Some processes in the universe are cyclical.  To put it differently, they are self-reinforcing. That is, once this process happens, it becomes more likely that it will happen again. Examples abound, including the chain reaction of nuclear fusion that goes on in stars - the energy released by one instance of hydrogen fusing into helium heats up neighboring hydrogen nuclei to the point that they cross the threshold of potential and undergo fusion themselves - which releases even more energy, causing other nuclei to fuse, and so on. 

There are all kinds of cyclical processes in nature, not only at the nuclear level, but also at the chemical level - self-catalyzing chemical reactions, i.e., chemical reactions whose products catalyze the same chemical reaction to happen again. They are rarer, but still possible. Actually fire (rapid oxidation) is a simplistic example. 

Cyclical chemical processes need not immediately cause themselves to repeat, either - it can be a complex chain, or web of causation (event a causes b, c, and d, which each are contributing factors to events e, f, g, h, i, j, and k, which in turn lead to several other events, and so on - so long as, eventually, one or more of these processes in turn makes a once again more likely). For that matter, there are also processes that do not directly cause themselves to repeat, but which lead to something that is, in some way, similar to themselves. Think of patterns of crystallization - as crystals form, and grow, there will often be quite beautiful symmetries and patterns, as a shape replicates itself, or variations of itself, at larger or small scales, to varying degrees of precise similitude, in complex growths of fractal self-similarity. As these molecular patterns of chemicals spread and replicate, those that replicate more exactly, more numerously, and more quickly will tend to proliferate, while those that spread more slowly or are not as precisely the same pattern will become outnumbered. Nonetheless, even among the most precise self-replicators, variations will appear, and some of them will result in more efficient self-replication. 

These processes might begin among a wide variety of chemicals, but then as a pattern varies, it may pick up little bits of other types of chemicals, whatever may be available nearby, and some of them may prove to make the pattern more efficient at self-replication. Eventually the original chemical component may become unnecessary, and the pattern may switch entirely to the new chemical substrate. Who knows what chemicals started this process, but they probably became more efficient replicators, when they switched substrates to proteins, made out of amino acids, which can form quite naturally in "primordial soup" with electric strikes, as has been proven in the lab. It is quite possible to be a very efficient replicator made entirely out of protein, with no RNA, no DNA, no nucleic acids at all - witness, for example, the prions that cause mad cow disease. But eventually replicators probably evolved to become even more efficient and precise as self-replicators, as they again switched substrates, first to RNA, and then to DNA.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Liquefactionism

Image
“To Dissolve Man” An Investigation into the Liquefactionist Party In the 21st century, we will have to deal both with the odious Liquefactionists and with a confused and reactionary anti-Liquefactionism, which is far more apparent and obviously horrifying. I borrow the term “Liquefactionist Party” from William S. Burroughs, who writes about the Liquefactionists in the “Parties of Interzone” section of Naked Lunch - which, as a political policy guide, is unmatched in its insight and accuracy.  He writes that, “ The Liquefaction program involves the eventual merging of everyone into One Man by a process of protoplasmic absorption. ”  He goes on: “It will be immediately clear that the Liquefaction Party is, except for one man, entirely composed of dupes, it not being clear until the final absorption who is whose dupe.” Paradoxically, Burroughs goes on to tell us that “Liquefactionists in general know what the score is.”  If they know the score, how can they be dupes?  Perhaps thi
Read more

Why Capitalism is Ending

Image
THE PRODUCTIVITY BOMB Sorry, Ray Kurzweil , there will be no singularity.  As much as Moore’s Law has become a cliche, it has also become a cliche to point out that exponential growth has no "knee" - that is to say, that an exponential growth curve has no inflection point.  It goes up faster and faster, so that not only is the value rising but the derivative of the value is also rising (that is, the rate of increase is itself increasing) yet at any given point it is still a gradual increase.  Growth that gets indefinitely huger as it approaches a specific point of time, a limit known as a singularity, is not exponential growth but rather hyperbolic growth .  There’s no evidence that technology is growing hyperbolically; it is “only” growing exponentially.  Gordon Moore himself has stated that he doesn't believe in the singularity, or even in the continuation of Moore's Law.   (And Moore's Law is starting to fail, anyway ... )  But it hard
Read more

Why Ayn Rand was Wrong

  It is a pet theory of mine that the "greatness" or "importance" of a philosopher is mostly determined by that philosopher's subsequent degree of influence on a government leader.  Would we still talk about Socrates, if his student Critias had not taken over Athens as the leader of the Dictatorship of the Thirty?  Would we talk about Aristotle, had he not tutored Alexander, who later became Alexander the Great and took over a vast part of the ancient world?  Would we remember Rousseau, had not Robespierre declared him "divine"?  Or Locke and Montesquieu, had not the founders of the United States revered them?  The esteem given to the philosophy by professional professors within the academy matters less, and its internal coherence, or insight, or truth matters less still.  By this measure, Ayn Rand is, unfortunately, the most important philosopher of the 20th century.   Even though she is barely noticed by philosophy departments, Ayn Rand is massively
Read more