Letter to Dr. Mulkidjanian and His Research Team

This is my e-mail to Dr. Mulkidjanian, a major researcher in the origin of life.

Dr Mulkidjanian,

Congratulations on your well deserved attention in New Scientist. You are on the right track in my opinion.

1. I agree it was not ocean vents
2. I agree, life may have been started and survived the late bombardment.
3. I agree that the energy source was UV, that forced chemical selection that led to organic chemistry and life.

For what it is worth, I see life as the most STABLE chemical system.
(stable meaning keeps what works, and improves what does not)
It has survived 4 billion years. That is real stability.

But I also see it as a response to these dichotomies
1. day/night changes
2. wet/dry changes
3. hydrophilic/hydrophobic changes

Such that we are left with two part life: nurturing in chemistry PLUS waste out chemistry.

We didn’t have two origins of life. So how did all these dichotomies start?
They didn’t start separately, and then later connect up, in a third combined origin of life. That would make 3 separate origins.

My suggestion is, they were, through response to the energy of UV, a reflection of and an adaptation to,
the day/night, wet/dry, hydrophilic/hydrophobic environment.

Continues Success to you and your team.
Tom Hendricks

BIOLOGY HYPOTHESIS http://wp.me/p5S9X-eO
BIOLOGICAL SPECULATIONS Through The Years http://wp.me/P5S9X-Pp
UV PAPER http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/U/UV_origin_of_life.html
Catabolic and Anabolic evolved, but they did not blend.



Tags: , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s