Bo: "... yet I feel that it is > the emergence which is THE enigma.
mel: Aside from mythical or modeled approximations the actual events will remain probabilistic at best. > > [Krimel] > > > I seriously can't imagine anyone who studies biology or basic > > > physics failing to understand that life on earth is a direct result > > > of the constant influx of solar radiation on our planet's surface. mel: That life requires energy gradients on which to base ongoing metabolism is certainly true, but solar energy is not exclusive. Most of the current regime of life is solar oriented, true. But, there is an implication in the above sentence that this MUST be so. Presuming I did not mis-read that implication, I disagree. While of course all elements, trans-hydrogen were birthed in the bellies of stars, there were indications that the oldest families of life so far identified on earth may bear more resemblance to the extremophile bacteria around fumarole vents in the ocean, where conditions more closely approximate those present at the likely time of the first stirrings of life. ( Based on sulfur compounds of deep earth-crust origin for energy, not sun-kissed carbon.) [okay, I'm a geek] Bo: <snip> > This doesn't offer any technicalities how inorganic carbon > turned into living organisms and at first glance it may look a bit like > the "Watchmaker" proof for God. Still, that is a Spirit doing magical > tricks to dead matter, while the Q-inorganic and Q-biological > patterns aren't matter and DQ isn't spirit. mel: First, carbon is the definition of organic-- there is no 'inorganic carbon'. Second, carbon is the nymphomaniac of the periodic table, ceaselessly hooking up with any molecule that stands still for a minute. In the 1980's I spent about 14,000 hours analysing the forms of carbon in soils and rocks. The literature of the known geological makeup of the earth seemed to see carbon come from three sources, burried deposits of plant-lush environments (like coal), river/lake.ocean bottom sediments full of bio-detritus (like oil), and small amounts from vulcanism. So, clearly, the complex, albeit degraded compounds should only be in the first two environments and the hard rock samples that have never included living sources would obviously contain no complex carbons. Long story short, carbon in-situ demonstrated the habit of forming liassons, families, clans, villages, kingdoms, and nation-states. Carbon behaves as self-assembling lego, inker-toy, erector sets given the chance. The mystery is why there is any planet without carbon based life or at least why there are any free elements that have not been "assaulted" by carbon...given its earthly behavior or misbehavior, with or without a 'u'. So, somewhere in Genesis there should be a line that God looked upon carbon and said: "Thou role, carbon, shall be the wanton, lustful whore. Temptress, dominatrix, and cheerleader oh element of "12" and all the other elements shall share thy bed. And it was good." [yet more geekiness] > > Krimel said in this connection: > > BTW, there are theologians who claim God does not exist. I believe > > you will find far more of them than you will find biologists claiming > > that life springs from a supernatural source. > > I agree, but then the above creation part isn't supernatural > because the S/O distinction (in this case supernatural/natural) is > relegated the more humble role as a pattern of the 4th. level. The > DQ/SQ dualism is now in command. > mel: Seems to me the term "supernatural" should have been long ago retired. In place we ought to consider, analogous to visible light in the the E-M Spectrum, that we have always lived in a very narrow band of a far larger continuum of a "spectrum of existence" that we are really only just beginning to explore. thanks--mel Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
