According to Dawkins replicators were molecule that were able to make copies of themselves but with many replications come errors. According to Dawkins with errors come improvements which is essential to the progression of life. DNA acts in the same way creating copies of itself. DNa is disturbed among cells and thousands of cells make a human body. With this I believe Dawkins was thinking that cells just automatically replicated by theirselves and created multicellular organisms.
Mayhew however believed something didn't, he believed in autotrophic organisms. it was believed that early cell membanes probably weren't able to transport large molecules. The origin of photosynthesis provided a new energy source, light, for the world's ecosystems that would increase its potential productivity (Mayhew, 27). I believe this is the best scenario because light provided the energy for the cells to transport larger molecules throughout them. Dawkins believes the energy that a cell needs to function is automatically provided. It seems more logical to believe that this energy was provided by light because light is always there.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It is logical to think that light energy provided means for cells to grow and multiply, however, acient autothrophic units/cells able to use light energy and synthetize organic molecules (sugars) would have had to be, evolutionary speaking, a lot more complex than a heterotrophic unit that used a naturally occurring sources of organic compounds as food to obtain energy (heterothrophic theory). Also, as I commented on Jason's blog, it is worth reading Dawkin's anotated endnotes on page 269 regarding his take on these theories.
ReplyDeleteWhat if light wasn't always present? It is said that lighting was the source of the spark that allowed for the "primordial soup" to develop. What if the days on early earth were more often than not cloudy? There would have to be another source of energy.
ReplyDeleteI think you made a good point with Mayhew and I agree with what you are saying. But another point that the others have also made is what if there was no light in the beginning? Even with that being said I still take your side on Mayhew's theory being more believable.
ReplyDeleteYou have a very valid point that light is whathelped with the initiation. I do not follow how anything can happen "just like that". I believe the "spontaneous generation" is just an excuse for when the scientists do not know what is going on. Just like the old food and dirty rags thown in the corner of the room and of you were to come back a day or 2 later you would find rats. That is not spontaneous generation as some scientists believed. It is just a way of luring rats.
ReplyDelete