Skip to main content

The first cell and fine tuning

The following discussion assumes that there is such a thing as an evolutionary dead-end. Or better, a cuddle-de-sac (the two words are synonymous in their literal meaning, but "dead end" seems to suggest that you must stop, whereas "cuddle-de-sac" suggests that you can turn around). That is, some life forms are much less likely to form a more complex, higher life forms than others.

The discussion also assumes that we can imagine many different ways in which different kinds of primal life forms could have arisen. Only one of these ways would be dna as we know it now. It assumes that given the laws of chemistry and the conditions, there are many ways biogenesis could have occurred... many ways of duplicating a dna like code as well as read it to form proteins.

Here is question #1 (I can only ask, not answer this question, so it ain't much of a discussion): Are there many ways that the first cell could have structured? Would all of those ways have led to evolution, especially the evolution of animals with the sort of neural complexity (cortex, and in humans, neocortex) found in mammals? When we compare the probability of this sort of life form developing in comparison with the other "non-mammalable" or " forms, is there a 50/50 chance of the mammalable form or far less than 50%?

#2 What IF the cortex-friendly-Dna forms are highly improbable in comparison with the other biogenesis scenarios? ("IF" is such a big, big word): do we have a case of fine tuning here? (no need to commit as to whether a space alien, demi-god, angel or infiinitely transcendent being is the tuner)

That is, I think, the relevant question for a protozoic version of the fine tuning argument.

Question #2: if many of these are equally probable, then why does only one exist now? Did the DnaAsWeKnowIt organisms beat out the others?
Labels:

Comments

Unknown said…
The probability may very well be greater than 50%. Each evolutionary step is dependent on the last, and so the intermediate probabilities are independent, and not just multiplied. Imagine running the Game of Life for billions of years. In just a few minutes, it can make little things that reproduce.
8:01 AM
Leo White said…
Okay, I guess I gotta read that Game of Life thing... then I'll call you up to have you translate.
9:21 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

response to friend who suggested that the self is a democracy of neural parts

This is a nice way to try to avoid being cornered re the irreality of the self if you're a reductionist, for you can assert that a pattern obtains at the microscopic level that is not all that unlike the pattern found at the societal level.  No need for the one self that does it all: instead, you have many sub-selfs that compete for dominance or take turns guiding the whole. The problem with this is, however, that the voters/officials are all zombies.  None of them thinks about the whole as such.  And perhaps none of them thinks even about themselves (unless one is a panzoist).  None of them makes a comparison of alternatives. The more this proposed democracy seems like a zombocracy, the more consciousness will be seem to be epiphenomenal. Furthermore, if the oneness of the self is less real than the multiplicity of explanatory neural parts, then why can't each of these neural parts be conceived of as democracy as well?  And why not parts of these parts, et...
6 comments
Read more

what is an organism?

How about defining it as an instance of functional complexity? And treating the list of properties as following necessarily from this definition? Okay, this is very diamond-in-the-rough (or perhaps zirconium...) but here goes my thoughts on the matter: (Complexity) Many diverse parts (functional) acting for the sake of the whole I think I need to add something like "not as the instrument of another" or something like that. Given that they act together as one whole and given entropy, etc., the organism will need to posses more order than its surroundings (homeostasis). It will therefore need to take in energy (nutrition), which it will use to sustain its readiness to interact with its environment so as to preserve its own being (homeostasis again?), but which will eventually break down (death), so that in order for that life form to continue it will need to duplicate itself (reproduction), which, upon occurring, will involve both development (growth) to maturity and...
13 comments
Read more