Then what reason does anyone have to think you're anything other than a nut?I regret to say that I have no peer reviews, as you sought.
Then what reason does anyone have to think you're anything other than a nut?I regret to say that I have no peer reviews, as you sought.
Hey! some theories are simply great, on some theories greatness is thurst upon them (by virtue of the MAN who says it). My theory is great, no doubt. I feel funny how you miss the whole point
If my amateur understanding is correct, the RNA World hypothesis is not a Metabolism-First model.Regarding the origin of life: there is some problem with the Metabolism-First theories (chiefly RNA World theory).
The RNA world hypothesis, as I understand it, is that there were RNA strands that were self replicating without protein enzymes; that the RNA strands themselves were the enzymes that catalysed their own reproduction.Firstly, When there was no metabolism or any other activity for the RNA to perform, what was it coding for? It cannot be presumed that it coded for the proteins (enzymes) first and later metabolism appeared. How did a multitude of RNA molecules formed at a given time and coded for an array of enzymes? One cannot say that, first RNA coded for proteins randomly and then these proteins catalyzed various metabolic pathways. Metabolism, as we know now, cannot function so randomly.)
There are several natural inorganic sources of energy, mainly solar and geothermal.Second: All these polymerizations are highly endergonic events, meaning that they need a lot of energy input to build these molecules. This is thermodynamically unfavorable. From where did the urge come to defy entropy, what was the drive?
Some polymerized macromolecules in the right energetic environment tend to undergo reactions that produce more of the same molecule.Third: What has driven the polymerized macromolecules to replicate and reproduce themselves?
No. That's not a metabolism-first hypothesis at all.The problem with metabolism-first theories: The idea of metabolism-first theories was that amino acids lined up automatically forming proteins which catalyzed various chemical reactions which was the start of metabolism. Soon a drawback became obvious – how could the sequence of amino acids be decided without a code.
The fundamental idea behind metabolism-first is the suggestion that perhaps metabolism does not need any guidance or 'driving force'.Argument: To start with, metabolism needs energy, driving force and guidance.
What am I missing? You've written a book and you claim to be a Dr. As such you should know the central role evidence,and reason play in science and you should know how to do it. Yet when I ask you to provide some evidence you're not a nut you say I'm missing the point? You left a comment on my visitor's page saying that one day I might get it. I get science, I do science, I am a Dr too (not the medical kind). That's why I asked you to provide some evidence, some reason other than your say so. Instead you say something which I utterly disagree with :Hey! some theories are simply great, on some theories greatness is thurst upon them (by virtue of the MAN who says it). My theory is great, no doubt. I feel funny how you miss the whole point
No hypothesis, much less a theory, is great because of who said it. Newton's work on gravity wasn't great because Newton said it, it was great because he demonstrated it explained so many things. His work on calculus he put to real world use, further explaining what previously could not be explained. He also believed in bible codes and alchemy. By your logic they are great because Newton, possibly the greatest physicist ever, said them. They aren't great, they are nonsense.Hey! some theories are simply great, on some theories greatness is thurst upon them (by virtue of the MAN who says it).
Medical, it seems.Are you really a Dr? Medical or academic? What subject?
Surgeons generally refer to themselves as Mr, not Dr.It is true that I am a surgeon (practising surgeon) and if you consider this a disqualification to discuss science and a new hypothesis I have nothing to argue.
Except you have no evidence, so how can the second part exist?Again I am presenting my hypothesis in brief: My hypothesis has two aspects: one is the concept, and the other is an evidence-based thesis.
Nothing but baseless assertions and supposition. No evidence, no experiment, just claims. You say "I have argued" but you haven't argued, you've just stated.Now is my theory (the experiment): I have mulled over the question of origin (or generation) of this awareness. There has to be a seat for it to arise, is it not. At this age of scientific advancement you can NOT say that ENTIRE cell is responsible for this phenomenon. We know what a genome does, what cytoplasm does and other such details. We are also aware that membrane potentials are generated by the ionic disequilibrium. I have argued that this creates awareness and is responsible for adaptation and 'irritability'. My natural deduction was that primordial membranes formed first on the earth which acquired membrane potentials and generated awareness (the ability to show adaptive irritability) which subsequently formed (and organized) other cellular architecture.
That isn't elaborate, it's a short paragraph where you've used some buzzwords but you haven't provided any evidence, anything more than "I don't know what explains X therefore Y". If you think using a few technical words makes for an 'elaborate theory' then you're just naive. And it's not a theory, its an hypothesis. The two are different things in science.When I propose such elaborate theory I must substantiate.
Why haven't you provided all of this stuff to a journal in the form of a scientific paper? That's what I'd do if I honestly believed I had something worthy of scientific attention, as it would freely review my work by relevant scientists and it is a necessary step in getting your work to the attention of said scientists. In fact, that is what I did do when I had such work. That's what academics and researchers do. So why haven't you?If anybody is willing to go any further I can provide the details of my concept. Or anybody can read it in my website - originoflife.in
I've been told that's a UK thing. I don't think it's common elsewhere.Surgeons generally refer to themselves as Mr, not Dr.
How does an ice cube know when to melt? It sits in the Arctic for decades, even centuries, and then knows when to melt! Ice cubes are conscious!!A seed in its dormant form is also conscious. Is it not? It has kept its genome and its metabolism in its dormant state for an indefinite period of time. But the consciousness (or let us call it awareness) IS working in the background ALL the time, otherwise how does it KNOW that the external environment is conducive for germination?
When an ice cube melts into water, it is increasing its entropy (ice crystals have more molecular order than in water), which is very much in accordance with the nature. ALL NATURAL, SPONTANEOUS PROCESSES (OR REACTIONS) TEND TO INCREASE ENTROPY.
This isn't Bishadi with a grammar and spell checker is it?Life's processes defy nature in this way.... WHEREAS A GERMINATING SEED DEFIES THERMODYNAMIC PRINCIPLE.
Hardly.which is against the law of nature.