Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
Now that I think about it.. actually nothing. In fact its quite the opposite because I claim that living chemical reactions exist anyway. On the contrary our own interpretation, our intelligence and our point of view is what is elusive.
I only used the term to underscore the illusion that our subjective point of view causes when we are analyzing such fundamental questions in which we are involved and judge as inside observers.
Can life start locally and then expand?
Recently space missions have detected ten-fold spikes in methane in the atmosphere of Mars. If life forms are eventually found somewhere locally, this means that my arguments about chaotic complex chemical reactions are proven wrong, because if life is actually arbitrary reactions as we explained, these cannot be sustained only locally. Due to a problem of space, arbitrary reactions will drop away and equilibrium would occur. Additionally, chemicals would diffuse around not allowing complex reactions to be sustained. Complex arbitrary reactions can be sustained only in an isolated place (remember the paradigm with the flask), but not for long because of the lack of chemical resources. So my described model can only develop everywhere on earth simultaneously (slowly reaching higher levels of complexity) or not at all.
Well, at least my arguments are falsifiable...
I think a very crucial question is this: If every life form suddenly disappeared from half the earth, what would happen? Would life eventually overcome this problem and re-expand to cover everything and how quickly or will it rather disappear? The chemical reactions scenario i think says that even if life overcomes, it would be slowly and only at a cost of a great decay of the existing life in the other half.
I think that a main difference between the two scenarios however ( random chemical reactions and mainstream view) is that there is a difference in the pace in which life has created in the first place.
Suppose we have the case that there were chemicals in proto-earth reacting with each other arbitrarily (in random) and this system was becoming more and more complex. The same things happens in a flask with chemicals if we continuously provide external energy in the long term. The system will react arbitrarily and will become more complex. Some pathways will be more favourable (especially due to repeatabilty, adhesive properties, polarity etc) and will prevail in the long term. If the chemicals of the system is used as a reference frame, what will happen? To its own viewpoint, the resulting system will perceive the whole history of the reactions that happened in the flask from the beginning, as something like evolution (of chemical reactions). Additionally, all other properties of life are there (throught their perspective), like reproduction (repeatabilty of reactions) and so on. In other words any complex system of reactions can perceive itself as life in exactly the same that we, as chemical reactions ourselves, study life and evolution, or else the history of the whole chemical reactions (I e. life) that created us.*
In this case its obvious that complexity in proto-life was growing very fast, because reactions were not restricted locally and everytime the system was becoming more complex, this bursted further complexity (until it finally became a dissipative system). So if there was a way to measure the changes in complexity of that system, like the energy coming from the reactions of life back then (eg. Heat), or a way to measure how complexity dependent products changed (eg atmospheric synthesis) we must have seen hyperbolic-like changes.
On the contrary, if the mainstream view is correct and life originated somewhere locally and then it expanded to cover everything, then we would not expect to see so fast changes in proto-earth. Instead, the expansion would have been much more slow (geometric?), because bacteria must assimilate nutrients for food from the surrounding environment while growing in numbers.
*[If anyone wonders how anything can be used as a reference frame and have a viewpoint, keep in mind that we don’t use in the anthropocentric way, but remember theory of relativity that is solely based on reference frames. Abandoning the idea that we have the absolute position and we are not moving, lead us to understand that we do not live in the center of the universe. However, we still think that our viewpoint is absolutely objective, which in fact leads us to still believe that we live in the center of existence.]
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests