/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #13905664

270KiB, 656x638, Skullet.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 03:33:07 2021 No.13905664 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>13905723 >>13905815 >>13906033 >>13906053 >>13906081 >>13906182 >>13906489 >>13906796 >>13907899 >>13908032

Why did the first living cells seek to "procreate" instead of just living and dying

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 03:36:24 No.13905672 Report

Quoted By:

good question

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 03:36:43 No.13905675 Report

Quoted By:

How would you know if they didn't?
There have always been incells.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 03:37:32 No.13905679 Report

Quoted By:

I'm sure plenty of protocells didn't replicate. They didn't make it very far.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 03:40:23 No.13905684 Report

Quoted By: >>13905687 >>13905691 >>13906156

Define "first", "living", "cells", "seek", "procreate", and "dying"

The first things that made more of themselves were inanimate and populated their environment by virtue of being able to make copies. Things that didn't make copies of themselves weren't as prevalent because they could only come about by chance.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 03:42:03 No.13905686 Report

Quoted By:

Genesis 1:28

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 03:42:06 No.13905687 Report

Quoted By: >>13905737

>>13905684
Why wouldn't this apply to those particles forming out of the primordial soup of the universe?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 03:42:54 No.13905691 Report

Quoted By: >>13905757 >>13906057 >>13906081

>>13905684
Why was making more of themselves ever a goal? Wouldn't it be inefficient for an organism to waste some of its resource and energy to make more.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 03:53:34 No.13905723 Report

Quoted By: >>13905759 >>13908017

>>13905664
just watch this video ffs
https://youtu.be/PqPGOhXoprU

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 04:02:11 No.13905737 Report

Quoted By: >>13906177

>>13905687
Particles don't make copies of themselves.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 04:07:35 No.13905757 Report

Quoted By: >>13905763

>>13905691
Molecules don't have goals. The context of their environment and their particular chemistry just allowed certain things to make more of themselves.

>Wouldn't it be inefficient for an organism to waste some of its resource and energy to make more.
Yes, so much more efficient to wait eons for matter to spontaneously arrange itself into Boltzmann brains and such. That's why we find those everywhere.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 04:08:42 No.13905759 Report

Quoted By: >>13905777 >>13905993

>>13905723
this video does not satisfy the question anon, unless you can point to a specific time stamp where they say why replication was the chosen drive over just a longer period of self sustaining

I thought you nerds could help me. Im a humble country boy who witnessed a bull go to incredible lengths to plow a cow and it got me to thinking about fucking and naturally that got me thinking about making babies and why we do it and i figure well its just what we've always done but then i thought why is it what we've always done so ive come to you bunch of dweebs for answers and so far bupkis

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 04:10:28 No.13905763 Report

Quoted By: >>13905772

>>13905757
Getting caught up over semantics shows you are approaching this in bad faith anon, but even your answer does not satisfy. You say it allow them this option, okay, but why was it the taken one

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 04:15:28 No.13905772 Report

Quoted By: >>13905775

>>13905763
You clearly didn't understand the answer. Would you like me to use smaller words?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 04:16:46 No.13905775 Report

Quoted By: >>13905795

>>13905772
Nope its not hard to understand it simply does not answer the question.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 04:19:29 No.13905777 Report

Quoted By:

>>13905759
its what weve always done because thats what the first one did you idiot. The reason why life became what it is today is because evolution selects replication over not replicating. If you reproduce there is more evolution, if you don't then how are you going to have decendents?

Life literally doesn't exist without reproduction; reproduction literally is life.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 04:27:57 No.13905795 Report

Quoted By: >>13906066

>>13905775
What exactly is your question?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 04:40:10 No.13905815 Report

Quoted By:

>>13905664
For every planet on which lasting life arises, there are probably a billion more planets where a cell or two appeared and then disintegrated.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 06:13:10 No.13905993 Report

Quoted By: >>13905995 >>13906066

>>13905759
You are fucking retarded. If you watch his 3 videos you will understand the origin of life.
If you understand why an entity that creates copies spreads then are fucking retarded.

The bull that inspired you didn't make one calf and then die. It could make many calves over a lifetime. After generations your bull.may have thousands of descendents even if accidents killed many, while your hypothetical creature that only lives without reproducing is just one, if he didn't get killed by an accident.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 06:14:11 No.13905995 Report

Quoted By:

>>13905993
*if you don't

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 06:45:58 No.13906033 Report

Quoted By:

>>13905664
Because they had ancestors who procreated. It was passed on to them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 07:01:28 No.13906053 Report

Quoted By:

>>13905664
how do u now dat wat happen?
msybe the 1rst ones din't procrete & only l8r procreteing was invented

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 07:03:53 No.13906057 Report

Quoted By:

>>13905691
The ends justify the means, it only looks like a goal in retrospect.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 07:09:04 No.13906066 Report

Quoted By: >>13906081 >>13906103 >>13906124 >>13906513 >>13907257

>>13905993
Of course I understand that something that copies itself will spread. This is not my question. I guess
>>13905795
The question would be. In the early stages of the life process whatever the shit was called could tend towards replication or sustaining a bit longer. So why did it tend towards more life. Not here are the functions that led to replication but why were those the functions that were sought after

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 07:19:23 No.13906081 Report

Quoted By:

>>13905664
>seek
>>13905691
>goal
>>13906066
>sought after

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 07:34:38 No.13906103 Report

Quoted By:

>>13906066
For the millionth time, they weren't sought after, they worked and worked well when they randomly happened, so they kept spreading and at a rate far greater than other competitors such that looking back in retrospect, you can see a clear trend of what worked well and what didn't, so you call that being sought after for some irrational reason.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 07:43:48 No.13906114 Report

Quoted By:

Cus they wanted to seek God

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 07:53:23 No.13906124 Report

Quoted By:

>>13906066
>why did it tend towards more life
Because the ones that didn't are the ones you don't know about

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 08:15:24 No.13906156 Report

Quoted By: >>13906164

>>13905684
define "define"

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 08:23:27 No.13906164 Report

Quoted By: >>13906166

>>13906156
Define "define "define""

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 08:25:11 No.13906166 Report

Quoted By: >>13906167

>>13906164
define "Define "define "define"""

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 08:26:48 No.13906167 Report

Quoted By:

>>13906166
I would like to see you try to make me.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 08:27:39 No.13906169 Report

Quoted By: >>13906169 >>13906194 >>13906458

>>13906169

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 08:37:17 No.13906177 Report

Quoted By:

>>13905737
Why do we have a limited number of particles?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 08:39:07 No.13906182 Report

Quoted By:

>>13905664
Plenty of them wouldn’t have, just the ones who did ended up surviving longer

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 08:44:47 No.13906194 Report

Quoted By:

>>13906169
Sexy

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 11:10:38 No.13906458 Report

Quoted By:

>>13906169
Bateman ain't got nothin' on this kind of mic drop.

Not OP

Not OP Tue 30 Nov 2021 11:20:26 No.13906489 Report

Quoted By:

>>13905664
Electromagnetic forcing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 11:27:06 No.13906513 Report

Quoted By:

>>13906066
Jesus. Nothing was sought after. Some entities lived longer, some reproduced. Even if an organism achieved immortality and invincibility, you wouldn't be able to find it among the trillions of descendants of the one that achieved making multiple copies.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 12:51:46 No.13906796 Report

Quoted By:

>>13905664
the protocells that were able to "divide" outpopulated the ones that didn't, and then there were only protocells that could "divide" and now the ones that "divide" faster and more efficiently will outpopulate the others, in this sense the faster-dividing protocells are "selected" for, even though nothing is actually making any concerted effort to do anything. Protocells are weird though and "division" can simply be a mixed-lipid membrane getting big (or long, spindle-like) enough and gradually losing stability until it splits into a bunch of little bubbles. The ones that do that better become more numerous while the ones that don't disappear. Fast forward a billion years or so and now the machinery to divide has become much more advanced and efficient and these protocells have become actual cells that sequester nutrients and resources and function as little genetic amplifiers, where the better amplifier will outcompete the crappier amplifiers. Fast forward another few billion years and now your bull has been hard-wired with biological circuitry that possesses him with a singleminded yearning that he will fulfill at all costs, even if it means risking death, because the flesh-heaps that failed to do this adequately were outpopulated and outcompeted by the flesh-heaps that mastered the horny wiring.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 15:39:45 No.13907257 Report

Quoted By:

>>13906066
You are dumb as hell. I already told you, the stuff that made more of itself was more common than the stuff that didn't. Which part of this is hard for you?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 16:04:41 No.13907324 Report

Quoted By: >>13907342 >>13907355 >>13907453

You science geeks let me down. Not a single one of you could satisfy the question. Every single attempted answer said the same thing like a bunch of autists

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 16:10:44 No.13907342 Report

Quoted By:

>>13907324
Try understanding the answer instead of demanding a different one.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 16:16:10 No.13907355 Report

Quoted By:

>>13907324
Read the Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins if you actually care beyond making shitposts.
>inb4 dawkins
He may have shit takes on other subjects, but he's an evolutionary biologist and it's a book about evolutionary biology.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 17:01:42 No.13907453 Report

Quoted By:

>>13907324
I answered your question two posts above, if it's too many words then maybe you should go find a tiktok video that can better capture your attention

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 19:04:44 No.13907899 Report

Quoted By:

>>13905664
They probably didn't, but there are more of the ones who did because they procreated.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 19:34:17 No.13908017 Report

Quoted By:

>>13905723
Why do you keep spamming that garbage on this board?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 19:37:48 No.13908032 Report

Quoted By:

>>13905664
Only things that adhere to the laws of this universe and replicate continue their lineage. Why do you think we all see (presumably, roughly) the same world around us? Why do you think we all think it's real despite the fact there is literally zero evidence to support it?

Because this is the most basest of instincts and functionality. Organisms which do not adhere to these things, don't replicate.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 20:06:35 No.13908153 Report

Quoted By:

and how the HELL do you claim the know they did?

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches