[ExI] Chemical Origins of Life (was Re: Panbiogenesis)
stefano.vaj at gmail.com
Sat Feb 4 12:24:30 UTC 2012
On 4 February 2012 01:47, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2012/2/3 Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com>:
> I was however impressed by Dawkins's Ancestor's Tale contention in that
> > is really hard is not to go from mineral to procaryotes, but from
> > procaryotes to eukaryotes.
> If you measure the times involved, then clearly Dawkins is correct.
> From chemicals to prokaryotes took somewhere between 100 and 150
> million years.... and to get from prokaryotes to eukaryotes took from
> 400 to 900 million years (depending on who's dates you use).
In principle, since there is no real reason why one philogenesis should be
similar to another, it could also be a peculiar direction of terrestrial
biology, much more so than marsupials for Australia.
In other words, some kind or another of procaryotes could in be pretty
frequent in the universe, while eucaryotes may just not be "required".
This, irrespective of how much procaryotes species can be diverse and
interesting and evolutionary successful, would be a quite boring and bleak
scenario from our own perspective... :-/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat