On Friday, September 28, 2012 11:36:36 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> <whats...@gmail.com<javascript:>> 
> wrote: 
> > 
> > 
> > On Thursday, September 27, 2012 8:10:37 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: 
> >> 
> >> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> 
> >> wrote: 
> >> 
> >> > But you don't need a living cell to transmit a signal. That is my 
> point. 
> >> > Why 
> >> > have a cell? 
> >> 
> >> There are cells because that's the way organisms evolved. If there 
> >> were a way of evolving computer hardware and this was adaptive then 
> >> there would be organisms with computer hardware. It's not impossible 
> >> that somewhere in the universe there are naturally evolved organisms 
> >> utilising batteries, conductors and logic gates. 
> >> 
> > 
> > It's not reasonable to say on one hand that there is no significant 
> > difference between solid state electronics and living organisms and on 
> the 
> > other to blithely accept that not one of the millions of species on 
> Earth 
> > have happened to mutate even a single solid state inorganic appendage. 
> You 
> > claim it's not impossible, but the evidence that we have in reality does 
> not 
> > support that assumption in the least. To the contrary, living organisms 
> are 
> > dependent on organic matter to even survive. As far as I know, we don't 
> even 
> > see a single individual organism in the history of the world that 
> > predominately eats, drinks, or breathes inorganic matter. You are saying 
> > that is, what...coincidence? 
> Well, almost every organism predominantly made of, drinks and breathes 
> inorganic matter, since water and oxygen are inorganic matter.

While water and oxygen aren't technically organic matter, they are 
biological precursors. I should have worded it that way. My point is that 
no living organisms breathe or drink matter which is not part of an 
extremely narrow range of elements and compounds.

> But 
> leaving that obvious fact aside, the other obvious fact is that 
> evolution has used organic chemistry to make self-replicators because 
> that was the easiest way to do it. Do you imagine that if it were easy 
> to evolve steel claws which helped predators catch prey that steel 
> claws would not have evolved? What would have prevented their 
> evolution, divine intervention? 

You are assuming that there are other options though. Maybe there are, but 
we don't know that for sure yet. If there were, it seems like there would 
be either multiple kinds of biology in the history of the world, or 
individual species which have mutated to exploit the variety of inorganic 
compounds in the universe available. What prevented their evolution is the 
same thing that creates thermodynamic irreversibility out of reversible 
quantum wave functions. The universe is an event, not a machine. When 
something happens, the whole universe is changed, and maybe that change 
becomes the active arrow of qualitative progress. Organic chemistry got 
there first, therefore that door may be closed - unless we, as biological 
agents, open a new one.



> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to