Read the book and I’ll talk about it.
Yuo won’t even give a brief synopsis? I’ll see what I can find online about it- not goign to purchase it. But you shoudl have at least a breif outline about what it was about?
nm- found soem more thorough reviews online- will get back to you
Are you serious/ He thinks clay crystals were hte first primitive ‘life replicators’? He seems to be arguing that soemthign just barely able ot keep itself alive, somethign so simple that it just barely ‘squeeked by’, hung aroudn self replicating until info just somehow arose?
cairns Argues that life could not have happened in soem primordial soup, but hten goes on to state it arose in clay crystals, and we’re to conclude that Cairns gave a serious hypothesis abotu hte rise of metainfo?
“”Cairns-Smith, long before the argument became popular, emphasized how
improbable it is that a molecule as high tech as RNA could have appeared de
novo on the primitive Earth. He proposed that the first form of life was a
self-replicating clay. He suggested that the synthesis of organic molecules
became part of the competitive strategy of the clay world and that the
inorganic genome was taken over by one of its organic creations.
Cairns-Smith postulate of an inorganic life form has failed to gather any
experimental support. The idea lives on in the limbo of uninvestigated
hypotheses.” (Leslie E. Orgel, The Origin of Life - A Review of Facts and
Speculations, Trends in Biochemical Sciences, vol 23, No 12, December 1998)”
Again though, it seems that you think that this paper we’re discussing mustn’t be important ‘because people might have thought about it earlier in some form or anther’? How would that fact undermine the importance of what’s being discussed in this thread and paper? Why would you even bring something liek that up? Does it refute the idea that hwat is discussed i nthis paper might be a big deal for Macroevolution? Not sure why you brought this up?