>>>DNAunion: What type of simpler life are you referring to? There is no
simpler autonomous cellular life than the simplest autonomous bacterium.
>>>Silk here: What then explains the bacterium? Where did it come from? Did
it evolve from something else & if so what? Or was it the result of
abiogenesis?
***************
DNAunion: Well, that is kind of the 64 thousand dollar question (recently
put to shame by Regis's million dollar question!).
But first, note my qualifying words, which I will emphasize here: "There is
no simpler *autonomous* *cellular* life than the simplest autonomous
bacterium."
If viruses are considered as living (flip a coin!), then they are simpler
life than bacteria. But they still would not be *cellular* life (nor would
they be *autonomous* life). The same goes for hypothetical self-replicators
related to the origin of life: if one used the minimalistic definition of
life used by OOL researchers, the self-replicators would be alive, but they
still would not be *cellular* (which is why I continued my statements and
mentioned self-replicators, which you did not include in your e-mail).
Now, where did bacteria come from? Who knows (for sure, anyway). Most
"naturalists" say bacteria evolved from the hypothetical self-replicators.
But as something THadley just posted here either today or yesterday, several
"naturalist" scientists believe that eukaryotes preceded prokaryotes (such as
bacteria), the latter therefore being derived from the former. Other
"naturalists" hold that bacteria arose naturally elsewhere and then arrived
on Earth from space (bacterial spores buried inside meteors, for example).
And I and others would say that bacteria may have been seeded on Earth by
intelligent extraterrestrial civilizations. And of course, others hold that
the first life was a product of divine creation.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 04 2000 - 14:52:12 EST