It has been 150 years since Darwin introduced the world to his theory of evolution jumpstarting the ongoing debate, which gave rise to a vast number of theories with regard to the origin of life.
Richard Dawkins became part of this debate by first arguing that “the earliest form of natural selection was simply a selection of stable forms and a rejection of unstable ones.” He then followed his argument by discussing the development of the “primordial soup” from the interactions of raw materials and lightning present on early earth. This primordial soup consisted of organic molecules which developed into more complex molecules with the ability to replicate themselves; the “replicators.” As these molecules grew bigger, competition between replicators increased and those who were more stable transitioned into “survival machines” which then evolved into complex organisms.
Peter Mayhew also became a part of the debate arguing, from an autotrophic stand-point, that early life required a certain level of biochemistry which organic molecules could not have achieved due to their inability to transport large molecules because of impermeable membranes as well as their inability to obtain energy from inorganic elements present on early earth.
Karl Popper, a philosopher of science, believed that we can never be certain of the truth of a theory because there is always the possibility that it can be overthrown. This is a belief that I follow, thus it should come as no surprise when I remain neutral between Dawkins’ and Mayhew’s theories. I believe that both of them have some valid points, but as none of us were present during the climax of the origin of life, there will always be a possibility that their theory can be overthrown.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You may think that both theories could possibly be overthrown but if it was necessary for you to use one, which one would it be? I believe mayhew was right about his point of view because more energy was needed then heterotrophic organisms could gain, this energy came from light.
ReplyDeleteInteresting that you quote Karl Popper, I read about him in an Epistemiology course in a book called 'Las desventuras del conocimiento cientifico.' It is true that a theory can be refuted, that is the scientific method, but to be able to do so, alternative hypothesis must go though a process of refutation and verification that is empirically based. What is your alternative hypothesis that could participate in this process to the quest to refute either heterotrophic or autothrophic theory?
ReplyDeleteKelly, I'm a little eerie when it comes to siding with one theory over the other. As a double major in biochemistry and biology I do agree that aerobic mechanism would have yielded a greater amount of energy that would be available for the organisms present in the environment. However, (Guadalupe here I will address your question) we do not know as exactly how much energy is it that a specific organism required in order to survive. We can assume that as the organisms grew bigger more energy was required but is is not possible that at the beginning simple organic molecules, as they transitioned to more complex molecules, could have gain the ability to obtain energy in an autotrophic manner? Or is the co-existence of both autotrophic and heterotrophic organisms on early earth not feasible? I do not have an alternative theory that would disprove or support either theory, it is just my nature to remain skeptical on any matter if no convincing undeniable prof is presented.
ReplyDeleteBut that's just me, I certainly need to acquire more knowledge if I want to trade blows with either Dawkins or Mayhew.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that both theories are great and well understood but I would have to say that Mayhew still has me won over. Also, if more information on either theory were to be found do you think you would still stay neutral or would you choose either one?
ReplyDelete