Many things evolve. Life, the economy, software systems, language, music, culture etc. all evolve.
For e.g.
For e.g.
Software systems
Language
Culture
Business
Life
What about non-life? Does it evolve too?
Sure, chemical reactions evolve until they reach equilibrium. Incrediblly complex ice crystals form when water freezes, however these crystals are unable to catalyze the formation of other ice crystals. Not a single example exists whereby prebiotic synthesis scenarios lead to the formation of a molecule that is capable to catalyze the synthesis of molecules of its own kind. This phenomenon has never been observed in nature or, even, in the most ingenious laboratory condition.
There seems to be a fundamental difference between prebiotic evolution and the examples above about life, language, computer software etc. The difference is in the outcome: Emergence of complexity capable of reproducing itself.
Evolution of systems where intelligence is involved, evolve toward greater complexity (complexity emerges). Given what we know about intelligence and intracellular mechanisms, even traditionally viewed simple cells outsmart our best efforts at AI. Also, complexity seems to be the destiny in the evolution of life. Thus intelligence is involved in the evolution and emergence of complexity in all examples where complexity increases over time.
So far, no intelligence no evolution. That trend seems to continue:
Biologists on the Verge of Creating New Form of Life
Molecular biologists at Harvard Medical School are building/designing/front-loading (BDFl) simple cell models. They are purposefully BDFl protocells out of fatty acid molecules that can trap bits of nucleic acids. It is unclear whether these nucleic acids are random strings of nucleic acids or purposefully BDFl-ed to contain the source code for replication. How can one interpret this?
Will this kind of simple protocell break the first "rule" of evolution:
First 'Rule' Of Evolution Suggests That Life Is Destined To Become More Complex
Will it evolve to become ever simpler parasitic organisms?
Or will it be able to harness random variability and selection for controlled variability like primitive cells with a stable optimized code, cell cycle machinery, variation inducers and quality control mechanisms?
If these protocells seem to break the first "rule", what would happen if the researchers jumpstart these protocells with a few more "source codes"? Would they be able to bias evolution?
Can't wait for their results to be published. Maybe their research can be dubbed "front-loaded abiogenesis" to support the "front-loaded evolution" hypothesis.
Sure, chemical reactions evolve until they reach equilibrium. Incrediblly complex ice crystals form when water freezes, however these crystals are unable to catalyze the formation of other ice crystals. Not a single example exists whereby prebiotic synthesis scenarios lead to the formation of a molecule that is capable to catalyze the synthesis of molecules of its own kind. This phenomenon has never been observed in nature or, even, in the most ingenious laboratory condition.
There seems to be a fundamental difference between prebiotic evolution and the examples above about life, language, computer software etc. The difference is in the outcome: Emergence of complexity capable of reproducing itself.
Evolution of systems where intelligence is involved, evolve toward greater complexity (complexity emerges). Given what we know about intelligence and intracellular mechanisms, even traditionally viewed simple cells outsmart our best efforts at AI. Also, complexity seems to be the destiny in the evolution of life. Thus intelligence is involved in the evolution and emergence of complexity in all examples where complexity increases over time.
So far, no intelligence no evolution. That trend seems to continue:
Biologists on the Verge of Creating New Form of Life
Molecular biologists at Harvard Medical School are building/designing/front-loading (BDFl) simple cell models. They are purposefully BDFl protocells out of fatty acid molecules that can trap bits of nucleic acids. It is unclear whether these nucleic acids are random strings of nucleic acids or purposefully BDFl-ed to contain the source code for replication. How can one interpret this?
Szostak's protocells are built from fatty molecules that can trap bits of nucleic acids that contain the source code for replication.It would be fascinating to see if Szostak and his group can get these protocells to become autonomous self-replicate entities. Perhaps this could be the first real life test for front-loading?
Will this kind of simple protocell break the first "rule" of evolution:
First 'Rule' Of Evolution Suggests That Life Is Destined To Become More Complex
Will it evolve to become ever simpler parasitic organisms?
Or will it be able to harness random variability and selection for controlled variability like primitive cells with a stable optimized code, cell cycle machinery, variation inducers and quality control mechanisms?
If these protocells seem to break the first "rule", what would happen if the researchers jumpstart these protocells with a few more "source codes"? Would they be able to bias evolution?
Can't wait for their results to be published. Maybe their research can be dubbed "front-loaded abiogenesis" to support the "front-loaded evolution" hypothesis.
0 comments:
Post a Comment