Science and Technology news... :: View topic - David Deamer Response to my E-mail Comment

Tom Hendricks · Guest

I sent the following e-mail to David Deamer one of the
most notable people in the origin of life study.

Surprisingly he sent back his comments within an hour.
He agreed with some, disagreed with some and at the
end, told me that if I could think of an experiment to
test my idea, let him know. I>m thinking about that.

He also sent me a PDF of his paper:
Self-assembly processes in the prebiotic environment

Here>s the e-mail I sent him.

Dr. Deamer,

I would suggest a new way to look at the origin of
life that I haven>t seen in your work.

Most origin theories are what I call Pop and Adapt
chemical origins.

Lifelike chemical processes first POP up out of
nothing (usually the scenario must have a large fluke
factor for this to happen).
Then they adapt to the environment (though it is never
explained how any of these processes would survive the
environment long enough to adapt. Yet more fluke luck
is needed to make it work).

I suggest that there was no origin moment. Instead
there was a long process of chemical REACTION to the
environment. And every step of the way the most stable
chemical reaction survived. LIfe then is the most
stable reaction to a specific environment.

Note that short of zircon rock, life , as a collective
process, is the most stable thing on the earth
surface. The air has changed from its initial reducing
composition. The seas have been sterilized through
thermal vents, and the ground has changed through
plate tectonics.

With this in mind, I then suggest that we look at the
forces in that early environment that forced chemicals
to alter and chemically adapt to that environment. I
personally think UV is the key. It is no coincidence
that nucleotide bases are great absorbers of UV. See
paper below.

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/U/UV_origin_of_life.html

Thoughts?

John Edser · Guest

Tom Hendricks <tom-hendricks@att.net>

[quote]Surprisingly he sent back his comments within an hour.
He agreed with some, disagreed with some and at the
end, told me that if I could think of an experiment to
test my idea, let him know. I>m thinking about that.
[/quote]
JE:-
Hi Tom,

The view that you stated was:

"I suggest that there was no origin moment. Instead
there was a long process of chemical REACTION to the
environment. And every step of the way the most stable
chemical reaction survived. Life then is the most
stable reaction to a specific environment."

What in fact you are advocating is that survival rates per molecular
reaction per population be defined as a pre-biological fitness maximand.
I will illustrate this with a proposed reaction between A and B compared
to a similar reaction between C and D. If the A and B reaction is the
more stable compared to the C and D reaction within a population
comprising of of both, then without replenishment the AB reaction will
be naturally selected over the CD reaction. Eventually a smaller
population containing only AB reactions will have evolved. Unless AB was
extremely stable eventually even that population will disappear. OTOH,
if the population was continually being replenished with AB and CD types
then the rate of resourcing must be balanced against reaction stability
rates because you can lose the natural selective race even if you are
the more stable if replenishment outstrips stability. Here the evolving
system will not necessarily select for the most stable reactions just
the most convenient begging the question: convenient for what exactly?
This can be just about anything. However, Darwinian theory makes it
crystal clear that just the one quality allows Darwinian evolution:
survival long enough to facilitate parental reproduction. In this
particular case this applies to the two competing reactions within the
same population. Of course both have to survive but once this is
achieved they now need to survive to satisfy a new reproductive
maximand. IOW, reproduction must eventually replace stability as a
single fitness maximand per selectee per population. What the new
reproductive maximand demands is a reaction which remains sufficiently
stable _but not too stable_. As we all know carbon based reactions were
naturally selected because they remained optimally stable for
reproductive purposes. Silicon did not have sufficient stability while
others had far too much stability making reproduction almost an
impossibility.

While I agree that stability would have been a pre-biotic fitness
maximand. However, unless this was replaced by a reproductive maximand
there is no evolutionary future.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@ozemail.com.au

Tom Hendricks · Guest

On Jul 9, 2:15 pm, John Edser <ed...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
[quote]Tom Hendricks <tom-hendri...@att.net

Surprisingly he sent back his comments within an hour.
He agreed with some, disagreed with some and at the
end, told me that if I could think of an experiment to
test my idea, let him know. I>m thinking about that.

JE:-
Hi Tom,

The view that you stated was:

"I suggest that there was no origin moment. Instead
there was a long process of chemical REACTION to the
environment. And every step of the way the most stable
chemical reaction survived. Life then is the most
stable reaction to a specific environment."

What in fact you are advocating is that survival rates per molecular
reaction per population be defined as a pre-biological fitness maximand.
I will illustrate this with a proposed reaction between A and B compared
to a similar reaction between C and D. If the A and B reaction is the
more stable compared to the C and D reaction within a population
comprising of of both, then without replenishment the AB reaction will
be naturally selected over the CD reaction. Eventually a smaller
population containing only AB reactions will have evolved. Unless AB was
extremely stable eventually even that population will disappear. OTOH,
if the population was continually being replenished with AB and CD types
then the rate of resourcing must be balanced against reaction stability
rates because you can lose the natural selective race even if you are
the more stable if replenishment outstrips stability. Here the evolving
system will not necessarily select for the most stable reactions just
the most convenient begging the question: convenient for what exactly?
This can be just about anything. However, Darwinian theory makes it
crystal clear that just the one quality allows Darwinian evolution:
survival long enough to facilitate parental reproduction. In this
particular case this applies to the two competing reactions within the
same population. Of course both have to survive but once this is
achieved they now need to survive to satisfy a new reproductive
maximand. IOW, reproduction must eventually replace stability as a
single fitness maximand per selectee per population. What the new
reproductive maximand demands is a reaction which remains sufficiently
stable _but not too stable_. As we all know carbon based reactions were
naturally selected because they remained optimally stable for
reproductive purposes. Silicon did not have sufficient stability while
others had far too much stability making reproduction almost an
impossibility.

While I agree that stability would have been a pre-biotic fitness
maximand. However, unless this was replaced by a reproductive maximand
there is no evolutionary future.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

ed...@ozemail.com.au
[/quote]
Reproduction is one form of stability.
AB merging with CD is more stable than either separately.

John Edser · Guest

[quote]While I agree that stability would have been a pre-biotic fitness
maximand. However, unless this was replaced by a reproductive maximand
there is no evolutionary future.
[/quote]

[quote]Reproduction is one form of stability.
[/quote]
JE:-
The stability of exactly what?

One maximand quality must replace another measured against the same
quality because they necessarily contest only allowing one of them
within the sciences even if more than one is allowed within mathematics.

[quote]AB merging with CD is more stable than either separately.
[/quote]
JE:-
Why?

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@ozemail.com.au

Tom Hendricks · Guest

On Jul 11, 11:34 am, John Edser <ed...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
[quote]While I agree that stability would have been a pre-biotic fitness
maximand. However, unless this was replaced by a reproductive maximand
there is no evolutionary future.
Reproduction is one form of stability.

JE:-
The stability of exactly what?

One maximand quality must replace another measured against the same
quality because they necessarily contest only allowing one of them
within the sciences even if more than one is allowed within mathematics.

AB merging with CD is more stable than either separately.

JE:-
Why?

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

ed...@ozemail.com.au
[/quote]
Life as a collective force has lasted close to 4 billion years.
The sources of that stability are metabolism, replication, etc.

John Edser · Guest

Tom Hendricks <tom-hendricks@att.net> wrote:-

[quote]JE:-
While I agree that stability would have been a pre-biotic fitness
maximand. However, unless this was replaced by a reproductive maximand
there is no evolutionary future.
Reproduction is one form of stability.

JE:-
The stability of exactly what?

One maximand quality must replace another measured against the same
quality because they necessarily contest only allowing one of them
within the sciences even if more than one is allowed within mathematics.

AB merging with CD is more stable than either separately.

JE:-
Why?
[/quote]

[quote]Life as a collective force has lasted close to 4 billion years.
The sources of that stability are metabolism, replication, etc.
[/quote]
JE:-
What relevance does your response above re: the two questions asked?

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@ozemail.com.au

God's Creator! (HTML) · Guest

On Jul 8, 8:19 pm, Tom Hendricks <tom-hendri...@att.net> wrote:

[quote]I sent the following e-mail to David Deamer one of the
most notable people in the origin of life study.

Surprisingly he sent back his comments within an hour.
[/quote]
..... "You may say I>m a Deamer, but I>m not the only one ... "

14
http:/www.littleboxes.nl


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Biological Evolution Forum
Page 1 of 1