At the heart of the origin-of-life problem lies a fundamental question: What is it that we are trying to explain the origin of?Well, we know a basic requirement for life is putting things together at the right time and in the right sequence. Though this can be applied to the universe and abiogenesis – this obviously applies to an organism as a whole. IOW, what makes a nose a nose if no one knows the nose is supposed to be a nose --- DNA? DNA just takes us back to the molecular level.
- Harmke Kamminga
I realize that I am toying with resonance synonymous hyperbole in birth, but the nose cell knows to become a nose and science reeks of materialism in its explanation. To say things have evolved as thus and have become different does nothing to explain the knowledge of a nose cell which became part of a nose rather than a toe (though the feet can smell and the nose can run). What is constructing the ‘processes’ for the nose as opposed to the toes? Is this as obvious as something in front of your face or is this something that must be cut off in spite… For DNA to say “You go on this side and you go on that side. You become this and you become that…” Cannot be intelligent design or beauty – it is all in the molecules without purpose, plan, or ultimate structure?
Ah, and we must be sure to keep teleology out of this equation because design would ruin the current paradigm :
The foregoing remarks lead me to say a few words on the protest lately made by some naturalists against the utilitarian doctrine that every detail of structure has been produced for the good of its possessor. They believe that many structures have been created for the sake of beauty, to delight man or the Creator (but this latter point is beyond the scope of scientific discussion), or for the sake of mere variety, a view already discussed. Such doctrines, if true, would be absolutely fatal to my theory. I fully admit that many structures are now of no direct use to their possessors, and may never have been of any use to their progenitors; but this does not prove that they were formed solely for beauty or variety. No doubt the definite action of changed conditions, and the various causes of modifications, lately specified, have all produced an effect, probably a great effect, independently of any advantage thus gained. But a still more important consideration is that the chief part of the organisation of every living creature is due to inheritance; and consequently, though each being assuredly is well fitted for its place in nature, many structures have now no very close and direct relation to present habits of life.
Darwin
Heartlander, I'm just checking my messages prior to signing off so I can go to sleep, so will not be hanging around here very much longer. But I have to say just a teensy word re: the above before I go to bed.
The assumption that structure/(function) is produced for the more-or-less exclusive good of its possessor is an idea that seriously needs to be re-examined and put into proportion. For one thing, such a supposition flies in the face of the natural and historical records we have to date, which strongly suggest that cooperation is consummately valuable in achieving real outcomes in nature.
I'm looking forward to chatting again soon, dear Heartlander. For now, good night! (Sleep tight!)