For Pierre, Dov, Pietro, and others : 
  satamas : 
  Sat, 27 Nov 1999 04:32:51 GMT<br>
<br>
  This board is for Dov Henis, Pierre Sonigo, Pietro Ramellini, and others who seem to be interested in crazy (also non-testable and useless) theories about Origin of Life :)<br>
<hr />
RE:For Pierre, Dov, Pietro, and others : 
  sonigo : 
  Sun, 05 Dec 1999 20:29:50 GMT<br>
<br>
  Thanks to Sergei for opening the topics. Understanding life is not dissociable from understanding its history.<br>
  <br>
  A key constraint for an acceptable &quot;theory of life&quot; is its compatibility with a theory for its initial history (I prefer &quot;history&quot; to &quot;origin&quot;). Our current theory of life, based on genetic information is not compatible with an acceptable theory for its history. Do we have to work/think more or do we have to reject our current theory of life ?<br>
<hr />
 
RE:For Pierre, Dov, Pietro, and others : 
  dov : 
  Fri, 14 Jan 2000 07:55:22 GMT<br>
  <br>
Pierre, you state : &quot;Our current theory of life, based on genetic information, is not compatible with an acceptable theory for its  history&quot;.
Please elaborate a bit on &quot; acceptable theory for life's history &quot;,  to help appreciate your statement. 
Thanks, <br>
Dov<br>
<hr />
  RE:For Pierre, Dov, Pietro, and others : 
  sonigo : 
  Wed, 19 Jan 2000 09:36:07 GMT<br>
  <br />
We are not able to reconstitute in a convincing manner the historical steps of the molecular assembly of a cell, origin of the genetic code, etc. What Dave Abel call the &quot;origin of life&quot;.<br>
  <br>
  What do I call acceptable ? What is acceptable in Science ... A very difficult question requiring more than a few lines. Lets keep in a basic evolutionary framework : a series of random (but probable) events successively selected (providing selective advantage) in their environment.<br>
  <br>
  I am sure you will ask : &quot;is Dov Henis proposal, (see reprint) acceptable&quot; ?<br>
  <br>
  I would say : no. IMHO, like in other proposals I know, there is a gap between the nucleotide and the present translation apparatus for example. You need more steps. Note that it might be acceptable for others, including Dov himself ;)<br>
  <br>
  Is it helpful ?<br />
  <hr />
    RE:
For Pierre, Dov, Pietro, and others : 
  dov : 
Thu, 20 Jan 2000 18:50:49 GMT<br>
<br> Thank you Pierre for the helpful elaboration on acceptable theory of life's history.<br />
  <br />
My preprint main conjecture is a sincere, though oversimplified and primitive, suggestion that early life history started with random and chance formations of various organisms that may now be called   single genes and proceeded with environment-driven symbiotic associations of genes and then with cellularization etc.,<br />
<br>
Re gene expression and re translation apparatus I primitively suggest to bear in mind that the in-micro-planet in-cell organisms live in water-based plasma and their configurations and manipulating capabilities are enabled by energetically cascaded interactions with participation of molecules/ions around them directed by what may be termed configuration-based templates.<br />
  <br />
  Granted that a reference to early single genes or to their later symbiotic associations as &quot;living organisms&quot; still does not touch the &quot;origin of life&quot;. This is  only an attempt to roll back life's historical curtain as far back as possible but it leaves us yet in darkness re the &quot;nature of life&quot;. It will take a resolution of both the &quot;nature&quot; and &quot;mechanism&quot; of life to comprehend the &quot;origin of life&quot;, and with due respect to nature it is impossible to estimate if/when this may be feasible.<br>