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?

On Feb 19, 2:19 pm, Tom Hendricks att.net> wrote:
I am a physicist. I hate to see physics jargon misused.

Neither the sun or uv is a force.

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.

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

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 on
http://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.

"Lorentz" yahoo.com> wrote [to Hendricks]:

Not true. Most abiogenesis theories DO NOT involve environmental
cycles as a necessary ingredient, though many speculate that some
kind of cyclic process (like the tides or a freeze/thaw cycle) might
be involved in concentrating or purifying the 'building blocks'.

And I think that to call geothermal convection a 'cycle' in this
context only confuses things. Mantle convection is not an
example of what Tom is talking about unless you think that
life somehow originated in the mantle by some kind of process
like those contemplated by Anthonie Muller. 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.

On Feb 22, 12:49

On Feb 22, 12:49

On Feb 23, 5:01 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

Most deep

No, they require more than a source of geothermal heat. They
require a geothermal heat gradient. In order for aqueous nitric acid
to form, for example, there has to be magma or extremely hot rock in
contact with cooler water. The region of temperature gradient has a
low density of entropy. Thus it allows order to develop locally (not
globally).

On Feb 23, 5:01 pm, Tom Hendricks att.net> wrote:

Never heard of "chemical adaption...

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...

On Feb 25, 12:13