At home in the universe

This record preserves its author, date and source link. Open HN to read the full context.

This record preserves its author, date and source link. Open HN to read the full context.

This record preserves its author, date and source link. Open HN to read the full context.

This record preserves its author, date and source link. Open HN to read the full context.

This record preserves its author, date and source link. Open HN to read the full context.

This record preserves its author, date and source link. Open HN to read the full context.

This record preserves its author, date and source link. Open HN to read the full context.

This record preserves its author, date and source link. Open HN to read the full context.

This record preserves its author, date and source link. Open HN to read the full context.

This record preserves its author, date and source link. Open HN to read the full context.

This record preserves its author, date and source link. Open HN to read the full context.

This record preserves its author, date and source link. Open HN to read the full context.

…t how the first cell came to be also isn't new - it's not as if those two scientists from the article are the first to think about that problem. For example I have read "At Home In The Universe" by Stuart Kauffman 13 years ago, which suggests how networks of chemical reactions could evolve (not saying that is how it happened, but it is a possibility to consider). I guess they just had to make the article sound more dramatic, but it annoys me. Edit: OK, reading on, it just seems more silly every page. For example, they made a simulation and found that the optimal code wouldn't be found without "horizontal transfer". But couldn't it be equally possible that the code was evolved within one kind of "organism" (which would enable horizontal transfer between organisms, because they all belong to a compatible species), which then proceeded to wi…