top of page

10:45-11:05     John Malloy     Beyond Metabolism and Genetics


Live Discussion

Chat log

11:01:18 From Dr Sheri Wells-Jensen to Everyone : Words come and go, and pile up in different places locally for a while, you can get dense semantic fields where culturally relevant, but that does not  make any measurable overall difference.  You can take, as a measure, how long it takes a child to learn their local language: that's about the same everywhere. And, you can translate anything you want insany language even if you have explain  concepts  to speakers who don't share, for cxample, a science background.


11:00:50 From Carlos Mariscal to Everyone : Although eukaryotes and multicellularity are not co-extensive. Multicellularity has evolved dozens of times across many taxa


11:02:55 From Lucas Mix to Everyone : This is a bit arbitrary, but just back of the envelope, it may take 500 My to get photosynthesis, another 500 My to get oxygenesis. Eukaryotes come about after that, then facultative multicellular Eukaryotes around 500 My later and obligate multicellular Eukaryotes after that. So, it has not been as punctuated as presented.


11:02:58 From Kelly Smith to Everyone : I have a question I will aim at John, but it applies to lots of people who talk about life.  What does it add to a notion of life to say it’s “chemical”?  I mean, if it’s physical, then it’s chemical in some sense right, so what does this descriptor add exactly?


11:03:02 From Chelsea Haramia to Everyone : could be a robot


11:03:41 From Lucas Mix to Everyone : That's about it being si based, not C based. Both are chemical.

11:03:49 From Kelly Smith to Everyone : Chelsea, if that’s a response to me, then I would say a robot is also chemical - just different chemistry


11:04:04 From Chelsea Haramia to Everyone : it was not


11:04:18 From Kelly Smith to Everyone : Oh well...:)


11:05:13 From Robert.Kennedy to Everyone : and francium is rarer than that!

bottom of page