Re: Life: Turn it upside down!

On 2024-04-09 19:03, JTEM wrote:

  Arkalen wrote:
 

It's been done

 Not by everyone, not here.

I meant in the field.

 

the gap was identified, and it's an unbelievably huge gulf

 Not really. Pretty small, actually. Especially when you're
looking at the dividing line there. There's a genuine
argument over viruses, for example.

Sorry, I thought you'd excluded viruses with the "step down from there" bit. The gulf is still huge between viruses and cellular life but I guess it's true the gulf between cellular life and nonlife is smaller if you include them. The issue in terms of abiogenesis is that it's unclear whether they're true intermediates or if they arose after or parallel to cellular life.

 

I think the alkaline hydrothermal vent theory is making good headway now

 You're doing it again. Looking at life instead of non
life, even as you argue that you're not or at least
not so much (maybe just a little?).

Maybe you're not familiar with the hypothesis? It's not looking at modern hydrothermal vent life, it starts with a fully abiotic scenario.

 I talked about the study of non life
 

but "what's the most complex non-living system" wasn't really the foundational insight there. More like "is there a non-living system that could generate energy like modern cells do".

 As you recall, part of the dogma is that the conditions no
longer exist. That, the conditions were perfect for spawning
life, abiogenesis occurred then immediately got up and left,
presumably searching for tea...
 If conditions persisted, abiogenesis should be observed!
 So take the emphasis off of life.
 

The alkaline hydrothermal vent hypothesis doesn't involve modern alkaline hydrothermal vents, in fact it relies on the assumption the chemistry would have worked out differently in an acidic, non-oxygenated ocean.
--
Cet e-mail a été vérifié par le logiciel antivirus d'Avast.
www.avast.com