the origin of the cycle is obvious.

That means that we have to give up the idea of a one
time fluke event with odds that are beyond
astronomical, (let alone having this happen multiple
times). Instead we have a sun-forced response that, didn't LEAD to
life,
but FORCED it as the most stable response in that environment.

     I think you misunderstand the theories of abiotic development.
All of them include a forced-response to a cycle, although not
necessarily to the sun. The deep trench hypothesis supposed a forced
response to geothermal convection.

"Lorentz" <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote [to Hendricks]:
Most deep
trench theorizing requires only that there be a source of geothermal
heat in the crust - the fact that the heat got there due to convection
cycles in the mantle is completely irrelevant to Tom's points.
No, they require more than a source of geothermal heat. They

I don't think that the kinds of cycles Hendricks and Hewitt are talking
about (cyclic change over time in an environmental variable at the
location of the proto-organism) are a necessary part of abiogenesis.
But it is an interesting hypothesis - even if it is Tom trying to sell it.
His "shorthand" seems to be rather ambiguous and can include

I read your article athttp://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk/pe00_prebiotic_index.htm
You've put a lot of work in this. I encourage others to look too.

I thought we had a lot in common.
Here's my logic:
For me any system or process that we identify with life would
come as a response to the forces in its environment. Otherwise you
have
a pop (out of nothing) and adapt (though it would normally be
destroyed because
it is not already adapted).
For me there has to be 3 conditions to this force for a chemical
system to build on:
1. Constancy - chaotic systems can't be built on or responded to in
any organized way.
2. Cyclical - or temperature would either continue getting hotter, or
continue getting colder.
One needs a cyclical temp range to keep the temp within that range.
For ex. if water is
a requirement, then without cyclical temperature ranges - all the
water would either burn up, or freeze.
3. Variation - variation allows for optional results. Of these the
most stable will be chemically selected.

Tom Hendricks
Here's my paper on UV/Sunhttp://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/U/UV_origin_of_life.html

On Feb 22, 12:49 pm, Lorentz <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:


There is a void here in the vocabulary. The word adapt does have
specific ideas. Perhaps the best vocabulary phrase for what I'm saying
is chemical adaptation.
Never heard of "chemical adaption," and my mind isn't processing

It is difficult to re introduce that in each post. So I sort of take
it as understood that this is not biological 'adaptation' but rather
a pre-adaptation 'chemicals chosen by those that survive the cycle
of the sun' process.
Are you are saying that the chemicals related to life were

No chemical system can adapt to a force that is not cyclical.
If there is no cycle, then either it continues to warm up till all
chemical systems are destroyed,
or irt continues to cool down until all chemical reactions are stoped.
Does anyone think otherwise?
A force that varies with time randomly, with a random

How about chaotic forces? Chaotic systems are not technically
cyclic.

Now we talk about biological adaptation. Chaotic forces like a
meteorite that
probably killed off the dinosaurs are chaotic, not cyclical, and
as we saw, does not allow for dinos to adapt to it.
I can't be sure, but meteorite strikes are probably not chaotic in

How can any living
thing
adapt to chaotic meteorites? There may be selection for the survivors,
but
that is a different thing.
Why? The chemicals that survive a meteorite strike have chemically

And I am talking about the origin of the
system.
That must have some stability. You would not have a constant
adaptation system
from inconstant environment.
No question. I agree. I didn't know there was any controversy

No chemical system can adapt without some variation.
If by adapt you mean selectively persist, I agree.

Again, chemical systems can not a priori adapt.
I agree.

Again there is a void in the vocabulary. No chemical system
can become the most stable in chemical selection without some
variation.
I see your point, but I'm doing a bit of shorthand.
Have you seen a chemist about this?

The only force in our environment that is
constant,
cyclical
and allows variation

Is the sun/uv.
I absolutely don't get this "only force" business. I agree that

But all those are subsets caused directly or indirectly by the cycle
of the sun
aren't they?
Directly, no. Indirectly can mean anything. The lunar cycle

Even the Moon tides are there because the sun was there
for the moon.
Say WHAT???????????

And
when you look with an overview of what life is, you
see it's constant, cyclical, and allows for variation
that leads to adaptation. it mirrors the sun cycle in
all its parts. It is obviously a reaction to the sun cycle.

It does not mirror the sun cycle in all its parts. It cycles,
yes. I don't think the origin of the cycle is obvious.

That means that we have to give up the idea of a one
time fluke event with odds that are beyond
astronomical, (let alone having this happen multiple
times). Instead we have a sun-forced response that, didn't LEAD to
life,
but FORCED it as the most stable response in that environment.

I think you misunderstand the theories of abiotic development.
All of them include a forced-response to a cycle, although not
necessarily to the sun. The deep trench hypothesis supposed a forced
response to geothermal convection.

Which is not cyclical, not stable. That makes the problems I am
talking about
above. That's why I would rule that out as a viable origin theory.
That's my point. We can now rule out a lot of subset scenarios under
the sun,
as being - at best- simply a part of the sun cycle causing the origin.

Tom,
Yes, as you say our initial premises are similar and I did look at
your link. (Incidentally, if my experience is any guide, Muller does
answer his emails and sends copies of his papers to interested
parties.)
We do differ in the development of our premises and I still do not
follow your reasoning. It seems to me that, in scientific terms, the
origin of life problem is a problem in chemistry as much as a problem
in evolution.
Taking the thermal cycling premise, I have given chemical mechanisms
to show how a "metabolism world" might have arisen by evolutionary
adaptation. In other words, I can use the thermal cycling premise to
defend Shapiro's metabolism first approach but I cannot see how it
leads to any chemical mechanism that would lead directly to an "RNA
world" scenario. You and Muller (and many others who subscribe to the
RNA world thesis) just seem to assume that nucleotides, or some
mechanism to create them, would have popped ready formed from the
primordial oceans. I disagree; I think that sort of thing has to be
chemically explained, not merely assumed or asserted.

Sincerely

John Hewitt

On Feb 23, 10:01 pm, Tom Hendricks <tom-hendri...@att.net> wrote:

I read your article athttp://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk/pe00_prebiotic_index.htm
You've put a lot of work in this. I encourage others to look too.

Tom Hendricks
Here's my paper on UV/Sunhttp://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/U/UV_origin_of_life.html

On Feb 23, 5:01 pm, Tom Hendricks <tom-hendri...@att.net> wrote:

On Feb 22, 12:49 pm, Lorentz <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:

There is a void here in the vocabulary. The word adapt does have
specific ideas. Perhaps the best vocabulary phrase for what I'm saying
is chemical adaptation.

     Never heard of "chemical adaption," and my mind isn't processing
the phrase into anything understandable. You should check.

     What you apparently mean by chaotic is rare. The meteorite strike
could be highly periodic, but it the period is billions of years long
life still couldn't adapt to it. On the other hand, consider a distant
planet where small meoterites hit the planet in the same type cycle,
but the average period is once a day. The organisms on this planet
would have to adapt to it just as much as to the sun cycle.
      Okay, consider lightening. I don't know if it is periodic or
chotic. However, they are fairly common. Some organisms have adapted
to lightening strikes. The lobolla pine even has adapted to causing
them (to kill off the surrounding oaks and help disperse the pine
cones). Lightening isn't a cyclic process, but at least they brought
about biological adaption.

       No question. I agree. I didn't know there was any controversy
here.

No chemical system can adapt without some variation.

        If by adapt you mean selectively persist, I agree.

     Again, chemical systems can not a priori adapt.
       I agree.

The only force in our environment that is
constant,
cyclical
and allows variation

Is the sun/uv.

    I absolutely don't get this "only force" business. I agree that
the diurnal cycle is a process with those properties, but I don't
believe the only part.

No I agree that there is a nucleotide problem.

Personally I think once we can make nucleotides (if we can), then that
will lead
to our understanding replication as a forced heat cycle that leads to
a denaturation and annealing
process of those first nucelotides - much like PCR - which would
force daily
"replication' of all nucleotides in the heat, and form new variations
in the annealing cool part of the cycle.
But that to me is a subset of the bigger issue - life is the most
stable response to the environment

And I think it is wrong to look to a pop and adapt scenario alone -
where
magic chemistry pops up and then magically it is not destroyed until
it has a chance to safely adapt. I call this the fluke squared
scenario of life.
How do you handle the fluke squared problem?

But in my case, if life is a response to the environment - the most
stable response.
There is never a fluke factor. It is there because it was always the
most
stable reaction to that environment, not a fluke event, and because it
was
always the most stable, it needed no fluke time to adapt. It was
always
adapting - that is what life is. I also see a lot of anthropomorphism
in these
scenarios that should be avoided.
Life is, like upper class, outside of the environment and independent
of the 'lower' environment. I say it was a response to, and never
independent
from - in other words there was never a self anything - it was always
a
forced response to forces in the environment - the largest being the
sun/uv etc.

Tom,
OK, you feel the nucleotide problem can be solved but I do not agree.
I think nucleotides can only arise as part of an established
metabolism, which is a "metabolism first" viewpoint.

Further, I disagree with your comments about life being a stable
response to the environment. I disagree both in general and in the
context of your opinions on nucleotides.

Nucleotides are high energy compounds and are not likely to be a "most
stable" response to anything. Also, from a thermodynamic point of
view, life in general seems to consist of what Prigogine called
dissipative structures - structures that are formed as a result of
ongoing energy fluxes. Dissipative structures are high energy
"objects" - using the word object very generally - and physicists
usually cite waves, oscillations and vortices as examples.

So, I think the oscillations I talk about are dissipative structures
but I cannot see any chemical mechanism that would lead directly from
temperature cycling to nucleotides.

Sincerely

John Hewitt

On Feb 26, 6:44 pm, Tom Hendricks <tom-hendri...@att.net> wrote:

No I agree that there is a nucleotide problem.

Personally I think once we can make nucleotides (if we can), then that
will lead
to our understanding replication as a forced heat cycle that leads to
a denaturation and annealing
process of those first nucelotides - much like  PCR  - which would
force daily
"replication' of all nucleotides in the heat, and form new variations
in the annealing cool part of the cycle.
But that to me is a subset of the bigger issue - life is the most
stable response to the environment

And I think it is wrong to look to a pop and adapt scenario alone -
where
magic chemistry pops up and then magically it is not destroyed until
it has a chance to safely adapt. I call this the fluke squared
scenario of life.
How do you handle the fluke squared problem?

But in my case, if life is a response to the environment - the most
stable response.
There is never a fluke factor. It is there because it was always the
most
stable reaction to that environment, not a fluke event, and because it
was
always the most stable, it needed no fluke time to adapt. It was
always
adapting - that is what life is. I also see a lot of anthropomorphism
in these
scenarios that should be avoided.
Life is, like upper class, outside of the environment and independent
of the 'lower' environment. I say it was a response to, and never
independent
from - in other words there was never a self anything - it was always
a
forced response to forces in the environment - the largest being the
sun/uv etc.

On Feb 28, 12:49 pm, verulam <johnhewit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom,
OK, you feel the nucleotide problem can be solved but I do not agree.
I think nucleotides can only arise as part of an established
metabolism, which is a "metabolism first" viewpoint.

"Metabolism first' is a fluke chemical event. Now when metabolism pops up is
it immediately adapted to the environment, or is it destroyed in that
environment? if not adapted immediately, we need another fluke. That's two, -
you'll need about 10 more before your'e done. And one is enough to rule out
life.

in article fqeu0n$156...@darwin.ediacara.org, Tom Hendricks at
tom-hendri...@att.net wrote on 3/2/08 11:09 AM:

On Feb 28, 12:49 pm, verulam <johnhewit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom,
OK, you feel the nucleotide problem can be solved but I do not agree.
I think nucleotides can only arise as part of an established
metabolism, which is a "metabolism first" viewpoint.

"Metabolism first' is a fluke chemical event. Now when metabolism pops up is
it immediately adapted to the environment, or is it destroyed in that
environment? if not adapted immediately, we need another fluke. That's two, -
you'll need about 10 more before your'e done. And one is enough to rule out
life.

Tom,

I would count myself in the metabolism-first camp, and I think you are
missing the point of this view. The emergence of a metabolism de novo is no
more of a fluke event than the emergence of a convection cell in the
atmosphere. You could argue that a convection cell is initially spawned by
a fluke puff of wind that entrains the emergence of a full blown dissipative
structure, but that would also miss the point. Like a convection cell, a
metabolism does thermodynamic work. The structure of a dissipative
metabolism is fueled by local gradients (e.g., macromolecular structures,
thermal gradients, and so on) and could be sparked by chaotic chemical
dynamics (analogous to a puff of wind sparking a convection cell). I
wouldn't call chemical dynamics a metabolisms until positive feedback loops
are established, which effectively sustain the structure of the metabolic
chemistry (again, analogous to positive feedback within a convection cell).

In other words, the metabolisms-first view envisions the prior existence of
a physical potential (e.g., a thermal and/or macromolecular gradient) that
pulled dynamic metabolic (chemical) structures into existence. This is
different from a fluke.

Cheers,

Guy