Addy Pross and the General Theory of Evolution

[Exian]

At least that's his aim.

http://www.jsystchem.com/content/2/1/1

I find the idea of a general theory of evolution very intriguing, given the result of some of the tests.

Such a theory, first and foremost, rests on a basic assumption: that the physicochemical principles responsible for abiogenesis, the so-called chemical phase - the stage in which inanimate matter complexified into a simple living system - are fundamentally the same as those responsible for biological evolution, though for the biological phase these principles are necessarily dressed up in biological garb

It's not lost on me the irony of some creatard's tendencies to mix the theory of evolution and abiogenesis. Of course, where their conclusions (if you can call them that) are unfounded, Addy and his team are laying the ground work.

a molecular replicating system, Qβ RNA, when reacted with activated nucleotides in the presence of the appropriate replicase, underwent a process of replication, mutation, selection, evolution, in striking analogy to biological systems. The RNA oligonucleotide, originally some 4200 bases in length, replicated, mutated and evolved into a much shorter oligonucleotide chain just 17% of the original length, that replicated much faster than the original chain.

Not being a chemist, biologist, or a systems chemist, I really have to lend myself to this literature, so I wanted to get a conversation going to help suss it out. It's quite a bit of reading, but I want to hear if anything strikes you about these ideas.

[Anomalocaris]

Nothing strikes me about these ideas. If one takes off the life-centric tinted glasses imposed in no small part by centuries of Christian bullshit, then the idea that the most complex life and the simplest minerals are just two ends of a seamless continuum of chemical forms upon which evolutions acts on every point is as natural and as clear as if one were to say most complex life and the simplest minerals are just two ends of a seamless continuum of objects upon which gravity acts.

Some changes moves an occupant towards the complex life end, some drive occupants towards the mineral end, some are driven to mill around near the same spot.

Which point on this spectrum we define as line of separation between life and mineral is essentially arbitrary. There is no spark of life. There is only various potential to spark a warm and fuzzy feeling in egotistical human brains. There is only a egotistical human tendency to view humans as special and therefore anything sharing some particularly prized traits of humans as being also special, if to a lesser degree. Evolution driving things towards the life end occurs on the mineral side of any dividing line. Evolution doesn't care whether what it is acting on is close to humans or not, and whether we classify what it is acting upon as being on the right or the wrong side of the arbitrary line of demarcation between life and mineral.

[Exian]

That's the idea here and I would agree. It's as if the agrument is actually against the distinguishing titles and classifications. Obviously, keeping life and non-life in separate hierarchal categories for observational purposes is pragmatic, but this does bring humans face to face with the ego and, in a roundabout way, mortality.

I don't let this get in the way of my enjoyment or stop me from finding it fascinating in my very human way.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Creationists have this implacable urge to draw a circle around humans and say, "but not here". They've been losing this battle ever since Copernicus.

[Anomalocaris]

Creationists have this implacable urge to draw a circle around humans and say, "but not here". They've been losing this battle ever since Copernicus.

Fools can not be freed from the chains that they revere.

[Aoi Magi]

I actually prefer this sort of people, over the blind believers in either religion or science. Sure their ideas are biased, but they seem to be making a conscious effort to prove their version of truth, or rather disprove the currently established theories by testing their own ideas. That is real science, and if they actually keep trying and don't lie to themselves, they will find the truth.

[Sejanus]

I actually prefer this sort of people, over the blind believers in either religion or science. Sure their ideas are biased, but they seem to be making a conscious effort to prove their version of truth, or rather disprove the currently established theories by testing their own ideas. That is real science, and if they actually keep trying and don't lie to themselves, they will find the truth.

[Aoi Magi]

I actually prefer this sort of people, over the blind believers in either religion or science. Sure their ideas are biased, but they seem to be making a conscious effort to prove their version of truth, or rather disprove the currently established theories by testing their own ideas. That is real science, and if they actually keep trying and don't lie to themselves, they will find the truth.

Watch the late night shopping channels and you'll see that a large group of people are ready to believe just about anything as long as someone claims that it is backed up by science, or as long as the terms they use sound science-y (or use a latin-sounding word).

[Cyberman]

I don't think science or scientists can be held at fault for parasites dressing up their wares in respectable-looking clothing.

[Exian]

Chuck, I'm trying to get a sense of where you're coming from. I detected a tinge of distaste towards human life in your response and so I'm wondering if you would describe yourself as a nihilist, a realist, or some other stance I've not provided. Or am I just wrong in detecting distaste altogether?