@gwern @cinnamon_carter Expense => evolution tries to minimize it => makes good proxy measure for difficulty/improbability.
-
@gwern@cinnamon_carter It posits a reasonable working assumption about complexity growth instead of hand-waving about "open niches".
@gwern @cinnamon_carter Ecosystem with 150 base pairs of complexity is chemically very handicapped, and has very few open niches available.
-
-
@NickSzabo4@cinnamon_carter On a proto-earth, no niches are filled; all are open. No competition by definition. -
@gwern@cinnamon_carter It's not a niche if no organism has chemical ability to exploit it. -
@gwern@cinnamon_carter Niches that required photosynthesis, nitrogen fixing, and even many far simpler capabilities were unavailable. -
@NickSzabo4@cinnamon_carter Nevertheless, early Earth would have a great variety of organic chemicals to harvest. That is a big opportunity -
@gwern@cinnamon_carter What kinds of organics? What 150 base pair ecosystem could exploit them? Be specific stop hand-waving. -
@NickSzabo4@cinnamon_carter It would use the amino acids and nuclear acids floating around, you know that. The usual abiogenesis proposals. -
@gwern@cinnamon_carter A 150 base pair ecosystem can't catch, much less put to use, most of the amino & nuclear acids floating around. -
@NickSzabo4@cinnamon_carter Why does it need to catch to grow or spread or evolve w/o competition? Does not catching prove panspermia? - 19 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.