Re: First Mutation Was Biggish
- From: "Malcolm" <regniztar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 13:37:56 -0500 (EST)
"Catherine Woodgold" <an588@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
> Here I argue that at or near the beginning of life on Earth,
> there was a sudden mutation which conferred a considerable
> reproductive or survival advantage; or there was a series
> of small favourable mutations coincidentally close together
> in time, or there was some other rather low-probability event
> that gave the beginning life a boost. I've argued this
> before (Nov 5 2004, 12:40 am, "First Mutation Was Biggish")
> but here I provide some supportive algebra.
>
> Tiny improvements would get
> wiped out by the constant destruction and replacement
> by new, spontaneously generated replicators.
> The ability to survive and replicate had to
> be better by a factor of (r + s)/r -- unless
> it was helped along by a bunch of good luck.
>
That's an interesting equation.
The practical problem is that the cenancestor (the most recent ancestor of
all living things) was obviously a highly derived organism, with a three
letter genetic code and ribsosomes and so forth. We don't observe any forms
of life being spontaneously generated under modern conditions.
So it is hard to see how your model could be tested.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Hamilton's rule
- Next by Date: Re: Applying TDF (was understanding y)
- Previous by thread: Re: First Mutation Was Biggish
- Next by thread: Re: First Mutation Was Biggish
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
