U bunch [u n ur friends] are the best people I have seen on the internet. Love ur posts!
I like your posts.
Did my message appear on the discussion board. I see them on the front page. Is that it?
Please post these in their proper place, on the discussion boards.
The problem with metabolism-first theories: The idea of metabolism-first theories was that amino acids lined up automatically forming proteins which catalyzed various chemical reactions which was the start of metabolism. Soon a drawback became obvious – how could the sequence of amino acids be decided without a code.
Argument: To start with, metabolism needs energy, driving force and guidance. These theories can account for only the energy part of metabolism. Clearly, the drive or guidance was absent at the time of origin of life. Enzymes (proteins) to form need a particular sequence of amino acids, for which a genetic code is necessary. This means that either RNA or DNA should have originated first. Furthermore, all metabolic pathways can be simulated in a lab, but that does not represent life.
If replication started first, there was nothing for it to code for; If metabolism started first there was no coding to order a direction. So, What was it that stared them both?
I would like to point out the pitfalls of both metabolism-first and replication-first theories, before embarking on a discussion of the Consciousness(or awareness)-first theory.
I ahve nothing against the present scientific progress in our understanding. But we DO have to follow some arbitration based on the recent advances in technology and understanding. Otherwise where are we!You appear to be a really big boss. So I am taking all these pains to drive in my point. I am writing an article now to show how consciousness has evolved, over a period of time, from simple response-to-stimulus (seen in 'primitive organisms') to learning, intellect, free will and what not. it is a prety formidable task, I can say.
GENOME SIZE of mustard plant (Aradidopsis thaliana) is 125 Million base pairs and the identified genes is 25,500. Genome size of a small worm (Caenorhabditis elegans) is 97 Mbp and coding is for only 19100, whereas for fruit fly (Drosophilia melanogaster) it is 180 Mbp but the number of genes identified is only 13,600. And for man (the most intellectually advanced) - 3200 Mbp and genes 35,000. WHAT OF IT? How to analyze this data, how to categorize without discrepancy?
AND another thing - this taxonomy (where you classify which organism) is largely a human convenience. If you take stimulus-response alone, according to one's taxonomy, you have to classify plants like MIMOSA PUDICA and carnivorus plants (eg Nepenthes) with animals, as all of them are quick in response. If you take the existance of cell-wall, bacteria has to be classified with plants only. Recent cladograms take genetics into consideration for taxonomic classifications. Let us see this too.
Why not? We must accept that plants, for example, do show 'phototaxis' and also respond well to the surroundimg change in weather. The problem is the time-scale. Their response is measured in days, whereas animals, in secs and mins. Moreover, consider plants ability to exhibit a variety of contrivances for cross-pollination. Is it not awareness. And don't some bacteria have flagella and cilia? Do they not respond relatively quickly when you apply noxious stimulus to their surroundings? Does it not qualify to be called awareness (or consciousness or response-to-stimulus or whatever in the English language). That 'whatever' exists in ALL organisms, but is expressesed in more and more complex form as we move up in phylogeny.
Please use Sugar Cane Alcohol
HC SVNT HOMINES
Just this guy, you know?
It's not rocket surgery