Replies

Yes and they are called bubbles. This is a very nice just so story but adds nothing against the arguments presented by Stan the man Miller. He has evidence in a particular situation that the reagents of life can be formed without life. The experiment he helped perform provided that evidence. However, it has since been learned that some of the assumptions used in that experiment are not valid for the early earth. As a consequence it appears that his attitude towards the formation of life on this planet has acquired a distinctive extraterrestrial flavor. His observations have not been refuted by your claims.

Nor confirmed by anything terribly convincing. Pasteur also demonstrated the impossibility of spontaneous generation when he showed it couldn't happen in a pig pen in France in a few months. Yet I remain unconvinced, for some strange reason, that all the possibilities have now been exhausted. Just stubborn, I guess.

What you note at bubbling pots are bubbles, not cyclic exchanges of energy.

Not true. When a bubble in a cluster bursts, it gives it's all, literally, to the bubbles around it, including any additional potential energy opposed to dissolution embodied in chemical entities that are hydrophilic/phobic. What isn't demonstrated is a cycle that manages to increase it's energy store, and maintain itself over long periods of time. Although, as I think about it, I would argue that, from the point of view of gaining potential energy in the re-enforcement of bubble structure, there has, indeed, been an increase in potential energy in the surviving surrounding bubbles.

Heat goes one way from the heat source to the mud to the environment. It does not go the other way.

Presently, heat goes one way from the sun to the organic entities, it does not go back to the sun.

Bubbles are not formed by the mere presence of polymers, nor are polymers even required for bubbles. Bubbles form in pure boiling water. Now you may claim that water is a polymer, but that claim was made and debunked in the 60's.

Water is a very weakly bonded polymer, which is why life can exist at all--I know of no sense in which this claim has ever been refuted, save maybe by tightening down on the definition of polymer above a certain bonding strength. At any rate, this seems truistic and irrelevant, but perhaps I'm missing something?

So the final claim you make is that epibubbles are suggestive of a cyclic chemical process which could lead to life. I'll believe that when you present a persistant chemical cycle which could lead to life not involving life, in execution or planning.(and I don't mean like the Belousov-Zhabotinsky Reaction)

Hey, it's just a theory. I'm not even claiming it's a scientific theory, since I can't think of a practical falsifying test.