I'm reading the paper now. Will try to digest it and make a reply later
No, various experiments have pushed things down the path in one area of assembly or another, but it's a complex process. Even once it's been sufficient reverse-engineered, engineering it remains a challenge, in the way that reverse engineering a log circuit does not mean you can automatically build one like it yourself. You have to acquire the tools and expertise to build logic circuits in *addition* to the knowledge you've gained in reverse engineering.
Organic life as an emergent property of physical law is a daunting challenge to reverse engineer. Because the processes and mechanisms appear to have been incidental, and the materials involved have long since totally vanished, it's much more difficult than reverse engineering that a telic engineer designed.
But science keeps chipping away at it, and progress is being made. Here's an interesting paper about to come out that details some new discovers of the thermodynamic affinity of 10 of the 20 amino acids needed for the proteins thought to be used in abiogenesis:
A thermodynamic basis for prebiotic amino acid synthesis and the nature of the first genetic code
You can download the full PDF and read the whole thing. Just another piece of the puzzle. These amino acids have an "automaticness" in their interactions that we hadn't known previously, making that part of the sequence much more automatic and less coincidental/stochastic then we had thought previously.
This statement is a confusing one to me, because if actually material supply isn't really a problem than life wouldnt be in trouble. What is the different being "actual material supply" and "the raw materials"?
The trick is assembly. The actual material supply is not really a problem. But nevertheless, if we run out of the raw materials life needs to survive and propagate, life's in big trouble.
It doesn't 'know' anything in the strict sense, Ã‚Â of course. One way that organisms adapt is through mutations, where individuals in a population with a more advantageous set of traits, acquired through mutation tend to survive and propagate more reliably than their peers. But other mechanisms exist for adapting, as well. Gene expression, for example, can be affected by environmental stress, triggering activation or deactivation of features that exist in the genome, but are inactive.
Lynn Margulis who is a holistic evolutionist said this in an interview:
She later goes on to say that such an ideal is wish-fulfillment. Her view is that life come together through cooperation and not mutation and competition. But in both, it doesn't say explain the mechanism.. its inferred... so it begs the same question of if the amino acids did come together by chance.. and for some reason knew to replicate.. and mutations harm species rather than help, how could it know to compensate for the changing environment? There's a mutant that will die in the group, but could withstand the environmental change.. if the rest of the group dies when the environment changes occurs and the mutant will die without spawning cause well, its a deletion not an additon.. what would be the next step in that case? Please let me know if I'm still missing something.
Furthermore, it was admitted, from the very beginning because it was measurable, that more than 99% of all detectable mutations, heritable changes were negative, mutations were mainly deleterious. They rationalized. One sees that less than 1% of genetic mutations, measurable heritable change, are not deleterious. They are presumably favorable. If enough favorable mutations occur, was the erroneous extrapolation, a change from one species to another would concurrently occur.
Trial and error, interesting. So, that means that the first cellular life, split, copying the same information, over and over again; one would have to infer or assume or whatever word one would want to use, postulate might be better, that the organism would to try something different. That doesn't seem random, and you've lost me. Thats indicative of a purpose. If it was trying to survive the adaptational pressure, did it know the pressure was there? If it didnt know the pressure was there, wouldnt it just continue to live and split and breed and then die off? Where would the trial and error phase need to kick in?
I think the piece you are missing is the massive number of trials and failures. It's something like a search algorithm, where a great multitude of different steps and paths are explored, and the vast majority do not result in some positive development. But if you can try one million different variations, just randomly, you only need one or several to succeed to pave a path to that adaptation. The other attempts fail, and if the adaptational pressure is high, they die off. If we were just talking about a single baby, or a single organism, it would be implausible indeed, that kind of "foresight". Evolutionary theory posits no foresight per se, but a brute search that is eeffective in finding nearby, adaptive solutions through a whole lot of trial and error.
I give you that, neo-darwin biologist will think that. Why would "higher" be problematic word? Isn't neo-darwinism and macroevolution all about changing into a better organism? If its true, and the ones that have "survived" are the winners... boy are we in trouble! I've taught in high school in Philadelphia! hahaha
I don't think evolutionary biologists consider humans "highest" in any fundamental sense. A biologist is as likely to tell you that a bacterium is the most highly evolved organism as he is to tell you that a human is. Ã‚Â Humans certainly have complex features that are unique, like the cerebral cortex, but "higher" is a problematic term in the evolutionary paradigm. The highest forms of life, I would say, are the ones that have survived to the present day.
Seriously, I wonder, if that is the case, why not just sit and let evolution do its things?
I messed up the quotes, i hope this is readable.
edit: I fixed the quotes for you - Adam_777