Posts Tagged ‘OOL’

The Origin of Life – Difficult or Easy?

September 2, 2017

IF the origin of life was difficult then we are most likely not here.

If the origin of life was not difficult then we are most likely here.

The fact that we ARE here suggests that the origin of life was most likely not difficult.

The Lab

See tomhendricks.us

Advertisements

Report – O2 on earth earlier than thought

October 7, 2015

Life is not a fluke one-time assembly, of chemicals that popped up out of nothing in one place. It’s a reaction to the environment over millions of years.

My ideas on the origin of life, are based on the idea that life was a reaction to UV and sunlight, in a daily cycle. That gets some support by this article showing how far back photosynthesis goes – much further than many had thought.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151006192107.htm

==========

My paper:
UV PAPER http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/U/UV_origin_of_life.html
Catabolic and Anabolic evolved, but they did not blend.

Photo 3

Convergent Evolution – Letter to Dr. Morris

July 8, 2015

Dr. Simon Conway Morris

Convergent Evolution is a fascinating idea. Here are some aspects that may interest you.

1 The Origin of Life may have been, not a one time fluke chemical event, but the most stable chemical system in that environment over millions of years – specifically that which best survived the daily UV (day and night cycle), and turned it into a way to become more stable – stable in two ways, 1. stable in keeping what works, and 2. stable in changing what doesn’t.

2. Convergent evolution may work for catabolic and anabolic processes too – such that the better catabolic and anabolic methods are selected for across all life.

3. Being bipedal, not only freed the hands for tools, but perhaps more importantly allowed the mother to hold, carry, caress, and soothe the baby. Thus developing strong social bonds. I tend to think social bonds are a part of convergent evolution.

This is an article on Dr. Morris’s book.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150702163902.htm

Tom Hendricks
UV PAPER http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/U/UV_origin_of_life.html
Catabolic and Anabolic evolved, but they did not blend.

Photo 1

(Alien Garden)

Had Earth = Cheeseburger, then Life = chem. adaptation to Cheeseburgers

April 13, 2015

Had Earth = Cheeseburger, then Life = chem. adaptation to Cheeseburgers

Had the earth been a cheeseburger, life would have evolved as the best chemical adaptation to cheeseburgers. In other words, no matter what existed, life would be defined as the best most stable reaction to that environment.

My suggestion as to how life began:

#1
UV energy from the sun –> strikes chemicals during the day, then goes away at night in a daily cycle that continues for 4 billion years.
#2
Chemicals hit by the sun react in one of two ways
———-> 1. they are destroyed.
———-> 2. they continue to exist another day.
#3
The UV cycle of energy repeats itself every day.
#4
The chemicals that are not destroyed in this cycle develop two types of stability:
a. they are stable in not changing what is stable in that environment.
b. they are stable in changing what is not stable in that environment.

UV energy –> selection on chemicals —> the most stable continue to exit —>
they are stable in two ways —>

Stable a. take in and hold what is nurturing —> metabolism —-> anabolic
Stable b. block out, and excrete out what is not nurturing —> replication –> catabolic

There IS a direction to natural selection. With every step life gets better anabolic or catabolic processes.

============
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.

These posts are built on the premise of the evolution of catabolic and anabolic processes to other separate deconstructive and constructive processes.
Catabolic and anabolic processes evolve but they do not blend
http://wp.me/p5S9X-eO (bio summary)

Life is 99% Likely to Start = Most Likely Scenario

January 17, 2015

Life is 99% likely to start = most likely scenario

Life, the origin of life, is more likely to start if it had a 99% chance of starting; than if it had a 1% of starting. So most likely the OOL was 99% likely, not 1%
(or 90%, not 10%, or 70% not 30%, etc.)

For me the turning point to the study of the OOL, is that life is not a fluke, but the most stable chemical reaction to the environment
Though this proves nothing, it may adjust the mindset in OOL investigation, that seems stuck in a rut.

==============
3 Sayings

Life fit what was here, not what was here was here to fit life.

Life is more likely to start if it had a 99% chance of starting, instead of a 1%. So most likely the origin of life was 99% likely, not 1%.

Wet/dry + UV and sun/night + nurturing in/ waste out +anabolic chemistry/catabolic chemistry = Life , right in the middle because that is where everything is stirred!


%d bloggers like this: