|
Author
|
Topic: The Characterization of Intelligent Causation
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 18. May 2007 14:10
LifeEngineer quote:
... the reasons that complex problems are difficult to solve is that they involve many different components and a successful solution only arises when you can find a logically consistent set of solutions to all the pieces of the complex problem. As anyone who has ever worked on complex problems is aware, you can take any single component of the complex problem and come up with a hundred or thousand solutions that will work for that component of the problem...
...it is a complete waste of time to argue about the best solution to one component and it is even a waste of time to argue about what is an acceptable solution to one component of the problem. If you are going to find a solution to a complex problem like intelligent causation, then you need to find a logically consistent set of solutions to the full set of associated issues.
I am fully agreed with you on that.
quote:
If you are going to find a solution to a complex problem like intelligent causation, then you need to find a logically consistent set of solutions to the full set of associated issues. These problems include 1) a workable definition of intelligence, 2) workable models and simulations of intelligent causation, 3) the ability to fit or reconcile models to an extensive body of data and 4) the ability for produce testable predictive scientific theories..
Sound like you have a good plan. Do you have any progress in executing it?
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 18. May 2007 20:46
FROM INTELLIGENCE OF THE ELEMENTS TO THE SYSTEM INTELLIGENCE
In my previous posting (May 2, 9 and 12) I discussed a collective approach to define an “intelligence”, AS A DEMONSTRATED RESULT OF A PROBLEM SOLVING ABILITY.
Despite of the variety of existed concepts of intelligence, practically all of them define it in term of a various Human-like mental abilities. However to expend the concept of “Intelligence” to all systems (living and non-living) we need a definition that don’t tied to the Human-like mental abilities. Because word intelligence refers to a human experience only, this word could be misleading in the contest of a new definition and until a better term is introduced, I will use the word “Intelligence” with quotation marks.
To examine the “intelligence” as a property we have to find a way to measure it. Like any other measurement that occurs only in the process of interaction, we will measure the “intelligence” of a system that interacts with a particular problem. It is important to understand that the “intelligence” cannot be defined as an absolute value but a relative only (see my postings from May 2, 9 and 12). Its value depends upon the type of a problem selected to measure the “intelligence”. For example if the problem to solve is a protein folding, then any single molecule of protein is much more intelligent that we are.
The value of the intelligence that solves the particular problem within specific time frame could be determined as follow: the value of the intelligence is equal to 1 GRADE if the probability p of correct answer is 100%. If an individual is solving the specific class of problems, with the 10% success rates his/her intelligence, relative to this type of the problems is 0.1 GRADE.
It is generally accepted that a group (system) is able to solve a more complex problem that an individual member. In the most general terms I see the two ways how it may happen: first the problem could be reduced to the multiple problems of the lower complexity and than to be solved. If the problem can’t be reduced to the problems of the lower complexity, it is solved similarly to Nominal group technique (see Wikipedia) as follow: The group of M individuals is solving the same problem that has one correct answer chosen among vast amount of incorrect ones. Suppose also that these individuals solve this problem independently and then compare their answers at the end. The identical results, most probable are the correct answer, but the different results are random, and therefore will be canceled out as incorrect. Therefore, the identical results represent the correct answer defined by the group. The more members are in the group, the higher is the probability that a system comes up with a correct answer and therefore its “intelligence is higher.
As seen from this example, a correct answer could be influenced by just a few (but > 1) identical results, as long the rest of results have a random distribution. If some members of the group will demonstrate a repetitive problem solving ability for the specific class of the problem they gain a status of authority for this particular class of problems. The other members of the same group may demonstrate the “superiority" for other type of problems and eventually that may lead to specialization.
(The described mechanism determining system intelligence is applicable to the “democratic” system only where independence is preserved and authority is based on the expertise. If the authority to determine a “correct answer” is based not on expertise, but on a power, the optimum solution may not be achieved and this system’s “intelligence” will be compromised.)
From described above, we can see that “Intelligence” of a system could depend on the very few individual members of a group and therefore “intelligence” of this individual members could be close to “intelligence” of this group. This indicates that “Intelligence” of individual electron, for example, could be close to an “intelligence” of an atom and therefore electrons could be qualified to be “intelligent designers” for atom. For the same reason neuron cells are “intelligent designers” for a neuron network, and a humans, of cause, are “intelligent designers” for the human society.
Using the described above mechanisms, a system is able to accumulate an intelligence of its elements into a higher level of intelligence. The existence of hierarchical organization of mater from elementary particle to human society is a series of “intelligence” levels, which became more and more sophisticated from one hierarchical level to the next level.
According to proposed hypothesis, described above mechanism solving problem by a group, occurs on all levels of organization. The elements of any natural system, independently examine the external to the system conditions, come up with a solution to achieve tangible benefits (minimum free energy, equilibrium, etc), compare the results among the members of the system and only than act upon the decision dictated by majority or experts. For example, a nail, hit on the head by a hammer, moves downward, penetrating the wood not just because of the brutal force of a hammer, but because the nail’s constituent part resolute the "conscience" decision to move downward (rather than waiting for the second hit – I am joking). Regardless of the absurd description of this example, it would not contradict to the nail's motion described by the Newtonian dynamics.
By expanding our “intelligence” definition to all systems, we can notice that the spontaneous processes occurring in the non-living systems have a 100% success rate. For example, River’s “intelligence” in reference to finding a path to Ocean is 100%. It is remarkable that no biological systems perform their respective task with a such high score. Therefore ...
(Warning to Ebb_Dimskill: please buckle up – we are going upside down, again)
... based on this analysis I concluded that a difference between living and non-living nature is in their respective “intelligence”; the systems that perform their respective task with 100% success rate are belong to non-living systems and the systems, performing their respective task with the score below 100% are belong to living systems.
Why the living systems are “dumber” than non-living is a very good question, but it could be answered only in the next postings.
[ 19. May 2007, 07:34: Message edited by: miosim ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 19. May 2007 14:58
Sorry for the long absence. I've had some family issues crop up that have (and will) keep me away from the computer - so this will be brief.
It seems to me that the way science works is that someone proposes an hypothesis, then makes predictions based on that hypothesis, which are then tested and either verified or falsified. If the predictions are verified, the hypothesis becomes a theory.
The original hypothesis does not have to be "scientific" (as in already verified). Darwin's theory (hypothesis) was completely unverified and untested when he proposed it.
In that light, I think that an "Intelligent Design" hypothesis can be proposed and certain testable predictions can be made in regard to that hypothesis.
If we can first define "Intelligent Design" as "The application of knowledge towards a particular goal", we can then make some predictions in regard to Life.
As an example, one such prediction would be in regards to "Junk" DNA. The ID hypothesis would predict that all of DNA would have a purpose and that there is no such thing as "Junk" DNA. This prediction can be tested and either verified or falsified.
The ID hypothesis can make many other similar predictions as to what it expects to find within biological systems.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 19. May 2007 16:59
Daniel,
I think it is important to keep in mind that the terms ID and ID science cover a wide range of different, and not particularly compatible, approaches and beliefs. You appear to view the ‘ID hypothesis’ as the concept that some one or something inputted some vast body of knowledge into living systems at some time in the distant past and phenomena that we view as evolution and diverse life forms and human intelligence are all essentially expressions of this long ago inputted knowledge.
The ID or design by intelligence hypothesis I support, by contrast, suggest there is this type or class of causal phenomena that we label intelligent causation or goal-directed intelligent causation that can be described with predictive theories and analyzed with the hard science paradigm. Scientifically analyzing and explaining phenomena like evolution and biological development and human intelligence and computer behavior all require the use of and understanding of the scientific version of goal-directed intelligent causation.
Again it is important that everyone recognize that you views on ID reflect only one version of ID.
Quote: It seems to me that the way science works is that someone proposes an hypothesis, then makes predictions based on that hypothesis, which are then tested and either verified or falsified. If the predictions are verified, the hypothesis becomes a theory.
It is also useful to keep in mind that you are describing on form of science that should probably be labeled academic or soft science.
The major alterative to academic science is traditional or conventional hard science. Hard science starts with scientists defining and quantifying causal and effect variables, and fitting observed values of these variables to functions, then fitting these functions into testable predictive theories. These predictive theories are then refined as a result of open and independent falsify and replace testing.
Again, what you describe is only one form of science and one form of the ID hypothesis.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 19. May 2007 17:20
EFFICIENCY
As has been discussed here in a number of different contexts, intelligence or intelligent causation can be defined in terms of results- in terms of problem solving or in terms of generating goal compatible output (output that increases the likelihood of achieving some goal). This approach can be viewed as defining intelligent causation in terms of point in time behavior.
In order to look at and describe and analyze and define intelligence over more general space time areas, we need to also consider the concept of efficiency. At a point in time, or under ideal conditions, intelligence or intelligent causation can generate a solution to a problem or a response that achieves a goal. But when we look at a particular type of intelligent causation over a broad range of ‘non-ideal’ settings, we find that intelligent causation is not always successful at generating a solution or a response that achieves a goal. We can describe or explain or model this change in effectiveness in terms of efficiency. The effectiveness or efficiency of any form or intelligent causation can and will vary over time and locations. We might formally state this as:
THE EFFICIENCY OF INTELLIGENCE PRINCIPLE- The efficiency or effectiveness of any form of intelligent causation in achieving a goal or solution will vary over time and among locations.
In formulating predictive theories relating to intelligent causation we describe the efficient or under ideal conditions form of intelligent causation, but this is done recognizing that perfect efficiency or ideal conditions for intelligent causation are relatively rare.
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 19. May 2007 19:09
Daniel quote:
If we can first define "Intelligent Design" as "The application of knowledge towards a particular goal", we can then make some predictions in regard to Life…
As an example, one such prediction would be in regards to "Junk" DNA. The ID hypothesis would predict that all of DNA would have a purpose and that there is no such thing as "Junk" DNA…
…The ID hypothesis can make many other similar predictions as to what it expects to find within biological systems.
Even though a majority of molecular biologists think that "junk" DNA is an evolutionary artifact, some scientists insist that the conservation of this "noncoding DNA" over many millions of years of evolution may imply its essential function, and not necessarily in reference to IDT. Therefore, if one day the essential role of "noncoding DNA" will be conformed it wouldn’t be even evidence in favor to IDT, but just another solved puzzle of molecular biology.
The philosophy of the supreme purpose in Life sciences is very strong, and by the way, without any connection to IDT. In spite of achievements in Biology, some problems not only lack the answers, but even the approach for resolution. In these cases, assumption that a supreme purpose is the driving force for evolution, at least gives some direction. This is why the Philosophy of Supreme Purpose prompts some biologists to look for a predestination of all natural events. For example, they try to find the Supreme Purpose in events when animals eat their own posterity, or when certain worm embryos destroy their mothers’ body. Even death, due to aging, was found by these scientists to be a greatly advantageous adaptation, which emerged during evolution. However, evolution is a development that may not happen without mistakes or defects.
I would preserve the belief in world harmony only for kids. For them, everything is beautifully built and for a reason: the sun is to catch sunbeams in a mirror, the wind is to blow the sails of toy-ships, and night is to provide an opportunity for dreams. By the way, a similar belief was once shared by Winnie the Pooh. One day, while sitting under a tree, he thought about the bees, which lived in a tree, and their destination. Because he also believed in a supreme purpose, he quickly found his answer: "The bees are destined to collect honey for me, Winnie the Pooh." This realization encouraged him into action, but there were consequences that Winnie the Pooh, stung all over, will remember for a long time.
Therefore if some one raised the question “What is it for” in the reference to biological systems, I picture “…the all-over-sting physiognomy of Winnie the Pooh”. It remind me that Life isn't a total harmony, but also has ugly "faces" we can experience every day, just listening to news. So how would you explain the enormous waist of human efforts, resources and life in light of Supreme Purpose and "Intelligent Design"?
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 19. May 2007 20:49
miosim:
quote:
So how would you explain the enormous waist of human efforts, resources and life in light of Supreme Purpose and "Intelligent Design"?
All of that would depend upon the answer to the question: "What is the Supreme Purpose?".
If for example, I were to get more specific and propose the hypothesis that the "Christian God" designed life, then I could explain the phenomena you describe as a byproduct of the fall of man and the curse - the "Supreme Purpose" having been altered to include those two things.
However, I think this moves us out of the realm of science and into the realm of philosophy.
quote:
Even death, due to aging, was found by these scientists to be a greatly advantageous adaptation, which emerged during evolution.
I don't understand this statement. Before death due to aging "emerged during evolution", was all life eternal?
How is "death" an advantage?
Especially how is it an advantage that would be selected for - since natural selection supposedly rewards survival?
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 19. May 2007 22:25
quote:
Miosim: Even death, due to aging, was found by these scientists to be a greatly advantageous adaptation, which emerged during evolution.
Daniel Smith: I don't understand this statement. Before death due to aging "emerged during evolution", was all life eternal?
How is "death" an advantage?
Especially how is it an advantage that would be selected for - since natural selection supposedly rewards survival?
Some time evolution biologists see their role in explaining the Mother Nature Wisdom. If we stop praising the Mother Nature we may realized how wasteful and inefficient it is regardless the tremendous potential of organisms.
One version of “death, due to aging” justification as advantageous adaptation - was given by Dan Fiscus as follow: (http://lists.vcu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0611&L=rosen-l&P=R1009&I=-3)
“I more tend to think in terms of life values, or organizing and operating principles that "work" for "life itself", life as a unified whole, etc. It is from this perspective that I see the integral role, need, value or functional purpose of death of individuals, organisms and species, in that it enables new instantiations of these forms to be generated as "new and improved" with each life-death cycle iteration and enable life as a whole to persist. The conservation of matter on a basically matter-closed Earth is important too - it is why life has "term limits" and why ecology (food webs, decomposition, etc.) is as integral to life as biology, from origin onward to present and forward to "destiny", ideally an open-ended future. This view perhaps only differs slightly from the Darwinian hyper-emphasis on survival and offspring in that it focuses not only on competition and organisms, individuals or species/populations, but on all scales of life including communities, ecosystems and biosphere. And cooperation, symbiosis and synergy are as important as competition.”
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 20. May 2007 07:09
CONNECTING THE DOTS: GOAL, RESULT, AND ORIGIN OF LIFE.
Since we are talking about a system that is solving a problem we have to consider two possible outcomes: the system will come up with the correct answer or an incorrect one. It is naturally to assume that if a system is solving a problem (searching for equilibrium, for example) and got the correct answer the system will approach the equilibrium, but the incorrect answer moves it away from the destination.
Imagine a fisherman who lives on a small, remote Island. Every day he takes a boat to fish within a visible distance from the Island and therefore he has no problem to find his way back home. However, one day, by accident, he got slightly farther from the Island so he cannot see it any more. In this case, the complexity of the problem to find an Island exceeds the threshold of this man ability and therefore the more this man tries to find his Island by searching randomly, the further he moves away from it.
If one observes this man moving away from the Island, the observer may assume that this man has the goal to find more open space rather than the Island.
This example reminds me the complex systems development that is studied by nonlinear thermodynamics. This discipline considers the two outcomes of the system evolution: if the system is not far from equilibrium, it develops toward equilibrium (as non-living matter does), but if a system is far enough from equilibrium and pass the critical point, a small change can push the system into chaotic behavior (Edge of Chaos) and move it even further from an equilibrium and eventually causes the various types of the self-organization processes. Significant accomplishments have been made to extend the self-organization processes of the non-equilibrium system into the realm of living organisms.
The similarity between the man, who moves away from the Island (and probably acquires knowledge and skills to survive in this journey), and the self-organization systems that move away from equilibrium lead me to think that these two events belong to the same phenomenon.
The observation of evolution and development of Living Nature shows that it continues to move away from equilibrium, but now I would be very cautious about conclusion that this evolution and development is the real goal of Nature. Instead I would consider the opposite: the Living systems actually looking for an equilibrium, but move in the opposite direction, because they were “lost“ after series of mistakes to get back to the equilibrium and their continuous attempt to find this equilibrium has brought them further and further from the goal.
CONCLUSION
I propose that “Intelligence” is the fundamental property of MATTER that is not observable in non-living, equilibrium systems. However, if a system steered far enough from equilibrium and passed the critical point, the complexity of the problem to find equilibrium exceeds the system’s “Intelligence”. As a result of continuing attempts to find the equilibrium, a system starts ddeveloping in the opposite direction and a non-equilibrium self-organized system emerges. Further development of this system in the direction out from equilibrium reveals the property, which was not recognized in the underlying levels of MATTER. This property we call LIFE.
P.S.
If Life indeed was emerged due to the inevitable MISTAKE, the CORRECT answer is DEATH, but the living things have to search throughout their life, to find this answer.
Remember I solicited the question: “Why living systems are “dumber” than non-living?” Now you should be able to answer this question for your self.
[ 20. May 2007, 07:40: Message edited by: miosim ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 20. May 2007 08:59
miosim,
You wrote:
quote:
Instead I would consider the opposite: the Living systems actually looking for an equilibrium, but move in the opposite direction, because they were “lost“ after series of mistakes to get back to the equilibrium and their continuous attempt to find this equilibrium has brought them further and further from the goal.
I do not believe that you are convinced of your own argument. Why? You are still with us. Look at it this way. You are the fisherman. You have concluded that the only way to find your Island is to die, yet, you are still alive.
Miosim, you are not looking for the Island of death. You are looking for your Father. You are separated from Him by your mistakes, sin. He has made a way for you to be reconciled [equilibrium]. That way is not death. Rather, it is LIFE, eternal life, and that life is in the Son, Jesus Christ.
Romans 10: 6 – 9
But the righteousness that comes from faith says, "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will go up into heaven?' (that is, to bring Christ down)
or 'Who will go down into the abyss?' (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead)."
But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith that we preach),
for, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 20. May 2007 13:51
miosim:
quote:
Even though a majority of molecular biologists think that "junk" DNA is an evolutionary artifact, some scientists insist that the conservation of this "noncoding DNA" over many millions of years of evolution may imply its essential function, and not necessarily in reference to IDT. Therefore, if one day the essential role of "noncoding DNA" will be conformed it wouldn’t be even evidence in favor to IDT, but just another solved puzzle of molecular biology.
This is a good example of the unscientific nature of many "theories" (especially Neo-Darwinism). They make no predictions and therefore cannot be falsified. If "junk" DNA can be either non-essential or essential without falsifying the theory, it's not really a theory is it? It's not even a verifiable hypothesis. What you have is a "Catch All" that consists of any and all evidence and which essentially explains nothing.
ID predicts that all DNA will be found to be essential.
[ 20. May 2007, 13:53: Message edited by: Daniel Smith ]
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 20. May 2007 14:05
Melvin H. Fox
quote:
I do not believe that you are convinced of your own argument. Why? You are still with us. Look at it this way. You are the fisherman. You have concluded that the only way to find your Island is to die, yet, you are still alive.
For this Fisherman to find his Island is the way to achieve his goal and to rest - not to DIE. However for observer, Fisherman who do not undertaking any visible from a distance actions, seems to be DEAD, because we associate life, intelligence and conscience with observable action only.
Imaging that some Aliens observe us from the space of a few hundreds of miles away. By observing construction site of large building, for example, they may conclude that this building is due to activity of the construction worker only, but the role of other humans, present on this site (happen to be designers and architects for this building), but not produced any visible from distance actions, are not significant (some sort of artifact), or could be even dead. For the same reason the Aliens would qualified as “DEAD” everyone who doing nothing but just is writing, thinking, praying, meditating, etc.
In my P.S. comment - “If Life indeed was emerged due to the inevitable MISTAKE, the CORRECT answer is DEATH, but the living things have to search throughout their life, to find this answer” - I just pointed to a new challenge - explaining the phenomenon of death due to aging. I wouldn’t be surprised if we couldn’t fully explain Life without fully understanding non-living Matter's “Wisdom”. Dan Fiscus, in one of his posting at (http://lists.vcu.edu) discussion forum, wrote: “… matter becomes intelligent - via a full cycle of which death is integral part …” For Dan, as I understood him, this is justification for organism mortality – exactly what I oppose (purpose of death). However this quote stocked in my head and one day I may be back to this subject.
quote:
… you are not looking for the Island of death. You are looking for your Father. You are separated from Him by your mistakes, sin. He has made a way for you to be reconciled [equilibrium]. That way is not death. Rather, it is LIFE, eternal life, and that life is in the Son, Jesus Christ… .
My views on Life phenomenon could be seen, as reconcilation betwen natural sciences and spiritual knowledge, and this is fine with me, because I view any type of human knowledge - religion, natural science, art, etc), as a reflection on the multidimensional nature of the universe we are living in.
Regarding Judeo-Christian interpretation of the spirituality, I have to admit I was disappointed after reading (actually listening to more than 90 CDs, while commuting to work)a Bible. I found there some troubled me unconsistency, especially in its moral values.
However, I may change my opinion, if come across a good reason and not necessarily a scientific sort of argument. I actually surprised, why believers often utilize the scientific methods to prove existence of God by using not adequate for religion language and methods. I may argue that their method of knowledge, by directly “experiencing God”, should be as valid, as experimental method used by “hard science” (I am using definition found in Wikipedia) that as we know is a subject of interpretation. Einstein said, that only a theory “knows” what experimenter observes.
I am open to any idea or argument and if I have to move to unfamiliar to me territory of religion, I would accept this as an opportunity to learn, and if it will be in conflict with existing topic we can even start a new thread.
Regards,
Mark
P.S. I feel a relief by using my real (not machine) name.
[ 20. May 2007, 14:24: Message edited by: miosim ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 20. May 2007 14:05
miosim:
quote:
This example reminds me the complex systems development that is studied by nonlinear thermodynamics. This discipline considers the two outcomes of the system evolution: if the system is not far from equilibrium, it develops toward equilibrium (as non-living matter does), but if a system is far enough from equilibrium and pass the critical point, a small change can push the system into chaotic behavior (Edge of Chaos) and move it even further from an equilibrium and eventually causes the various types of the self-organization processes. Significant accomplishments have been made to extend the self-organization processes of the non-equilibrium system into the realm of living organisms.
I think you need to have a "reality check" miosim. Living systems tend towards equilibrium - not evolution (else why the plethora of extinctions?). There is also no evidence of any tendency towards self-organization of non-living matter into living matter. These are fairy tales told by the purveyors of a bankrupt evolutionary hypothesis.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 20. May 2007 14:25
Last post today!
miosim:
quote:
I just pointed to a new challenge - explaining the phenomenon of death due to aging.
This is easily explained by the "Christian God" hypothesis via the fall of man and the curse. The biblical creationist would predict that all organisms are bound to death as a result of the curse. In this sense, biblical creationism is more scientific than the "theory" of evolution - which makes no predictions on the matter (although it should).
Think about it: All of the mechanisms are present in living organisms for them to continue living forever. All cells have the ability to self-replicate, all of life's systems are capable of self repair and error correction and could conceivably go on forever. Yet they do not. It's like there's a switch that turns itself off and causes organisms to quit repairing themselves. Evolutionary theories would certainly predict (if they made predictions) that this "switch" should have - at some point in the trillions upon trillions of organisms that have existed - been defective at least once and not turned off the self repairing mechanisms. And surely if this switch quit working and an organism did not age, such a feature would be a reproductive advantage would it not? So surely it would have been selected.
This is what evolutionary "theories" would have predicted (had they made predictions), but alas, in the trillions upon trillions of organisms that have existed, not once has this "aging switch" been turned off. Hence, we all die, (again as predicted by biblical creationism).
IP: Logged
|
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 20. May 2007 21:09
LifeEngineer
quote:
Quote: In general, the most basic properties of single cell organisms can be reduced to the properties of its components. For instance, cell's ability to self-reproduction is based on autoreplicative property of DNA molecules.
Please clarify. DNA is not autoreplicative. Cell replication including DNA replication requires the DNA/RNA replication system, energy processing and material processing, each of which require DNA etc.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
