Life’s Irreducible Structure — Autopoiesis

Freep is kinda taken with itself. Autopoiesis is barely a hypothesis with absolutely nothing to evidence it yet. I think that Lynn MArgulis work has stretched the credulity of this slef organizing trait and has copped it to be part of her own theology, that of Gaia. Its quite fashionable in organizational structure to invoke it and almost everyone discounts its merits.
Even MArgulis, in her work of capturing entire genomes from other eukaryotes, kind of begs the subject in that "where did the first eukaryotic models come from"?

I rather like the sense of biochemistry wherein we see that natural affinities can occur by , with certain environmental conditions prevailing, merely screwing with the types of bonds that occur on surfaces of most all organics.

We went through this with fresco about a year ago and I forget if we got anywhere then.

Hello? gunga ? did you just drop this topic on a pile and run away ?
I just question its relevance as a hypothesis.

I agree with farmerman that the concept "autpoiesis" can be stretched to support "theological" arguments, but strictly speaking such "theology" would involve something like "Spinoza's God", with no interest in the affairs of homo-sapiens. In essence evoking "a deity" or "cosmic consiousness" is an attempt at closure of a potential infinite set of organizational structures. Seeking such closure would seem to be of the same psychological origins as perception of "a domed night sky" which is less disturbing than looking out into a limitless void. (Reference "The Moon Illusion")

A secondary issue is that those links above seem to indicate an informational model of autopoiesis and that was specifically rejected by Maturana. From then on the discussion would not be about "autpoiesis" in the original sense.

I post these science topics here occasionally for the benefit of those who actually get something from them. That that clearly does not include you is not my problem.

I notice you dont have anything to say on your own. Therefore I take that as

1 Posting a URL is merely a cheap way to make believe to others that one actually understands what is contained therein, or

2 One really wishes to start a discussion and is willing to engage in the give and take.

From your lack of substantive participation in this thread Im gonna have to go with 1

The links to which you refer lead to an American reactionary political web site. I am not surprised that such a site functions as a source for scientific information from Gunga's point of view. However, to lend it any credence by discussing it as though it were a source of reasonable scientific or philosophical points of view is roughly the equivalent of discussing the deeper semiotic implications of the literary content of The Sun.

My familiarity with Maturana has been through some reading of MArgulis and her simplification of the autopoiesis process. She simplifies it to realize that we think of lifes assembly from pre-protists which, like virus, may not be alive but rely upon their self assmbly upon protists and microbes. Since virus can acquire whole genomes , the steps in her reasoned self assmbly was in part,the rise of virus, protists, and eukaryotes where the commensal relationship had been established at the microbe level.
WHenever I read anything by Maturana, on the other hand, I was amused by his constant referencing hiself alkmost exclusively. He was, in fact, the best example of his own concept of sef assmbly.

Im not sure what gunga wishes to show us about how this hypothesis, even if evidenced by anything moire rigorous than Margulis's stuff, does to raise Intelligent Design beyond some fond wish.