- #1
d_jnaneswar
- 37
- 0
Dear Zapper,
I have read about evolution and agree with its explanations, atleast to the most part. My question is a bit deeper than the pressures of the environment.
The universe is made up of all these tiny "particles" (lets keep the wave nature aside for the moment) and they formed atoms and molecules and so on. Cosmos took shape (how ever improbable that is) and in that, our little tiny planet earth, and there were conditions(arguably) that were conducive for the creation of a bunch of molecules who could replicate themselves. From then on, it is said that natural selection takes over and ensures that the "fittest" survive. Its a mechanism by elimination, and eliminating the weak, it keeps the strong going and again selects from within the strong and so on. (Ignoring the obvious gaps) we can see a continuous "evolution" of things that turned (evolved) into what we see today as the life forms.
I understand uptill here. This is "how" evolution works. But my question is more fundamental. Science, as far as I know today, never explained "Why" certain molecules wanted to become more and more complex. For example, let's say, the first self replicating molecules kept replicating. With slight variations you might say, which I agree to. All these variations are but molecules and variation in their structure and "function". Out of these variations, some replicated more successfully than others. Agreed. But then suddenly, it seems, different types of molecules that eventually branched out of this whole pool of initially identical ones (may be several groups of identical ones, I don't know the specifics here), decided to "stick" to one another so that they can survive better. Light sensing tissue, for example, working together of a completely differently functional set of tissue. But the question is this. Did the molecule (of the building blocks of a certain tissue) decide to stick first and then survive later? or survived because it accedentally sticked to? If its the former, one must explain the continuation of that mutual dependence and the "tendency" to do so. New molecules that developed from these, need not grow up to stick to one another, let alone talk of whole tissues sticking together and replicating together. You see what I mean?
Not only that. Molecules replicating one another as being their "functionality" is fine. But processes involving "time" as in "cycles of functionality" is much more complex. All the living organisms that we see today are not just collections of molecules replicating independently. What we are seeing is collection of molecules working together over time in specific processes that ensure their survival. When did molecules learn "time"? Individual molecules, how ever complex, cannot be said to be "aware" of time. Yet, some how, whole systems work based on time and feedback loops!
Perception of time and working "in time" is one thing. Add to this, perceptions, judgemental capablities, assessment of environment and so on are also part of the systems that evolved. No question that they evolved. Evolution works. An overall outline of how it might work is also agreed upon. But the "why" does it work in such a way still needs to be explained.
A simpler way to ask this question, limited way is this.
Molecules started replicating using other molecules in the vicinity and the concepts of chemical bonding play a role there. Physical and chemical conditions needed for that, are a given. But after a certain level of complexity, we see molecules "Actively seeking" ways to preserve. Like searching for food. I mean, molecules can sit there and if at all anything then can work with comes into close contact with it and then utilize it for its survival is one thing. Molecules working in unison in recognizing "food" and searching and hunting for it is a whole lot more complex. The complexity is a matter of the birth of "perception" in this case. So, the question, "why did the molecules develop systems of perception?" is what I am asking. Did they "will" to survive? If so, when did that "will" appear, where did it come from and why did it come in the first place.
If molecules are "non living" and "unconscious" by nature, why did they move towards the complexity that produces such effects such as "life"? They could end up just being molecules replicating with variations and the variations surviving as long as they are more suited for their environment. But why did the whole concept of "making a conducive environment that is suitable for survival" come about? Even little concepts like preservation of body heat in higher organisms is enough to raise this question. Why do these seemingly non-living molecules actively work in precission to make the system work? They could simply stop working in precission and remain molecules.
You see where I am getting at? I am asking "when" and "why" did life arize in the first place. What does "perception" really mean at the molecular level? For any of the complex systems to happen, there needs to be a "learning" and "appreciating" mechanism. For example, even basic organisms that survive on algae, display a mechanism of "seeking" algae. What does this mean at the molecular level? When do the newly replicated organism realizes that it needs "algae" without experimenting for itself? How does it percieve algae as "edible"? What does "edible" mean to a molecule that functions precisely in a remote place of the cell?
Let alone the statistical probablity of the sustainance of complexity. "why" is a pertinent question. Several such "why"s can be asked. The more the complexity of the evolutionary organism, the more these questions are, and the more these are to be answered by science. All I am asking is "why did the molecules decide to form such complex mechanisms?" That tendency could not be explained by the chemical structure of the molecules. Simple questions of the mechanics of cellular reproduction (fission or fusion for example) are well beyond the "molecular" level. They are more at the "organism" level. The system level. But why do the individual molecules with in that organism work so well to preserve the entire organism? Do they have "information" that it is better? Are they built exactly for that? If so, why did that happen?
Evolution beautifully explains everything from biodiversity to food chains (and recently even to suggest that morals are hard wired into us by "evolution"). The theory works by saying that because this particular trait is helpful for the survival of this species, that trait must have been there in the survivers which carried forward through the generations. Others who lacked that particular trait died out. Its music to my ears.
But when did molecules learn to act by "traits"? Complex traits that individual molecules might never understand? Why do molecules "work" in precission to maintain something that they can't even comprehend? Workings of the RNA are an example of how complex these processes can be. Many such processes involve passing of time. Individual molecules can't possibly be "aware" of time and cycles. Yet they work beautifully well even in those frameworks. But why? A molecule can just stop working in an orderly fashion at any given time, right? Still, complex molecules of protien with huge numbers of atoms work as though they are meant to be.
A giraffe's neck for example (since you have taken it). The individual molecules that form the giraffe's neck will never even comprehend what a "neck" is. All the molecules that work within that system need to work precisely for a neck to grow. The neck of each giraffe is certainly separate from the neck of another "older" giraffe. The sustainance of information that makes it possible for the neck to grow is also in the form of molecules. Molecules working with molecules at the minute level (remember, I am not even starting to go into the quantum levels of individual atoms of each such molecule) is what makes the whole thing possible. Molecules working with molecules of different types, over long periods of time, working in precission to work into "cells" (complexity of protiens is well known, one can imagine the complexity of a whole cell here) and cells working together to work as tissues, which inturn work to form parts of a bigger system and so on, shows the incredible complexity at work in each giraffe's neck. All this complexity needs to work like clock work (right from which parts of the DNA switch on and off (why do they do that is another question)) to create each giraffe's neck. All of the information needed for it to work must be there, somehow, within the DNA of the single "sperm" or "egg" that caused that Giraffe. Somehow, molecules work together from there on, copying the information and working according to it in each cell, creating different types of tissues (how each individual molecule that takes part knows the distinction between tissue types and configurations is yet another level of complexity) and then the mechanisms of maintaining such tissues has to come into place and the whole thing is very complex!
Much of the survivablity of a species started to depend on "perception" long long ago, in the age of micro organisms. Sensing heats, electrical field fluctuations, sensing light patterns (which lead to the creation of the eye in steps, through natural selection) and so on are some of the concepts that made the complexity possible. Yet there's no hint of how any single molecule or a small collection of them can develop such a sense is in question.
So, why does it all work? Why did self-regulating mechanisms occur? No individual molecule can comprehend the concept of self-regulation. yet, many of them work in feedback loops to maintain systems of self-regulation. Yet, until the system is formed, there's no sense of how the concept can be sustained. But systems are formed and then maintain self regulation. More over, systems replicate so beautifully as though they have "self regulation" hard wired.
self regulation happening as an accident in the original chemical soup is understandable. Sustaining it, and replicating it with precission are of whole different level.
Now after this long post explaining "why" does it work so well (not just how does it work, i know how it might work) is my question. Why do molecules form systems that self-regulate so that they don't disintegrate owing to the second law of thermo-dynamics? Self regulation, being so complex, need not be sustained unless there is a sense of survival within that system. If its just molecules, then there should not be any sense of replicating the whole. Still, "whole"s are replicated. Not just individual molecules.
Why?
Now they are so complex, that these systems start arguing about themselves and their innerworkings, innerworkings of the universe they "percieve", attribute sense to morals and what not. At a molecular level, none of this makes sense. Yet, molecules work perfectly in keeping up this system working. WHY?
Whole evolution seems to be working towards "more and more complex". I ask why. Why that direction. Why not work towards "simplification" so that structures exist (like structures of iron molecules. They survive longer than any organism that I know of). Infact, we find that the simpler things are, the longer they can be sustained(generally, not always. also, I think there is a simplicity threshold beyond which sutainance is again a problem, i am not sure, but somehow, i feel that there is.. i need some more research into simplicity and chaos). But no! Evolution seems to be creating more and more complex lifeforms that are more and more fragile (fragile in the chemical and molecular and system sense. not in terms of survival sense).
I know that evolution is a mechanism ( i don't know the technical term here ) that simply works! But why that prolonged sustainence of increase in complexity? protien molecules survive better than humans with lesser requirements for survival, for instance. I am simply asking "why".
That was my question.
Sheesh.. Thats a long post. It was just to prove that I wasnt applying sweeping generalities. I don't have such a habbit.
I had to write all this to get a proper answer to my question. Again, please don't think of this as an "attack". I don't intend to. I don't need theories to fall for my survival. I am just asking out of curiosity as to what scientists think about this and to improve my knowledge of it.
DJ
I have read about evolution and agree with its explanations, atleast to the most part. My question is a bit deeper than the pressures of the environment.
The universe is made up of all these tiny "particles" (lets keep the wave nature aside for the moment) and they formed atoms and molecules and so on. Cosmos took shape (how ever improbable that is) and in that, our little tiny planet earth, and there were conditions(arguably) that were conducive for the creation of a bunch of molecules who could replicate themselves. From then on, it is said that natural selection takes over and ensures that the "fittest" survive. Its a mechanism by elimination, and eliminating the weak, it keeps the strong going and again selects from within the strong and so on. (Ignoring the obvious gaps) we can see a continuous "evolution" of things that turned (evolved) into what we see today as the life forms.
I understand uptill here. This is "how" evolution works. But my question is more fundamental. Science, as far as I know today, never explained "Why" certain molecules wanted to become more and more complex. For example, let's say, the first self replicating molecules kept replicating. With slight variations you might say, which I agree to. All these variations are but molecules and variation in their structure and "function". Out of these variations, some replicated more successfully than others. Agreed. But then suddenly, it seems, different types of molecules that eventually branched out of this whole pool of initially identical ones (may be several groups of identical ones, I don't know the specifics here), decided to "stick" to one another so that they can survive better. Light sensing tissue, for example, working together of a completely differently functional set of tissue. But the question is this. Did the molecule (of the building blocks of a certain tissue) decide to stick first and then survive later? or survived because it accedentally sticked to? If its the former, one must explain the continuation of that mutual dependence and the "tendency" to do so. New molecules that developed from these, need not grow up to stick to one another, let alone talk of whole tissues sticking together and replicating together. You see what I mean?
Not only that. Molecules replicating one another as being their "functionality" is fine. But processes involving "time" as in "cycles of functionality" is much more complex. All the living organisms that we see today are not just collections of molecules replicating independently. What we are seeing is collection of molecules working together over time in specific processes that ensure their survival. When did molecules learn "time"? Individual molecules, how ever complex, cannot be said to be "aware" of time. Yet, some how, whole systems work based on time and feedback loops!
Perception of time and working "in time" is one thing. Add to this, perceptions, judgemental capablities, assessment of environment and so on are also part of the systems that evolved. No question that they evolved. Evolution works. An overall outline of how it might work is also agreed upon. But the "why" does it work in such a way still needs to be explained.
A simpler way to ask this question, limited way is this.
Molecules started replicating using other molecules in the vicinity and the concepts of chemical bonding play a role there. Physical and chemical conditions needed for that, are a given. But after a certain level of complexity, we see molecules "Actively seeking" ways to preserve. Like searching for food. I mean, molecules can sit there and if at all anything then can work with comes into close contact with it and then utilize it for its survival is one thing. Molecules working in unison in recognizing "food" and searching and hunting for it is a whole lot more complex. The complexity is a matter of the birth of "perception" in this case. So, the question, "why did the molecules develop systems of perception?" is what I am asking. Did they "will" to survive? If so, when did that "will" appear, where did it come from and why did it come in the first place.
If molecules are "non living" and "unconscious" by nature, why did they move towards the complexity that produces such effects such as "life"? They could end up just being molecules replicating with variations and the variations surviving as long as they are more suited for their environment. But why did the whole concept of "making a conducive environment that is suitable for survival" come about? Even little concepts like preservation of body heat in higher organisms is enough to raise this question. Why do these seemingly non-living molecules actively work in precission to make the system work? They could simply stop working in precission and remain molecules.
You see where I am getting at? I am asking "when" and "why" did life arize in the first place. What does "perception" really mean at the molecular level? For any of the complex systems to happen, there needs to be a "learning" and "appreciating" mechanism. For example, even basic organisms that survive on algae, display a mechanism of "seeking" algae. What does this mean at the molecular level? When do the newly replicated organism realizes that it needs "algae" without experimenting for itself? How does it percieve algae as "edible"? What does "edible" mean to a molecule that functions precisely in a remote place of the cell?
Let alone the statistical probablity of the sustainance of complexity. "why" is a pertinent question. Several such "why"s can be asked. The more the complexity of the evolutionary organism, the more these questions are, and the more these are to be answered by science. All I am asking is "why did the molecules decide to form such complex mechanisms?" That tendency could not be explained by the chemical structure of the molecules. Simple questions of the mechanics of cellular reproduction (fission or fusion for example) are well beyond the "molecular" level. They are more at the "organism" level. The system level. But why do the individual molecules with in that organism work so well to preserve the entire organism? Do they have "information" that it is better? Are they built exactly for that? If so, why did that happen?
Evolution beautifully explains everything from biodiversity to food chains (and recently even to suggest that morals are hard wired into us by "evolution"). The theory works by saying that because this particular trait is helpful for the survival of this species, that trait must have been there in the survivers which carried forward through the generations. Others who lacked that particular trait died out. Its music to my ears.
But when did molecules learn to act by "traits"? Complex traits that individual molecules might never understand? Why do molecules "work" in precission to maintain something that they can't even comprehend? Workings of the RNA are an example of how complex these processes can be. Many such processes involve passing of time. Individual molecules can't possibly be "aware" of time and cycles. Yet they work beautifully well even in those frameworks. But why? A molecule can just stop working in an orderly fashion at any given time, right? Still, complex molecules of protien with huge numbers of atoms work as though they are meant to be.
A giraffe's neck for example (since you have taken it). The individual molecules that form the giraffe's neck will never even comprehend what a "neck" is. All the molecules that work within that system need to work precisely for a neck to grow. The neck of each giraffe is certainly separate from the neck of another "older" giraffe. The sustainance of information that makes it possible for the neck to grow is also in the form of molecules. Molecules working with molecules at the minute level (remember, I am not even starting to go into the quantum levels of individual atoms of each such molecule) is what makes the whole thing possible. Molecules working with molecules of different types, over long periods of time, working in precission to work into "cells" (complexity of protiens is well known, one can imagine the complexity of a whole cell here) and cells working together to work as tissues, which inturn work to form parts of a bigger system and so on, shows the incredible complexity at work in each giraffe's neck. All this complexity needs to work like clock work (right from which parts of the DNA switch on and off (why do they do that is another question)) to create each giraffe's neck. All of the information needed for it to work must be there, somehow, within the DNA of the single "sperm" or "egg" that caused that Giraffe. Somehow, molecules work together from there on, copying the information and working according to it in each cell, creating different types of tissues (how each individual molecule that takes part knows the distinction between tissue types and configurations is yet another level of complexity) and then the mechanisms of maintaining such tissues has to come into place and the whole thing is very complex!
Much of the survivablity of a species started to depend on "perception" long long ago, in the age of micro organisms. Sensing heats, electrical field fluctuations, sensing light patterns (which lead to the creation of the eye in steps, through natural selection) and so on are some of the concepts that made the complexity possible. Yet there's no hint of how any single molecule or a small collection of them can develop such a sense is in question.
So, why does it all work? Why did self-regulating mechanisms occur? No individual molecule can comprehend the concept of self-regulation. yet, many of them work in feedback loops to maintain systems of self-regulation. Yet, until the system is formed, there's no sense of how the concept can be sustained. But systems are formed and then maintain self regulation. More over, systems replicate so beautifully as though they have "self regulation" hard wired.
self regulation happening as an accident in the original chemical soup is understandable. Sustaining it, and replicating it with precission are of whole different level.
Now after this long post explaining "why" does it work so well (not just how does it work, i know how it might work) is my question. Why do molecules form systems that self-regulate so that they don't disintegrate owing to the second law of thermo-dynamics? Self regulation, being so complex, need not be sustained unless there is a sense of survival within that system. If its just molecules, then there should not be any sense of replicating the whole. Still, "whole"s are replicated. Not just individual molecules.
Why?
Now they are so complex, that these systems start arguing about themselves and their innerworkings, innerworkings of the universe they "percieve", attribute sense to morals and what not. At a molecular level, none of this makes sense. Yet, molecules work perfectly in keeping up this system working. WHY?
Whole evolution seems to be working towards "more and more complex". I ask why. Why that direction. Why not work towards "simplification" so that structures exist (like structures of iron molecules. They survive longer than any organism that I know of). Infact, we find that the simpler things are, the longer they can be sustained(generally, not always. also, I think there is a simplicity threshold beyond which sutainance is again a problem, i am not sure, but somehow, i feel that there is.. i need some more research into simplicity and chaos). But no! Evolution seems to be creating more and more complex lifeforms that are more and more fragile (fragile in the chemical and molecular and system sense. not in terms of survival sense).
I know that evolution is a mechanism ( i don't know the technical term here ) that simply works! But why that prolonged sustainence of increase in complexity? protien molecules survive better than humans with lesser requirements for survival, for instance. I am simply asking "why".
That was my question.
Sheesh.. Thats a long post. It was just to prove that I wasnt applying sweeping generalities. I don't have such a habbit.
I had to write all this to get a proper answer to my question. Again, please don't think of this as an "attack". I don't intend to. I don't need theories to fall for my survival. I am just asking out of curiosity as to what scientists think about this and to improve my knowledge of it.
DJ
Last edited:
