DNAunion@aol.com writes
in message <30.bd5cbd4.272e11da@aol.com>:
>
> DNAunion: My main point was, (1) if there truly IS SOMETHING
> that can arrange matter in complex and organized ways, and (2)
> there truly IS NOTHING that opposes matter's being arranged in
> organized and complex ways, and (3) we take ALL of the PREEXISTING
> & FUNCTIONING components of a bacterium and release them into
> an area *immediately surrounding* the lysed bacterium, the n
> why will the components not again become ordered/arranged as a
> functioning bacterium? Nothing new has to be created, just that
> which existed a *minute* earlier needs to become reestablished:
> but it doesn't.
It appears to be a "law" of nature that the individual parts of
an organism will also lose any extra mechanisms or functionality
that would allow them to exist independently; they will become
dependent on other parts for essential ingredients for basic
functionality. Thus, breaking a bacterium down into individual
components would accomplish the same result as breaking a bacterium
down into individual molecules, or individual atoms. Nothing
in the short term. However, theories of symbiosis would propose
that the basic raw materials of modern life were originally
incorporated into seperate, simpler forms that at various points
over time entered into a profitable relationships other simple
life forms to form more successful and more complex life forms.
What appears to be critical to the rapid formation of complex
life is the aggregation of simpler but self-sustainable life --
not raw materials.
This, as a logical possibility at minimum, is a mechanism that
is consistent with both 3 and 1 being true.
However, I might be misunderstanding you in general by reading
(2) in a different sense then you intend. Can it be read to
say that nothing prevents complexity, but some mechanisms result
in complexity faster than others?
> And if we can start with every single physical and operational
> entity of a functional cell: every amino acid, nucleotide,
> polysaccharide, lipid, tRNA, mRNA, rRNA, DNA, DNA polymerase,
> DNA ligase, DNA helicase, single-stranded binding protein, RNA
> primase, ribosome, the genetic code, transcription, translation,
> replication, anabolic and catabolic pathways, etc: and allow
> them to become disordered spontaneously simply by making the
> surrounding wall/membrane leaky and these still won't self-organize
> into a functioning cell, then why is it valid to make the much
> bigger leap of faith to believe that pools of *far simpler* and
> random organic molecules could have become organized in the
> complex ways associated with a bacterium, by the same kind of
> undirected natural processes that fail here?
In this case, the pools would result in far simpler "life" than
bacteria, and possibly, over time many different kinds of simple
"life" as molded by environmental pressures. This simpler life,
then, would make those "macro"-leaps of complexity with something
similar to symbiosis.
<snip>
> I am not sure how the "it was originally two separate, functioning, living
> entities that combined and then became co-dependent so each lost its
> autonomy" argument holds up in relation to bacteria.
In the case of bacteria, I'm sure it's speculation. However,
it seems that if the concept worked so well for eukaryotes, why
not for the prokaryotes as well?
> DNAunion: If you could separate an "aggregate" living cell into
> two autonomous living cells, then reunite them forming again
> the original "aggregate" cell, what would that demonstrate? It
> still would not demonstrate in the least that matter can become
> arranged in the complex and organized ways associated with life
> by purely-natural means because the components themselves were
> already arranged in comlex and organized ways associated with
> life.
But the components are simpler than the resulting organisms.
Thus, theoretically, those components could also be decomposed
into simpler components yet, and so on.
> >THadley: And if symbiosis played other roles, we might also
> >expect the same reasoning to apply to many of the individual
> >"building blocks" of life.
>
> DNAunion: Do you have an example or can you expand on this?
No hard data that I'm aware of, but I think there's a certain
elegance to the theory. This is something like Margulis' Gaia
hypothesis.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 30 2000 - 14:11:48 EST