| I agree I think the cell is key as its the foundation of the energy dynamics of the cell. And re: the epistemological questions, etc: I think there's a temptation for people to look for a transcendent, teleological prescription for the 'why' of life; which can range from either 'God' to some abstract 'progress' concept where nature proceeds to 'higher stages' etc (panspermia, gaia, whatever). It's deeply part of at least western culture since at least Aristotle and Plato to use these kinds of tools. But I believe the 'answer' here is just a big messy 'immanent' one rather than any transcendent order. Life happened as it happened because it happened... and it will unhappen someday, too. And of course we would not be here to ask questions about it if it hadn't, so is it really a puzzle that needs a formula to answer it? Humans look for "reasons" for things because that's a useful conceptual tool for understanding why other people in our kin groups do things, or why a herd of gazelle we're hunting is in a particular place, or why a plant we harvest from didn't grow well this year. But there's no reason to assume that this conceptual tool makes any sense for understanding "life" or "existence." It's a crude instrument. At that level, there is no "why", there is only "is". (And I'd posit further we should not make assumptions like "oh it happened here [us] so it must have happened elsewhere because <xxxx principle / transcendent order / natural progression> ... so ... Star Trek!"; the universe is massive, yes, but that doesn't mean the precise events duplicate multiple times and it does seem like complex multicellular life was a kind of ... fluke ...) |