My question was what you meant. Personally, I do not see that there is any special difficulty about cells that needs resolving. To write of 'errors' or 'complexity' is to write of how we humans see things, i.e. 'errors' assumes purpose, which is something we ascribe to objects, not a quality of the object. 'Complexity' describes a problem for us, of comprehension when we try to understand something collectively, again it is not a quality of the object.PauloL wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2017 1:02 pm That's a very good question and I'd like to have an answer. You don't just need any cell, but a cell complex enough for lifelong autonomy and to replicate without any errors. And yet, perhaps, it must allow for diversification so that in the end you don't have one cell, but many different complex cells that can replicate without errors.
If you have an answer, please let me know and we'll win a Nobel prize if you wish to share.
To put it another way, every state of the universe is equally 'complex' (or equally simple) in that it is also the product of the same set of laws. We are particularly interested in life, so we demand some sort of special explanation for it, but it is no more special than the rings of Saturn, or the carbon cycle, or black holes, or anything else.
Surely a problem would only arise if we have some aspect of cell chemistry that is inexplicable; that is contrary to the rules of chemistry and physics that operate everywhere else. But I do not see that there is; the explanation of the evolution of cells you can find in the text books seems perfectly satisfactory.It's funny how one person can explain a priori how you have complex life on earth in the 19th century based on some empirical observations by traveling to exotic locations and yet you can't explain the birth of the very first cell in the 21st century.
