flat rotation curves and 'foam' large scale struct

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The successes of 'Big Bang' theory can then be mimicked by a series of 'mini bangs'.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Just on a tangent, there is a curious resemblance to the state of evolutionary theory. It is no longer considered a uniformly transitional process (ironically derived from "Uniformitarianism") but is now regarded as long period of stasis interrupted by short periods of rapid change. The new term: "Punctuated Equilibrium."

Reason for previous post: I thought there was an obvious relation of the opening statement to biology.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In www.gravity.uk.com is a conjecture that the value of 'G' depends on the proximity of surrounding matter.

---

In biology, could we conjecture that the viability life (in the cosmos), including any notion of evolution we may have, depends on the proximity of surrounding life.

Jimiproton, the notion of life forming only when surrounding life is present does not have to be true. In classical biology studies, the notion of abiogenesis means that when life-forming chemicals are present under the correct environment, life can develop but then precludes further new development. Chemicals like amino acids (the precursors of proteins), simple carbohydrates, and various organic molecules all contribute to life forming chemistry. On earth of the past before life, these chemicals were soups in the oceans. They were the product of electrical, volcanic, and radioactive processes. Some biologists conjecture that cell membrane like chemicals formed as films on the oceans surface and that wave action caused them to wrap up life forming chemicals. The spark of creation into life processes has occured in labs already. The question that was posed is why don't we observe new life being formed. The answer lies in the word abiogenesis. Once life was created, all of the juicy precursors to life became food, once nourished, the new organisms competed for niches in the improving environment. Oxygen-mediated metabolism and photosynthetic organisms evolved and voila. I posted this with the intention of debating abiogenesis and the role of the known physical forces in it. I included the bit about wave action on the formation of the cell membrance, because gravity is involved. MV

Mark Virtone, I can see the point that the whole ecosystem became alive, or part of life (or food for life) at once, and that is why we don't see new life being created today. I've often thought that such a process must have been a part of an even larger process, where cosmic forces were also in balance, otherwise the stability of the system would have fallen apart through the weakness of just one of it's component-link processes. That has always been the difficulty with biologists.

I've often thought that only in an area of super-high-stability can the individual components of ilfe arise simultaneously, as they are required by logic to do. Symbiotic systems in nature (bee-flora surival) are merely one example; in fact the whole system is symbiotic, both between species, and within organisms.

Super-high-stability requires super-high pressures, both atmospheric, and otherwise (pressure in the LCM, even in the GCM, although before even considering this, we have our work cut out for us in demonstrating their existence).

I strongly suspect that life originated in the galactic center, perhaps within our sun (the components of life that rely on LCM and GCM sttability), and later was transferred to the planet at fusion, where is became manifested in the baryonic form we enjoy now.


Anyway,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The spark of creation into life processes has occured in labs already.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I'd heard that amino acids had been produced, but I didn't know that any life processes were initiated. Do you have information on what the processes were? I understand that traditionally, life has been understood as the exhibition of the processes of growth, metabolism, reproduction, and response to stimuli.

I'm moving to the "Meta Science" forum with some extra comments on the question of life, since I think we've (rather, I've) departed from the original post.

Using closed systems in labs. Wait... I will define closed systems as this....a closed vessel usually glass wherein light, electricity, radioactivity, temperatures, and chemical composition is held a constant as reasonable expense and limits are possible. There will be bias from members of this board especially concerning cosmic rays, zero point energy, gravity, etc. That being said...and I will try to find some sources later but it was clearly presented during college in my degree program that now classical experiments where polypeptide chains were exposed to situations predicted during the prelife epoch on earth. Lightning and radiation exposure, the presence of volcanic material etc. come to mind. In these cases, amino acid formation and catalyst mediated protein synthesis has occured. Well the question was how could proteins form without genetic templates? The answer came in the form of fossil discovery supported research into clay crystals that occur on some estruarial shorelines along several of the now existing continents. These crystals form the inverse of some basic protein structures. Once these proteins were created they began to interact. In the presence of some of these proteins which now act enzymatically on longer protein strands, replication, division, and possible synthesis occured leading to the retroactive formation of a master strand that could duplicate. So we have proteins creating ribonucleic acids or RNA. Once RNA was created and proteins began to be synthesized the oceanic soup of chemicals was devoured in favor of this new matrix. Evolutionary processes than began to take over since the earth had "selected" a viable chemical/biological system.

Experiments to this point have successfully created proteins in the soup when these particular clay crystals were present.

For those members of strong religious feeling notice the creation of life from clay. Please no divergences on this though, it is just an interesting tidbit.

Mark

Mark Vitrone

Do viruses qualify as life?

Some experts say yes. Some say no. (Can you believe that? The experts disagree!)

===

Anyway, ... There is a virus known as the T4 phage. Under an electron microscope it looks for all the world like a miniature hypodermic needle. And it functions like a hypodermic needle. It has a reservoir, plunger and needle. The reservoir contains a load of genetic material, and the T4's purpose in life seems to be to find a cell somewhere, insert the needle, and squirt. The cell then starts producing more T4s.

Scientists playing with the T4 discovered that it could be broken into about 50 separate parts, protein and amino acid molecules, I believe. (See <i>Engines of Creation</i> by K Eric Drexler for the details.) Each of these 50 parts is clearly a non-living chemical. They can be produced in the lab.

But if you put all 50 together in a test tube and shake it, the parts will spontaneously re-assemble into a fully functional T4 ...

LB