The Life Spectrum Hypothesis

[Cohiba]

The Life Spectrum Hypothesis

Hello,

I am constantly fascinated by the topics and people that I read about on this forum, but have preferred to observe. I have been reading for the past couple months, and this is my first post, and indeed my first day as an "official" forum member. Something caught my attention on the web, and I did a search about it here, and on google, but did not find many topics to read, so I would like to put it to the wonderful minds here to see what you either already know about this, or think about it...

THE LIFE SPECTRUM HYPOTHESIS HYPOTHESIS POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS FOR THE NATURE, CREATION AND EVOLUTION OF THE DNA MOLECULE AND LIFE




I apologize if this has already been discussed, please just point me the right way to read more about it....

 

[Dmitri]

Re: The Life Spectrum Hypothesis

Hi,

I do not think this is serious. If the person were a physicist speculating about those analogies in the realm of waves and molecules, I would listen, not to this really. There are similar lines of argument in the anthropic principle discussions. I would count on known authorities in physics in those matters. E.g. Hoyle, Fred (1954), in Astrophysics Journal Supplement, Vol. I: "If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just about where these levels are actually found to be.... A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature." (p. 121) Nobody has observed any informational molecules to spontaneously form, even in their simplest species, and there no precursors of those molecules found in the known world. So why imagine chemical reactions becoming biological with no evidence at hand?

~D

 

[Harte]

Re: The Life Spectrum Hypothesis

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Cohiba\")</div>

Hello,

I am constantly fascinated by the topics and people that I read about on this forum, but have preferred to observe. I have been reading for the past couple months, and this is my first post, and indeed my first day as an \"official\" forum member. Something caught my attention on the web, and I did a search about it here, and on google, but did not find many topics to read, so I would like to put it to the wonderful minds here to see what you either already know about this, or think about it...

THE LIFE SPECTRUM HYPOTHESIS HYPOTHESIS POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS FOR THE NATURE, CREATION AND EVOLUTION OF THE DNA MOLECULE AND LIFE

I apologize if this has already been discussed, please just point me the right way to read more about it....[/b]

Cohiba,
First of all, welcome to the site. Now that that's out of the way, here's the first thing that I see about this hypothesis that I don't agree with:

Now, take a close look at the double helix. It's overall structure, discovered by Crick and Watson, is striking and famous - it seems so perfect. What is even more remarkable is that the DNA looks very similar to a light wave. Look at a side view of the molecule and you will see that it clearly has a wavelength and amplitude just like a light wave. However, the DNA is three dimensional and regular transverse light waves are only two dimensional. Figure 2 illustrates a 2-dimensional light wave which in this case is an AM wave.

Figure 2: A 2-Dimensional Light Wave

The wave shown above is the two-dimensional representation of an electromagnetic wave. Similar drawings are made to show sound waves. They are just Trigonometric functions that mimic the repetitive nature of waves and thus make it possible for us to analyze waves mathematically. Actual waves may be nothing like this. I am sure that if you think about it, you will realize that sound waves, at least, must actually be spherical. Waves on a pond's surface, which can also be represented by the same functions used to show electromagnetic waves, are actually circular. I am certain that you are aware of this.

Anyway, when the author says "regular transverse light waves are only two dimensional", he does not know what he's talking about. Light waves must be three dimensional, otherwise we would not be able to see every detail of an object (a nearby object, in my case.)

Because of this error in the very first part of the author's presentation, I suspect that there is a lot in the paper that I would have objections to, at least scientifically. I haven't (and don't plan to) looked any further in the paper. This first error is enough for me to disregard the premise.

Harte​