Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cornell.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!prins From: prins@cornell.UUCP (Jan Prins) Newsgroups: net.bio,net.origins,net.philosophy Subject: Re: The missing step -- self-reproducing organisms Message-ID: <2262@cornell.UUCP> Date: Fri, 9-Nov-84 19:23:56 EST Article-I.D.: cornell.2262 Posted: Fri Nov 9 19:23:56 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 10-Nov-84 21:30:09 EST References: <> Reply-To: prins@gvax.UUCP (Jan Prins) Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept. Lines: 28 Summary: Evelyn/Mark Leeper write: > >[The] step of going from something that is merely alive to a self-reproducing >(SR) cell ... seems to me, is the biggest step of the three. It >is one thing for the amino acids to form something that in some abstract >sense is alive, it is quite another for this thing to be an SR organism. > This statement seems turned around to me. I find the creation of complex self- replicating molecules much less problematic than labelling them 'life-like'. Richard Dawkins feels 'survival of the fittest' can apply at a molecular level: If a large supply of 'parts' is available in the organic soup, then a simple self-replicating molecule (one that, in the presence of the right components incorporates them into one or more self-similar structures) will eventually become the most prevalent molecule in the soup. Unless, of course, there are several such molecules, in which case the 'fittest' (i.e. making use of more readily available parts, or having a higher probability of replication succes) will become the more numerous, by definition (the problem with these evolutionary theories is that they're dangerously close to being tautologies!). I take the sequence of events leading to ever-more complex self-replicating structures to be not unplausible. That it should proceed inexorably in the direction of 'intelligence' I find more unlikely and mysterious. "We started small" cornell!prins