General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Chemical Selection Problem

Started by TomHendricks474 · · Last activity · 1 post · 489 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
30 December 2003
Last activity
30 December 2003
Original author
TomHendricks474
Posts
1
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
489
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–1 of 1
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Most origin of life scenarios are similar in that they suggest a fluke chemical event began the
    process towards life, and that chemical selection kept it going through millions of years.

    Yet there is IMO a basic flaw in all these. John Maynard Smith said it well when he said, "A trait
    will not be selected merely because it will have, at some time in the future, beneficial effects. It
    is present benefits that count." That's just basic evolution stuff.

    But when it comes to chemical evolution -- people forget it or claim it doesn't apply (they avoid
    the problem by saying this is not the official definition of the word 'selection' so it does not
    apply -- though if not selection -- what is at work here?)

    The quote when applied to the origin of life - demands we account for each step. That means when the
    first proto tRNA hooked up to the first Amino Acid - there was a benefit for both THEN, not a
    million years later. And when two Amino Acids formed a peptide bond it was a benefit to those amino
    acids THEN, not a million years later and when RNA folded into a tRNA shape it was a benefit to that
    RNA strand THEN, not a million years later.

    Some might say a first fluke - led to selection of a 2nd fluke - led to selection on a 3rd fluke —
    , etc. But how far can you stretch this incredibility - ten years? 25 years? A million years? If
    life depended on that much improbability - we aren't here.

    There had to be some advantage to every step along the way. Any scenario that fails to take that
    into account misses the bigger picture and at best can only account for some facet of the process -
    and only then be partially correct IMO.

    Tom Hendricks

    The main points of my hypothesis are:
    1. How life began as a reaction to the sun/UV and the thermal cycle of hot-dry-sun/cold-wet-night.
    Then continued as an energy moderator with modification through descent.
    2. The Four Options and how they relate to thermodynamics, biological classification, the first
    cell, modification on all levels, psychological behavior of individuals and groups, inner
    conflicts and a therapy of resolving them, etc.
    3. Model showing relationship between adaptation fitness and natural selection. How it supports
    punctuated equilibrium and the 'slope and plateau' model etc.

    For a reader friendly summary see my arts/media website url for Musea issue#122
    musea.digitalchainsaw.com122Musea1.html

    Tom Hendricks, Hendricks Health Theory text files at <A
    HREF="ediacara.orghendricks.html">ediacara.orediacara.or
    g/~josh/hendricks.html (text #10 has a not-too-out of date summary)

    Remember YOUR chemistry can't hide from MY sun.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.