Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even today?
- From: planB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (J Moreno)
- Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 18:54:09 -0800
tension_on_the_wire <tension_at_home@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
-snip-
J Moreno wrote:>
Well, not at the beginning of life, but we can find other methods of
passing on behavior now -- learned behavior.
As for proposing another method at the beginning of life -- sure we can.
It might be hard to verify, but proposing it is easy...
**************
I am in sci.astro, though I read both.
So, I'm trimming this post down to just rasfw.
But for the record, I have no objection to the application of the
hypothetical, including for the use of imaginitive speculation, either for
research *or* for fiction. My only thing is that if it is for science
*fiction*, and not science fantasy, then there needs to be a solid basis
in science, therefore, here is what I meant in the above:
-snip replacement needs to do what DNA does-
Well, I'm sure that if such a beast exists out there in the wide
universe, it most likely will have the basic characteristics of DNA.
I was just leaving it open to be done with other materials, and/or
slightly differently (it might be better, it might be worse, it might be
both).
J Moreno wrote:>
(There was someone here some time ago that was complaining that we were
applying evolutionary logic to a situation and saying that just because
that type of thing applies on earth is no reason for it to apply on
other worlds).
Well, I guess you can see my take on this....if you want science on
earth to not apply to some other world, there has to be a good
scientific reason why not. Whatever alternative you want to propose
for other worlds is fine as long as it makes sense. I have no problem
applying a new or non-existent idea to other worlds, as long as it fits
a reasonable proposal for the physics and chemistry of that fictional
world.
Well, that was her point -- your physics and chemistry and logic are all
based upon what happened herre on earth, and if she wants to have a
fictional world without all that bother, then we should praise her for
it.
Silicon-based chemistry, versus carbon-based, for example, is
quite a reasonable hypothesis. They would still need to make something
just like DNA using silicon-based sugars, though. There still isn't a
good science fictional alternative for that.
I think most writers would be better off just not getting into that, as
long as they don't at the same time try to throw evolution and science
out the window at the same time. Generally along with a side dash of
"they'll be so strange it'll be impossible to communicate with them",
ignoring that there are a lot of commonality involved just because we
live in the same universe.
-snip-
I don't say that there absolutely is no other way, I would not be so
presumptuous. But, so far, I don't think anyone has ever really
convincingly imagined any other way. The requirements are so precise,
for genetic variability, and equivalent distribution to daughter cells,
and random mutation to provide a substrate for natural selection and
evolution of characteristics that I guess what I'm proposing is that
DNA is kind of like a "Planck's Constant" of Biology, in a way. 8-P
---tension
I wouldn't go that far -- it's way to early to do so IMO. We don't have
a real firm grasp on biology as it is, let alone enough to say what it
couldn't possibly be. I wouldn't suggest making something up and
putting it in a story or using it in a theory without a whole lot more
reason than "I don't like the idea of DNA being kind of like Planck's
Constant", but I wouldn't rule something out without more than we have
now. More experience with it at the very least.
--
JM
"Everything is futile." -- Marvin of Borg
.
- Prev by Date: Re: hero right on the boundary of the possible
- Next by Date: Re: Magic and anti-technology fields
- Previous by thread: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even today?
- Next by thread: Navy Ship Named For Heinlein?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
