This is the assembly of a living thing from non-living material. What is your opinion on it?
Abiogenesis
- Thread starter Makalakumu
- Start date
upnorthkyosa said:
Isn't that all life? take conjugate pieces that by themselves to not make life and together they function as a living organism?
Or are you thinking along the lines of artificially made? stick some stuff in a test tube and generate something living?
I think the question goes beyond the fundamental makeup of a lifeform. Break down an organic system and you're left with elemental bits and pieces, none of which are alive, in and of themselves. Stimulate a bit of dead muscle tissue and you can give the appearance of life; but, really, it's just a marionette.
I don't believe that life can evolve from nonlife; but, I am not able to define what life does spring from for that moves the conversation from scientific to spiritual.
I don't believe that life can evolve from nonlife; but, I am not able to define what life does spring from for that moves the conversation from scientific to spiritual.
heretic888
Senior Master
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2002
- Messages
- 2,723
- Reaction score
- 60
Wikipedia article: Abiogenesis
qizmoduis
Purple Belt
mrhnau said:ahh... the old spontaneous generation
ty ty it all becomes clear now.
Er...no, not spontaneous generation. Chemistry!
qizmoduis said:
Well, more like biochemistry/organic chemistry, but same meaning...
from the article
I remember hearing about this in high school (many moons ago), and thought it quite humorous at the time...
Regardless of the theory, it still works with origins, which has always been a sticking point for Evolution.
I think in time we will advance our knowledge and capabilities to where we will be able to generate simple life forms (granted, this is likely 100 years, not thinking "surface" yet, btw, a GREAT show!). We are now working on the basic set of whats required for "life" to begin. Cloning is a first step towards creating novel organisms, but actually going from the component pieces into something living is going to be a bit more of a challenge. Lipid Bilayer generate from scratch is going to be a sticking point. Energy generation (ATP, NADPH) will be difficult to start. Starting the pathways might prove difficult, since they are so complex. Studying biochemistry close enough really opens your eyes on exactly how complicated evolution had to be. Thinking of how complicated it would be to actually do this in a lab ( *cough cough* Intellegent Design *cough cough*), it seems a bit more difficult for life to emerge from the primordial gargage dump...
now, what I DO find interesting is the thought of designing novel energy pathways, different methods of substaining an organism... alot of extremophiles exist, and it makes the field of exobiology quite fascinating. Gives a good starting point to examine what life -might- look like on another planet. I imagine in most instances, if it DOES exist, it will be just nice blobs of organic goo, and nothing similar to what we have here, though I'd be suprised if pathways or general ideas are not conserved... I'd enjoy the suprise! some organisms on earth are not based on the Sun at all and get their energy from sulfer based sources (microorganisms near volcanoes for instance). Life is quite amazing!
All life, at its roots, is made of inorganic matter. At the end of life, organic matter decomposes back to inorganic matter and is recycled. At some point in the distant past, something caused inorganic molecules to reform into organic molecules - the beginning of life on this planet. Whether it was a natural occurence (as in, a random facet/event of natural processes) or divinely begun is not the relevant issue here - the relevant issues are, in my opinion:
a) can human beings learn to control abiogenesis?
b) what are the benefits?
c) what are the risks?
a) can human beings learn to control abiogenesis?
b) what are the benefits?
c) what are the risks?
"First we was in the goo; then we were in the zoo. And now you're you!"
OP
- Thread Starter
- #10
How would people feel in scientists actually created a biologic lifeform? I just read in an astrobiology journal that we are suprisingly far down that road.
upnorthkyosa said:
which journal? I'd be interested in seeing context and who exactly wrote it.
I doubt we are too far down that road, depending on exactly what you are talking about... talking about sticking in a pre-fab genome into an egg w/ genetic material removed? thats cloning and likely via PCR these days... I doubt PCR could create an entire genome yet, but I've honestly not read up on that. However, I'd agree that we are pretty far down that road.
Now, if you are talking about going from random soup to a living organism, I think we are pretty far from that goal. I've heard of groups generating peptides from random soups of amino acids, but not heard of much more than that yet. Granted, its been years since I looked
If you are talking about developing from scratch novel pathways, novel ideas of life, we are FAR from that (give them a few hundred years). Now why would we want this? Develop an organism that digest waste materials and produces something useful (sort of being done, but not "developed" from scratch or totally custom made). Develop an organism for transplant into a new world with a different sun (needs different type of Chrolophyl for specific wavelengths for instance). Develop an organism for a methane environment or high temp world. Lots of fun things you could try w/ enough knowledge... We are far from this, but thats were the really interesting science is going to be in the next 100 years
qizmoduis
Purple Belt
mrhnau said:
Well, I wouldn't differentiate between chemistry and biochemistry. It's all chemistry. I should remind you that abiogenesis is most definitely NOT a sticking point for evolution, as evolution doesn't address the origins of life at all.
But that's nitpicking.
In any case, it's always been my opinion that, rather than being implausible, life is inevitable, given the right conditions. The scarcity of the "right conditions" is the biggest factor. Also, where life may be inevitable, SENTIENCE is probably not. I'm not consistently convinced sentience exists on our own planet, to be honest.
It's also important to note that the successful demonstration of possible avenues for early abiogenesis does not in any way support the idea of intelligent design as advanced by modern creationists.
Another important note regarding complexity: It does not require a complex process to produce a complex result. The Mandelbrot set is a stunningly elegant example of this. The set requires a very simple calculation, but produces infinite complexity. Evolution is the same, conceptually. It's a very simple process/idea, but the results are infinitely complex.
Regarding "Surface": Yeah, I love the show too. I was fearful the kid was going to be yet another "Wesley Crusher" Thankfully that didn't happen. I can suspend my disbelief of the science stuff because the show itself is well done and doesn't shy away from telling a somewhat complicated story.
heretic888
Senior Master
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2002
- Messages
- 2,723
- Reaction score
- 60
qizmoduis said:
Darwinian evolution does not, anyway.
qizmoduis said:
I agree.
qizmoduis said:
To put it succinctly, sentience is to life as life is to matter.
qizmoduis said:
Hrmph. I'm not sure whether this is sarcasm here or just a misunderstanding of developmental psychology.
qizmoduis said:
Correct.
The only way to scientifically validate the notion of Intelligent Design would be to statistically compare a Designed Universe (as the treatment sample) against a Non-Designed Universe (as the control sample). Since this is presently impossible, all such arguments for Intelligent Design are simply unverifiable.
qizmoduis said:
I agree. In principle, anyway.
qizmoduis said:
It's becoming increasingly more apparent that this supposedly "very simple process/idea" (i.e., the standard neo-Darwinian or synthetic model of evolution) is actually not so simple (i.e., phenotypic plasticity, self-organizing systems, genetic "contamination" via viruses, internal feedback-loops, the Baldwin effect, punctuated equilibrium, multi-level nested hierarchies, quasi-linear trends in both phylogeny and ontogeny, etc).
Laterz.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #14
The interesting thing about life is that it is really just a label. If an object meets a set of criteria, then it is considered to be alive. In the biology text that I use in my class, the seven criterion are...
1. Cellular Structure
2. Reproduction
3. Metabolism
4. Heredity
5. Homeostasis
6. Evolution
7. Interdependence
Of these criteria, I think that numbers one and seven are superfluous and geocentric. Two through Six could easily cover any life form conceivable in the universe.
With that being said, creating life is as "simple" as engineering an object that can perform the criteria two through six. This lifeform would be "intelligently designed" in the strictest sense of the concept...with a singular homo sapien (or a group) that would be acting as a complex and powerful designer.
upnorthkyosa
ps - this life form could be sentient in an indexical way. Food and not food.
1. Cellular Structure
2. Reproduction
3. Metabolism
4. Heredity
5. Homeostasis
6. Evolution
7. Interdependence
Of these criteria, I think that numbers one and seven are superfluous and geocentric. Two through Six could easily cover any life form conceivable in the universe.
With that being said, creating life is as "simple" as engineering an object that can perform the criteria two through six. This lifeform would be "intelligently designed" in the strictest sense of the concept...with a singular homo sapien (or a group) that would be acting as a complex and powerful designer.
upnorthkyosa
ps - this life form could be sentient in an indexical way. Food and not food.
upnorthkyosa said:
I might agree with 7, at least if you are discussing isolated single cell organisms. Esoterically though, the cell had to come from -somewhere- though, so its existence was dependant on the parent cell... but thats getting nit picky... I'd mostly agree with your assessment.
Now with 1 I'd have issues with... there needs to be some kind of structure. Organalles and other specific features might vary, but they will need to have their general function compensated in some fashion. The structure may be very "unearth-like", but hardly superfluous.
Regarding the other 5 criteria, its not -that- easy to control any of them.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #16
mrhnau said:
Many critics of abiogenesis have pointed out that even simple cellular structure is incredibly complex, thus exptecting it to self-assemble is unrealistic. I partially agree with this criticism.
However, it is entirely possible that cellular structure, whether it be modern or primitive, is a development of complexity from an earlier form of life that exhibited criteria 2-6 that I listed above. The only "order" needed for the simplest form of life would be just enough to perform functions 2-6...and cells would evolve eventually.
upnorthkyosa said:
Hardly. In order to have a functional cell in the first place, its a quite complicated process. You need methods for getting things in the cell, but not too much stuff. It can only hold so much. You need methods for getting waste out of the cell, but not too much, or you lose nutrients. The methods for controlling the intake and removal of materials is part of the cell structure, the "portals" in and out of the cell.
The cell needs the intake of nutrients or it will die, leaving no proginy. The cell -also- needs to replicate, then again no progeny. Cell death ends your "species". When replication happens, its got to be controlled. You have to have cell walls "sealed", or you have nutrients pouring out into the cell environment. These things are monitored and controlled by the cell structure.
In order to do these processes, you need energy sources. It don't happen spontaneously. Where do you get this energy? Its got to be in useable form for your appareratus (cell structure, your proteins needed to do things). converting energy into a usable form is part of the cell structure (granted not the best definition of cell structure, but perhaps apparatus would be a better term).
As far as creating a cell, you don't just add a few cool features in over time. Alot of the cell structure and pathways are needed. Its been estimated that 1000+ genes are the minimal set for life (non-parasitic). Much of these genes code for proteins that make up the cell environment and energy pathways that are critical for cell life to exist. You just can't do w/out them and call what you have "life".
Most of your steps 2-6 are taking place in various portions of the cell structure, so it could be argued that its the most critical... unless you want to argue that unorganized cell components floating around in solution is life, then you simply can't have life w/out some kind of cell structure.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #18
I guess, I'm trying to think out of the box on this. How would a life form look that was not cellular in nature. Could simple molecular object perform functions 2-6 in the most basic fashion imaginable? If this is possible, then the rest of the cellular features that are familiar to us could evolve in response to environmental stimuli.
upnorthkyosa said:
Interesting... then how would one define replication in the first place? If just some organic soup w/ no barriers, can one define a state at which a new organism begins? seperating the soup into different buckets?
How could one deal with diffusion? If it rains or something, over time your organic pieces would tend to diffuse I would think...
how would one define what is organic and what is not? Would the ocean become organic, based on the density of life causing agents? If there is some barrier, even a viscous surface like a bubble, in the very simplest terms, I guess that could be construed as a cell wall, just a non-organic one...
interesting idea
The current (March 2006) issue of Discover magazine contains an article on viruses, which suggests that viruses may be the precursors of all life on Earth, and may, in fact, add another branch to the three branches of life long recognized by biologists (eukaryotes, bacteria, and archaea). A very interesting read. The current issue up on the website is February 2006, so I cannot quote it here, but I do suggest that interested persons might wish to read the article.
This relates to this discussion because viruses, long-thought to be evolutionarily relative newcomers, are on the border between organic and inorganic - while most viruses require other life to survive and reproduce, the article discusses newly-discovered, complex, and long-established viruses that meet the definition of life given earlier in this thread.
This relates to this discussion because viruses, long-thought to be evolutionarily relative newcomers, are on the border between organic and inorganic - while most viruses require other life to survive and reproduce, the article discusses newly-discovered, complex, and long-established viruses that meet the definition of life given earlier in this thread.
