what told life to reproduce?

FUNKY LOVER

hey i have looked all over the net etc for an explanation to my question but cant find one,hopefully i have some luck here!

heres my question,when life first started out,what told it to reproduce?like i know the reason why,to continue on its genes etc,but how did it know it needed to do this?why did it deem it so important?was there an intelligent design telling life to do this?

im confused any responses appreciated:)

Capt'n Midnight

There are non-biological systems that replicate.

Crystals grow. Snowflakes grow symmetrically.

Micelles can form spontaneously from oily molecule and water and can grow by budding, some can even catalyse production of others. They are like precursors of cell walls.

RNA can act like an enzyme , not as efficient as protein based enzymes but when there are no protein to compete with they could have been top dogs. And yes they could catalyse their own production.


Can't remember off hand but some mineral have surfaces that select for binding of biological compounds , bit like the way the surface in a catalytic converter works.

It's not so much that many pre-biotic systems can self assemble to some degree, but more that the systems did did not self assemble didn't compete with them.

On a more basic level global warming means more water is evaporated from the oceans, this means more cloud, which makes the planet whiter , which reflect more heat, so the warming isn't as intense as it could be. No biological system needed to keep the conditions right for liquid water long enough for life to take over climate control. (as an aside have a look at how CO2 deposits on the ocean power plate techtonics )

Piriz

innate behaviour

FUNKY LOVER

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

There are non-biological systems that replicate.

Crystals grow. Snowflakes grow symmetrically.

Micelles can form spontaneously from oily molecule and water and can grow by budding, some can even catalyse production of others. They are like precursors of cell walls.

RNA can act like an enzyme , not as efficient as protein based enzymes but when there are no protein to compete with they could have been top dogs. And yes they could catalyse their own production.


Can't remember off hand but some mineral have surfaces that select for binding of biological compounds , bit like the way the surface in a catalytic converter works.

It's not so much that many pre-biotic systems can self assemble to some degree, but more that the systems did did not self assemble didn't compete with them.

On a more basic level global warming means more water is evaporated from the oceans, this means more cloud, which makes the planet whiter , which reflect more heat, so the warming isn't as intense as it could be. No biological system needed to keep the conditions right for liquid water long enough for life to take over climate control. (as an aside have a look at how CO2 deposits on the ocean power plate techtonics )

apprecaiate the response,but im still looking for that answer,why did living things go from just replicating itself to actually making sure it reproduced,like animals etc,what tells these animals its very important?

Tree

The animals/algae/plants/molecules dont need to know it's important. Bacteria are pretty low level stuff and they replicate happy out, i dont think anything particular drives them.

Capt'n Midnight

FUNKY LOVER wrote: »

apprecaiate the response,but im still looking for that answer,why did living things go from just replicating itself to actually making sure it reproduced,like animals etc,what tells these animals its very important?

seriously have a read of this
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15020282.700-technology--sad-doll-disease-ends-in-tears.html

Noting is telling the disease to reproduce it's self,
CH3COOH isn't concerned with reproducing as having just atoms doesn't generally confer intelligence.


Much later on when organisms exhibit behaviour rather than taxis it becomes a case of if you don't believe in having kids then your descendants won't either. We have 500 million years of weeding out of the those amongst that didn't run away from the big thing that was coming to eat us.

Selection for sex happened much earlier on ( 2 billion years ?? ) and may be a way to allow genes to prosper better than the cell they were in. In a population of clones genes don't get shared so a beneficial random mutation can be nullified by other mutations in that line of organisms. Having sex means there is a better chance that the beneficial mutations will be not be combined with the bad ones. Of course there is also the chance that some on the descendants will get more of the bad mutations and won't thrive, but that is what natural selection is about.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227121.600-has-the-mystery-of-sex-been-explained-at-last.html?page=1
Also sex means the whole population of X organisms could acquire the gene in N generations if 2^N > X , or far less if say 90% of the male population was been killed (such as happened in the Paraguayan War nearly 150 years ago ) or the case of Genghis Khan whose DNA is shared by 8% of the men in the former Mongolian empire http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0214_030214_genghis.html

FUNKY LOVER

so the jist im getting is,it just occured and thus everything just reproduces for no reason,as in nothing is telling it too?

Tree

pretty much. it's just happening, no need for reasons to compell it along

bleg

God

/thread