This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Elessar · 26-30, M
It's a bit more complex than that, so no, that implication not only isn't probably true (and we'd both agree with it), but definitely not the only option either.
The first forms of life were potentially several order of magnitude simpler than the lifeforms you can see around now. Perhaps not even involving genetics altogether.
The first forms of life were potentially several order of magnitude simpler than the lifeforms you can see around now. Perhaps not even involving genetics altogether.
Elessar · 26-30, M
@Carazaa In the case of technology, yeah. However, I've taken that as a parallel just to point out how codebases evolved over time. For life it probably was something similar, extremely simple "machines" that ran extremely simple instructions (or didn't even "execute" instructions at all, similarly to automatons) compared to the organisms and genomes that are around right now.
Elessar · 26-30, M
@Carazaa Ha, the definition of machine is broad. And yes, we're self-replicating, unless you've bought parts and assembled your children like a computer. Just like everyone else, they started as self-replicating cells of yours.
I told you, could've been simpler lifeforms getting more and more complex over time, the current complexity came with it.
I told you, could've been simpler lifeforms getting more and more complex over time, the current complexity came with it.