Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Predation, Sort Of
Message-ID: <517@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 3-May-85 11:55:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.517
Posted: Fri May  3 11:55:20 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 5-May-85 03:37:27 EDT
References: <981@uwmacc.UUCP> <511@cybvax0.UUCP> <252@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 22
Summary: 

In article <252@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA> rafferty@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Colin Rafferty) writes:
> > What would have preyed on the first life forms?  In my sentence above, I'm
> > referring to decomposing organisms such as bacteria and fungi as potential
> > predators (or competitors) that would eliminate any remaining examples of
> > early life forms.
> 
> What about non-organic predators?  Why do all predators have to be alive?
> The first examples of pre-life were groups of proteins (or amino acids,
> excuse me if I got that wrong) that were able to stay together in a
> reasonable fashion.  
> 
> There were things such as rough seas and non-organic substances that could
> "prey" on them.  A modern example of that would be a person dying because of
> exposure.  There is no life form killing him, just nature herself.

Of course there would be losses to the environment, just as there are today.
But a substantial amount of the copmplexity of today's life can be
explained (either as evolutionary adaptation or creationist provision) as
ways of minimizing predation.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh