Abiogenesis, nothing more than a chemical conclusion (NEW CONCEPTS)

[Mick Harper]

Of course I do. As I specifically said

[Mick Harper]

SCUM goes even further by pointing out that carbon can only escape the bounds of gravity by the extremely bludgeonsome method of going supernova ... unless it evolves into life-forms who can build rockets and so expand the carbon empire in much more carefully controlled ways.

[Wile E. Coyote]

More I look at this, more unhappy I get.

Yet......

It does appear to have a certain appeal to my "dividual" Megalithic mind, which I am trying to cultivate.

Maybe the idea is really very old....

[N R Scott]

Is there somewhere we can watch or read about SCUM?

[Mick Harper]

There's a DVD describing the whole theory called A New Model of the Solar System but that has never been for sale. It may be made available after Hatty and I find out about how to flog DVD's when the Desert DVD is ready (which is imminently but nobody knows how long that is in film-land).

I think there is a version of it somewhere out there in internet-land but I'll leave Chad or Ishmael or whomsoever to enlighten us on that. Possibly someone with a copy can download it to you but I have no idea about the practicality of this.

Somewhere the original idea was trotted out -- to gawping admiration and carping criticism -- in thread form but again I don't know where that is. If anyone knows, can they sing out.

I'd like to check it out myself to see how it has aged but unfortunately my DVD player's connecter thingy has broken. I was amazed when I originally bought it to find that DVD players are 7.99 or whatever at Tesco and this is probably cheaper than buying a new connector thingy from my local computer shoppe.. I still can't get my head round the modern world where everything is essentially free.

[Wile E. Coyote]

[Mick Harper]

I don't understand. What is the purpose of a DVD player unless you can watch it on a telly? Therefore it must be sold with a connector thingy. It's the law. Fit-for-purpose and so forth.

[Nifegun]

I'm liking the conversation starting here though I'd like to tackle the idea of evolution. New to forum didn't bother quoting, but someone mentioned that our definition of life should include not only propagating, but also diversifying. Though I don't see where my definition left out diversification. Even with a simple statement of "Life is just a chemical reaction that can sustain" we still have diversification and adaptation taking place since these initial reactions were started within a changing environment.

To evolve is just to propagate with modification. Even just using the fire example this is already seen happening. If the instance of life is actually just the reaction of combustion, then one way of thinking of it would be that spreading wouldn't be the fire moving, rather the fire breeding as it asexually creates more fire. Then when fire moves from one fuel source to another or into a different environment, we see fire of different colours and heat that is already diversifying.

In fact by reducing our definition of "Life" down to just "a chemical reaction" it seems more and more apparent the propagating with modification is more or less inevitable.

We call it evolution when a virus can eat new things and as such needs a new vaccine, so why would it not be evolution when fire is eating something else too?

While people often accuse me of over simplifying things, I'd like to point out that when running a computer program that does amazingly complex things, it's still really just adding numbers. A processor only has a few base functions to be used, yet we see amazing programs. Is it really too crazy to assume there really are only a few base actions happening in the universe, even though it's an immensely complex universe?

[Wile E. Coyote]

You might want to look at Randomness in the Philosophy forum....
Computers find Randomness difficult.....

[Nifegun]

My comparison between the universe and a computer was just to point out that it is not illogical to break things down to the simplest forms and figure out what they could do through repetition.

Meaning a changing environment causing a few simple reactions, perhaps even common reactions we already know of, could lead to complex life. Much the same way that a machine that at its core only adds numbers can display a fully rendered imaginary world for you to play a game in.

Randomness was never in question, nor is it entirely relevant to the analogy. The point is if just adding numbers can create a video game, or run incredibly complex simulations, it's not crazy to think a few simple chemical reactions could add up to being something as complex as life. Yes, one is formed in a system controlled by randomness, the other was planned by a human being, the point was one small simple thing happening over and over in slightly different conditions, when seen as a whole, can seem very complex.