| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Bio Evolution Forum » My Response to Shapiro
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Guest |
 Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 7:58 pm |
|
|
|
|
This is my response to an e-mail from Robert
Shapiro:
RS.
I understand your points, but I believe there is a basic unstated premise
in them that somehow chemicals want to eat or
replicate - they want to get to us. The 'I" in origin. Also because life is
conceived as so special (the anthropomorphic mistake)
then it is hard to come about. I disagree with that. And I think to see
the processes that led to life clearly, we must first not see it as special.
On my desk is salt and pepper. Does my salt want to eat (metabolism)
does my pepper want to reproduce (replication). Of course that's
absurd. In the same way there is no 'origin' of life. It never popped up
in some chemical creationist moment. It was a RESPONSE to
the forces that went before. And every step was a response to energy
in the environment. When there was no energy, everything shut down.
When there was energy chemicals changed and some chemical
processes were promoted (the most stable) and some were destroyed
(the least stable). Researchers are trying to find out what
chemical responses to energy led to life processes.
If the responses made it less stable, it was destroyed.
Only that which help stabilize remained, or was chemically selected.
Thus life is not an origin, but a chemical response that better suits
those chemicals to their environment. No one can name any aspect of
life that makes it less suited to its environment. No one can name
anything that evolves to less stability, and less adaptation to its
environment.
Life is not a fluke single event, it is the most stable reaction of chemicals
to that environment (a complete 180 degree change of most thinking )
You then suggest the necessary energy sources as other than the sun.
Yet that was the only constant energy cycle that provided both
constancy - to build on, and variability to supply variations to allow
for evolution. Also note how well nucleotides absorb UV - is that
just a coincidence? Though you discount the bases at this early a stage
and we disagree on that.
Any other energy source has this major problem. Life has to switch
energy sources to photosynthesis. How much more reasonable
to see life as always responding to the sun/uv/ energy source.
Though how it did it is certainly unclear at this stage.
Nature seldom if ever does anything as vast as switching
energy sources. And we have to trump it up at the beginning
when life is most fragile and inchoate.
Every evolved step is just that - a small step. Nothing switches
in such a vast way.
Other sources considered -
Lighting inconstant,
thermal vents sterilize,
radiation not the answer,
chemical energy - well my salt does want to eat! </HTML> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Jan 08, 2009 3:22 am
|
|