"Perplexed in Peoria" (jimmenegay{at}sbcglobal.net) writes:
> But, if you have a kind of sludge composed of ten chemicals catalyzing
> each others formation, and this gets replaced in part of its habitat by
> a new eleven component sludge consisting of nine of the original chemicals
> plus two new ones, then I don't think that there is anything wrong with
> saying that the ten-component sludge is ancestral to the eleven-component
> sludge.  And if this is then replaced by a twelve-component sludge where
> the twelveth component is a nucleic acid capable of true heritable variation,
> then I don't see anything wrong with saying that the non-living (by Catherine's
> definition) sludge was ancestral to the living sludge.

It depends on what you mean by "gets replaced by".  If the first
sludge caused the formation of the second sludge that replaced it,
then I'd call that a mutation -- well, at least if there was considerable
similarity between the two.  But if the second sludge was
going to come into existence anyway, perhaps it had nothing to
do with the first sludge and I wouldn't call it a "mutation"
but a second spontaneous generation of life (or of sludge).

Another problem:  if the second catalytic loop has many of the
same chemicals as the first catalytic loop, most likely both
would head towards the same equilibrium and end up making
all of the same chemicals.  I think you would need
at least two new chemicals -- perhaps you're aware of this
which is why you mentioned two -- and each of those two would
have to be involved in the catalytic creation of the other.
Otherwise the two sludges would not remain different.
--
Cathy
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 11/29/04 6:19:57 AM