Text 401, 60 rader
Skriven 2004-10-18 22:15:00 av Reason (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: Origins of life--earl
=================================



"Argos_waits" <user@norealdomain1.com> wrote in message 
news:cks1ra$flh$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
> I'm fuzzy on the origins of life and why organisms became driven to
> reproduce in the first place.  I expect everyone is but I would like to
> see some of the modern logic on the subject.


Simple.  Any life forms which didn't reproduce, simply lived out their lives 
and left no decendants.  Those which reproduced most successfully, left the 
most decendents, which also had their parents' propensity to reproduce. I 
don't think any "will" either teleological or otherwise was necessary for 
this to develop.


>
> Bearing in mind that natural selection depends on reproduction and
> tends to take a while to make significant change (hundreds of
> generations?  Thousands?  surely dozens?)--what current thinking on the
> origin of life logically explains the following chain of events.
>
> 1)No life  2)Beginning of Life 3)Life reproduces itself 4)Life driven
> to reproduce itself.
>
> Steps three and four in particular. What I'm looking for is solid
> logic/thinking/theorizing not a videotape (or some "factual"
> equivalent) of the first lifeform.  Layman's terms would be appreciated
> although I have a decent vocabularly and don't mind the occasional use
> of a dictionary.
>

The gradual ascent from the very special circumstances of proto-life 
chemistry to the beginning of life as we know it was probably a very long 
process, involving billions of years and a good deal of chance. 
Characteristics which happened to reproduce themselves are the key to this 
development.  We know that those special conditions do not exist on earth 
today, but we do know they had to exist somewhere, some time, in this vast 
reservoir of space and time.


> A reference to a book (and why it's the best one to read),  or a simple
> link or a six-page response will be appreciated.  Posts about how
> stupid evolution is (unless shockingly above the norm in logic and
> factual references) will be ignored.
>
> Thanks to anyone who helps,
> Argos
>

It's a difficult concept, but yet it's far more plausible than the 
alternative explanation which involves magic.
---
ū RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info@bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2á˙* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 10/18/04 10:15:55 PM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)