Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Geological Origin of Life
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 4 of 23 (41784)
05-30-2003 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by IrishRockhound
05-26-2003 1:56 PM


geology as next ant(i) c/e-->e/c ground?
Freeman Dyson thought it OK to seperate "replication" and "metabolism". I do not think that even of the biology of space exploration will NEED this difference but rather a more elemental universality that is irreducible. I am hard to agree with but even harder to disagree with. In the past I has thought there WAS something to dialectical materialism materially but seeing as those kind of scientists could not gain say topobiology evolutionary I give that this but passing interest only.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by IrishRockhound, posted 05-26-2003 1:56 PM IrishRockhound has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by IrishRockhound, posted 06-02-2003 7:28 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 6 of 23 (41963)
06-02-2003 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by IrishRockhound
06-02-2003 7:28 AM


Re: geology as next ant(i) c/e-->e/c ground?
Nope, if one is willing to do this seperation in biochemsity than one is MORE likely to search off EARTH for the distances needed to make a MATHAMATICAL PROJECTION in comptuer/simulated space OF A CONTINUTIY and because atomic science seems* rather to have most readers THINK that space it self in this case is discontinuous (Feynamn etc) it usually happens that isolation of the question occurs than the continuance in the ANSWER. But that is how finshing polishing a telescope goes as well it seemed to me. REPLICATION is something that happens IN metabolism but only if life has more than Earth origin does it happen to one to think that there may be different relications (EIGens etc) for a plurity in the biochemisty of the transiently understood metabolism. The adjective IS important. Thanks for getting back to me. Best.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by IrishRockhound, posted 06-02-2003 7:28 AM IrishRockhound has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by IrishRockhound, posted 06-03-2003 9:03 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 8 of 23 (42008)
06-03-2003 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by IrishRockhound
06-03-2003 9:03 AM


Re: geology as next ant(i) c/e-->e/c ground?
quote:
This is continuing from another topic started by mike the wiz - (creation argument) - where we were talking about the origin of RNA and DNA based life. Here's what I found:
Yes, me too, I did find some things about RNA vs DNA in terms of an ORIGIN that is rarely apparent from Darwin's title book but I would not have started the natural kinds of thought about silicon etc basing for after listening to Linus Pauling talk about Boron I realized there were more fundamental questions in physical chemsistry that would really need to be addressed before SPECULATING about rxn systems able to afford the functionality of DNA and RNA. I no longer think this probable though it is possible. As for RNA AND DNA based life origins I HAVE Thought about it from a perspective of torque interacting with physical gradients such as temperature, organic locomotion, etc but this does not assume that living material (DNA and RNA) PREexisted the origination timing with or without dissipative systems. Hence I found discussions that seperated DNA and RNA as to origins misplaced (especially in light of my recent reading of Boscovich) and hence I agree with You as if wer were talking about the origin of RNA and DNA BASED life.
quote:
"The first hypothesis about the origin of life was put forward by a Russian scientist named Oparin in 1924 - it stated that the early atmosphere of the Earth was anoxic and consisted of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia, hydrogen sulphide, etc. When these gases condensed into a "primordial soup" ocean, certain aminoacids could be synthesised if a source of energy was added.
Stanley Miller (an American scientist) attempted to reproduce this effect by electrifying the gas mixture, and succeeded in producing several characteristic aminoacids.
Another American scientist at the University of Florida named Fox ran more elaborate versions of this experiment, and succeeded in producing protenoids - complex molecules of around 200 aminoacids. As he continued working with them, he showed that over longer periods of time they spontaneously formed into microspheres - bounding membranes required for cells.
Presently I am thinking that perhaps the amino acids interact with a "dielectric ether" both within protein sensu stricto and especially with respect to connections of adherence beyond the cell membrane. The important thing that I think is mistaken here was Fox's thought that size and shape protenoids implied homology to existing cell's collected membranes. I tried in high school to make these spheres. I am tending to think of topobiology at this point noting that ENERGY had to be added which tends to think this may NOT have been how it happened. The issue is with the conception of force and the chemical bond and I find increasinly that Crick's position which for him was enough to dash vital forces for RNA hypercycles etc was not what the words let alone the impulse it meant gave. But that is only a guess on my part. I see DNA, RNA, PROTEINS and CELL MEMBRANES as constiutive but I do not see the need to follow Weismann and claim subcellular selection though such may indeed be happening and thus I think of Fox's microspheres as ONLY protein and not pre-existng living protein material of what was the first cytoplasm. Weismann thought of death of the cytoplasm from Darwin's organismal level but if DNA, RNA, Proteins, and Membranes are all part and parcel of one Boscovich curve of force Universe adapted differentially between two infinite directums then Weismann's seperation needs to be modifed by the molecular embyrology of cell death in topobiology. I dont know.
quote:
The most important step was still to discover how primitive life replicated, as all modern life requires DNA and RNA.
Recent research suggests that small strands of RNA can replicate without the need for enzymes, unlike DNA - so the early world could have been dominated by RNA organisms.
Here you seem to have noted what I had researched was originally Freeman Dyson's contribution that spurred S. Kaufmann to work in the this discipline that replication IS INDEPENDENT of METABOLISM. What I would be doing at this point is trying to understand is whether re-cycling of parts of the macromolecules has any irreversible macrothermodynamic reality within an inequality of FROM entropy of reversibilities on the higher levels that may indeed need enzymes. So you see I really to think about this stuff not as is standard. What they are trying to discuss is that SINCE we can tease apart DNA, RNA, Proteins -- the disjuction implies importance for origin. I am not so sure this thinking point is directly correct. Certainly Boscovich thought otherwise for he argued that there is NOT compenetration in terms of particles and if these molecules are Boscovich's particles AND Maxwell's vortex "particles" then the way people are approaching the study of the origin of life is misaruged from a proabalims to start with. I agree with you not every thing is random and we may one day deterimine bio-change pathways. The problem is that the anti-reductionist position held by at best Lewontin only argues against BIOLOGICAL DETERMINISM and not for the determination of any particular biology.
quote:
An alternative view is that life did not originate on Earth. The Murchison Meteorite, discovered in Australia in 1969, was classified as a stony meteorite with carbonaceous chondrites - meaning that aminoacids were present. These were different from Earth aminoacids in that they had equal amounts of left and right hand structural configurations in their molecules. Their carbon13 ratio was also much higher - all powerful evidence of their extraterrestrial origin.
This lead to the proposition of Hoyle in the 1970's of the panspermia hypothesis - that microbes present in cosmic dust came to settle in the Earth's stratosphere and lead to the development of life.
Scientists do agree that life probably did originate in the oceans. Evidence for this is the existence of 'black smokers' - undersea volcanic vents where life thrives without the need for oxygen or sunlight (autotroph bacteria - survive by chemosynthesis)."
This is taken more or less verbatim from my own notes - I left out some of the more technical stuff. This is the current view among geologists (the Irish and British ones anyway) about the origin of life.
I have said a few things in the cosmology threads about life in the universe at large but once again there were and still are plenty of things right here on earth that can be rather I hope not detracted from and sicne there IS NOT a good deductive biogeography in any sense explaining disjucnt locaties on and off the Earth would be less profitable then attempting work with techonlogy in local loops of species distribution, GBIF, NEON etc, of course it is possible that life arose in Dark Matter or is it not? When evaluating the different attidues of biologists with respec to ecological time frames and evolutioanry time frames and then attempting to find a common mathematrical symbolism for ecology and evoltuion I considered indeed life from under water starting but I do not see the signs that the biological communinty could standardize its already in use tools of math so I have moved on to create my own to work from than what has been used in the past. The stage of this instantiation is quite embryonic at present however.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by IrishRockhound, posted 06-03-2003 9:03 AM IrishRockhound has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by IrishRockhound, posted 06-03-2003 12:20 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 10 of 23 (42087)
06-04-2003 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by IrishRockhound
06-03-2003 12:20 PM


Re: geology as next ant(i) c/e-->e/c ground?
Welcome to the club of those that KNOW I am not Crazy or Ill. Yes there is room for me to be falsifed precisely as I attempt to get a hearing to do the same for Gould. I am really thinking it possible to get some notion of INTEGRABLE time in biochange but I wont put a spandrelized token on this subway untill I read somewhere that deductive biogeography actually has a faculty of thought and not and Island of gilligan's Aleph. Jess-I almost did the Clinton thing. We used to Get coal from Clinton NJ but we had to go thru whitehouse not Sommervile to not get i'mcloned in the process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by IrishRockhound, posted 06-03-2003 12:20 PM IrishRockhound has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by IrishRockhound, posted 06-09-2003 11:06 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 12 of 23 (42441)
06-09-2003 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by IrishRockhound
06-09-2003 11:06 AM


Re: geology as next ant(i) c/e-->e/c ground?
It refers to Gould's et al etc notion of exaptation IN MY MIND. We discussed this at Cornell, and I can start a discussion from Gould's tome on it if you prefer than my own ideas which were negative about this "concept" at that time for I think this is just a tab or place holder for what Gould had not been able to heirarchisize but I used the word here after seeing Ruse write in Nature or Science about Gould's book while he asked at the same time something I learned from my Grandmother as a teen ager as to if we could keep our converstaions of religion seperated AS GOULD VIEWED CHURCHES to which I think is as ludicrious as the Faraday Scholar who I SAW PREACH in Sage Chappel at Cornell give me an F for failing to see which snake was not on the Simpsons last nite.
There should still be some projection of the Chruch building that is not immediately cashed out in terms of Gould's provision for Maxwell's watch direction of the medium that in a body alife ought nonetheless work in or out the church and turn without twisting the skin to the north or south depending on the construction. The point was not that there are some people like my Grandma who "disbelive" and would assent to Ruse's post-Gould death call but that those who DO be not kept from eating meat if they so also desire...
If you really want some useful information relative directly to Gould's notion of evolutionary change from continuing this interpretation I will look up Gould's work and not refer to my own. best brad. It is not simply a matter of adpative and non-adaptive when it comes to temperature switches at cell death but Will Provine could only see a phase transition here where there is a bevy of statistical mechanics instead of genius at the switch the demon operated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by IrishRockhound, posted 06-09-2003 11:06 AM IrishRockhound has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by IrishRockhound, posted 06-11-2003 7:28 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 14 of 23 (42562)
06-11-2003 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by IrishRockhound
06-11-2003 7:28 AM


Re: geology as next ant(i) c/e-->e/c ground?
I dont think Gould played out his hand far enough aka your question of origins but he seems to think that Mayr will not be shown to be correct in spirit when it comes to the non-neutral nature of Stasis when not also mass extinction but I still hold to my high school evalutation there for any change there can not be TWO gradual vs punctuated kinds of change unless the locus of change be known materially and not merely conceptually. If one COUNTS the population from the cell AND NOT the organism then I suspect even Dawkins' notions will not surive any hypothetical test that injects randomness and then attempts to find correlations but this may still not be able to originate the discussion of origins you started in this thread. I only say that it makes non-sense to see that life PRE exists this life for if it was (pre)existent than it was not the same life but something else but when it comes to units of disection in any taxogeny I doubt that merely refering to Sewall Wright effect on the species level will hold the philosopher's attention in a clinical in silico environnment and exploration of the solar system. I think that if you had not got MORE Gould you merely need to allow time and history its chance. I however got stuck with it because of Zimmer and Provine who still are flesh in my own sinful thorn that only plants have but at least these "guys" are not mental health professionals as it was before.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by IrishRockhound, posted 06-11-2003 7:28 AM IrishRockhound has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 16 of 23 (43322)
06-18-2003 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by contracycle
06-18-2003 9:27 AM


This response probably DOES NOT belong in this thread, so if the ad mins want it moved, please do so for I do not comment in reply as to the "geological" 'orign' orign of LIFE any more here which the thread remands...
Now as to your "two" senetences in your third paragraph... What I had said or meant to say was that dialetical materialism SHOULD have been able to apply topobiology and as the a recent search in a NATURE abstract database shows that terminal keratocytes imply out of French research the cell death "capsase pathway' there IS NOT ANY MORE ANY doubt in my mind that I was correct about this. Death of cells needs to be accounted for in Gould's and not Dawkins' notion of time and then checked for reality before teaching this to students...(death can certainly be used to find a continuum between an orbit and trajectory which is matterially missing in the differential approach to DESCRIBING biological change. Topobiology asserts mechanical consequences. These need to be tested or in the case of the evidence cited updated such that maybe the original Edleman thought is no longer even called topobiology just as Gould thought the Darwininan unit may imply that what the theory of change connotes is no longer "darwinism". I certianly see the original sense of Mendel(ism) replaceing the "neo" part...
The "strategy or scheme" that I used was to ALLOW any EVOLUTIONARY CONSEQUENCE of topobiology TO STAND physically and be taught as "science" so that one could get an answer to the question of the horzion of embryogeny that moleuclar embryology would no longer be merely topo wise introduced as and as you say that you know some materialism dialectically then answer why Gould thought it OK to use Hegel when Hedigerr would or could of told his Kantian side otherwise? Simply deal with Derrida's reading of Husserl and try to think of Cantor at the same institution at the same near time frame... My bet is that gain say or use of Contradiction a la Russel will not on a philosophy of invariance to which any kind of materialism must essentailly entail to some contraint will not give the current version of taught evolutionary thought though it is possible this non-evolutionist c/e slanted critical work may indeed have so already contributed to funding directions in the substance of the work that it would be ludicrious not to inform students of the social when not psychological effects of the non-mainstream thinking that is going on contra ANY chomsky believe about the language being used in the process of the denotation. So I dont care that I give evolution the better angle here for if for instance the BIOLOGY of Croizat was hyperlinked into any next drawing of a Russel line then I feel fairly confident that any temporary relief that a historian like Provine might have already felt in the past few decades will be as fleeting as Newton's transient fit is to electrons(not photons) let passed and thenSTOPED in the experimental philsophy that can not be denied to any so doing creationist authors to say nothing of the strict application that topobiology will provide to the conditions of the topology itself of the same topography and this still will be able to "bubble" thru the Chicago school ideas of ecosystem to which would be of USE in dialetical materialism when not actually done so Platonically at least already.
I have NO idea what the phrase "are on about" means. I used to be asked if I was "on" drugs and this is the only thing these words can literally mean and yet you ought to know the answer to this question for it is almost the same as declining to interest an intelligent creationist desgining a debate....
I meant what I said, indeed it may have been more poorly expressed for it is an open question if transfinite genetics done in celll death will not show FIRST that some compact classes Russel logically had no information beyond the logical existence of do materially exist but then some linguistic work for art would likely still be part of the conversation and yet that would indeed be Less intelligent and more instinctual. I can deal with the word "evolution" directly for I still need to see some discussion of biological change rather than evolution as reference to Fuytuma will not be where I would show more results for any applied dialectical materialism as there need not be an equlibria of his sort when the orders FROM a shape from infinty be available to mathematical analysis but to say if I will die with a better proposal than Wolfram's at the present time, I, for one, can not gain say though I might with a beer tell you so over the phone.
Still this MIGHT have relevance to the use of sequence straigraphy say in thinking about what to do with claims in the field of origins but this as I said in the beginning Iw as not longer saying in this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by contracycle, posted 06-18-2003 9:27 AM contracycle has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 18 of 23 (43433)
06-19-2003 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by contracycle
06-19-2003 5:42 AM


Oh, sorry your call CAN be completed as a SOAp
I was disappointed with what Richard C. Lewontin of Harvard University wrote in IT ANIN'T NECESSARILY SO THE DREAM OF THE HUMAN GENOME AND OTHER ILLUSIONS for while I would side with Kitcher (position paper, book- on sociobiology)as to trying to any behavorially interpret pharse of Dakwins as part or not of pop sociobiology ("born selfish") and hence with Lewontin I lost my own attention on this rightly smart guy when in the aforesaid he wrote (he also wrote with Levin "Dialectical Biologist" or some such from which I thought up a question I had asked him over lunch at the Statler on CU Campus..)p.125... NY REVIEW OF BOOKS NY "Edelman's statement of the problem of development as one of dimension does not quite epitomize either the difficulty or his solution to it." "The invisible hand of development is the very one that the Scotish economists extended to Darwin." "In some instances, at least, the imprecision of high-flown vocabulary seems designed to substitute for a precision of ideas. If so, it is too bad, because..." TOPOBIOLOYis
a hard book to read,even for a professional biologist." "The problem is that no one has been able to make these metaphors work, or to give them a material molecular basis. That is the task that Edelman sets for himself." "All that is left is teh collection of local processes that give the APPEARENCE of overall coordination becuase they work." "The remainder of development is.." "The problem is not simply that we do not have single coherent stories to tell about these processes, but that we do not know how to produce well-framed questions of whose relevance we are sure."
And that last is what i had hoped if there was any massive medium to every dialectical biology program it would have in the "five- or ten-year intervals, driven largely by changes in available technology" at least framed such questions (see my own for comparison) when not also pragonalized answers to them. that is all.
You will have to excuse me to sticking to my own lingo, I do not know what "IMO" stands for. I am no longer interested in how any DM as you say may ADDress Evo-devo etc since I did not find interesting the language of evolution meaning involution and since Lewontin asserts that not even QUESTIONS could be found to have known relevance then it can not be the claim that my PAYED ACCEPTED TUITION AND A+s @ CU were of LESS substance then any philosophical hope that I may disagree with Kitcher when not Lewontin to as to the math of, for instance Gould on stablizing selection....And as for Marx I was reading his geometric mind for a while until I read Pascal then there was no comparision as to defintion s vs propostions when it comes to techonology vs science to any H guy. I am also not much hay for NOT looking for deductive approahes in thermodynamics but to each the probable possible when the impossible was not a mission....I understand the probablistic appraoch but I doubt it applies to continuity FROM TIMEs of CELL DEATH. Lewontin had already made a division of developement that may be EITHER his inability to gain say topo biology or else is a presumption about how to think of the materiality in some Dialetical process. I hope I made myself clear enough. I can say little better about this to which I disagree....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by contracycle, posted 06-19-2003 5:42 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by contracycle, posted 06-20-2003 6:34 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 20 of 23 (43483)
06-20-2003 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by contracycle
06-20-2003 6:34 AM


Re: Oh, sorry your call CAN be completed as a SOAp
In the finite-teleological position is to be found the correct premise that nature does not contain within itself the absolute purpose. [245].
If it hasnt been meaningful for you that is because it is you not I that is not communicating. Please bring this or anything else up perhaps UNDER a thread I, for instance started and I will be happy , in time, the exhaust my trahcheal lunged o2...but I do not see in a simple finite scan of the link you provided or any question to me as to GEOLOGY as this thread head remands. Sure any one reacing back as far as you do historically could provide SOME kind of narrative that realates a horizon to this story but unless you do you simply in my web etiqutte fail to utlize the net advantage that is available by continuuing to post WITHIN the characterizatins provided by the URL you post out and into...
Personally i would no matter the H, be arguing for an acutal purpopse and leave Biblical Creationism to Sunday but that is me and again said nothing about geology. But we would have a inifinte teleomatic position instead in that case. Hence there would not be a polarity between the socialty of creations and evolution but alas this is not likely the anthropology we would on fumes agree to disagree about in the end. Please start a new thread or relate Hegel by some sholarship to some geology reference here the title of Engels' work only makes me wonder about Malthus and to this I for one COULD relate to the stratigraphy of tiantotheres and not Lewontin's triceratops. I think that too was ploy with language for any math he may have matterial also understood. But this for a third time is still coming from me and not you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by contracycle, posted 06-20-2003 6:34 AM contracycle has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 21 of 23 (43486)
06-20-2003 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by contracycle
06-20-2003 6:34 AM


Re: Oh, sorry your call CAN be completed as a SOAp
sorry duplicate
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 06-20-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by contracycle, posted 06-20-2003 6:34 AM contracycle has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 23 of 23 (43944)
06-24-2003 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by contracycle
06-24-2003 11:53 AM


That's fine but unless you post as a response to my post(s) I will be less likely to read your reply. All the best. Brad. I had bought a book on DM in biology and the two Ls book to which I "screwed" up by herpetology to ask a question to Dick only to find he followed the wrong creature and not even the creator either so although I found the existence of such books interesting I could not find the science entailed and when I found that no attempt has been made but to criticize Topobiology as a REDUCTIONISM (to which it need not be if for instance Lamarks chemisry exists to which Gould reads history diffently...) by Richard whom Gould thinks is smartest I lost even any culutral interest I may have had with the naturalism as to any natural history so biological involved materially. Gould's work will not correctly philosophize because he too easily points agaisnt creationsim. Lewontin doesnt do this but he needs to get the soft parts correct as Gould has before he can garner better theoretical assent among the subjective taxa specialists to say nothing about his attempts likely actually correct anti-socociobiologically and yet there is still more biology than this which need not only be Cricks relation to the vital force. The field is just not materially deep enuogh as Croizat took and undertook retirement in SA instead. I may be mildly incorrect about the increased confidence I leak post-Wolfram but I am tired of being benched for all the economics involved to which I take it Gould's investment in Smith economics DOES pertain but to which I find less interest likely if, I would have tested anthropologically and not psychologically(logicallY) as Gould did. But then the dawkins stuff would have to be meat and not milk.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by contracycle, posted 06-24-2003 11:53 AM contracycle has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024