Print 81 comment(s) - last by gladiatorua.. on Dec 18 at 12:18 AM

By looking at information stored in chemistry, says former NASA fellow, life from non-life can be explained

An outstanding question in the field of evolutionary biology and biochemistry is how the complex, fragile biochemicals that made up life arose and transformed biomaterial in the early Earth from non-living to the earliest "living" organisms.  Some researchers have looked for quasi-alive constructs like prions or viruses for clues.

But a new paper by Paul Davies, an Arizona State University Regents' Professor and director of the Beyond Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science, and Sara Walker, a NASA post-doctoral fellow at the Beyond Center, published in the journal Interface suggests that researchers are approaching the problem in the wrong way.

They suggest that rather looking at the "hardware" (biochemicals), they look at the "software" (chemically encoding information).  The authors suggest that the defining line between the living and non-living is the ability to manage encoded information, thus the key question is how this information handling arose.

Spark of Life
Could the clue to how life arose lie in how it encodes information?

Comments Prof. Walker, "When we describe biological processes we typically use informational narratives -- cells send out signals, developmental programs are run, coded instructions are read, genomic data are transmitted between generations and so forth.  So identifying life's origin in the way information is processed and managed can open up new avenues for research."

"Chemical based approaches have stalled at a very early stage of chemical complexity -- very far from anything we would consider 'alive.' More seriously they suffer from conceptual shortcomings in that they fail to distinguish between chemistry and biology."

"We propose that the transition from non-life to life is unique and definable," Prof. Davies adds, "We suggest that life may be characterized by its distinctive and active use of information, thus providing a roadmap to identify rigorous criteria for the emergence of life. This is in sharp contrast to a century of thought in which the transition to life has been cast as a problem of chemistry, with the goal of identifying a plausible reaction pathway from chemical mixtures to a living entity."

"To a physicist or chemist life seems like 'magic matter.  It behaves in extraordinary ways that are unmatched in any other complex physical or chemical system. Such lifelike properties include autonomy, adaptability and goal-oriented behavior -- the ability to harness chemical reactions to enact a pre-programmed agenda, rather than being a slave to those reactions."

"We believe the transition in the informational architecture of chemical networks is akin to a phase transition in physics, and we place special emphasis on the top-down information flow in which the system as a whole gains causal purchase over its components.  This approach will reveal how the logical organization of biological replicators differs crucially from trivial replication associated with crystals (non-life). By addressing the causal role of information directly, many of the baffling qualities of life are explained."

Crystals are also self-replicating, but they lack the flexibility of life.
[Image Source:  Giovanni Dall'Orto]

If that all sounds a bit abstract, it is.

But basically it seems that the pair are arguing that by looking at differences between the self-replicating information in biochemicals (e.g. RNA) verus self-replication information in inorganic/non-living constructs (e.g. crystals), researchers may be able to retrace the process of how life arose on Earth more easily than if they merely focus on painstakingly mixing chemical constituents, hoping something arises.

Sources: Interface [via Arvix], Arizona State Univ.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: You do this on purpose dont you Jason?
By mstrmac on 12/14/2012 1:04:47 AM , Rating: -1
Problem is that of those ignorant remarks above are not true. The bible proclaims the earth to be millions of years old. The flood was local, the two of every flesh were local and Noah, who's family's pedigree or dna were pure, did not mix with those fallen ones from the heavens that were destroyed in that flood of Genesis 6. In the book of Jude (the book after Revelation) they were forbidden to come here. Those hybrid offspring were destroyed mostly.
You are just as stupid as those Christian cults that teach that ridiculous 6000 year old earth and worldwide flood.

By MechanicalTechie on 12/14/2012 5:23:40 AM , Rating: 2
HAHA I see.. I'm the stupid one for non believing in your story-tale book.. ohh yes how could i be sooooooooooo stupid!!

By retrospooty on 12/14/2012 8:59:54 AM , Rating: 2
"The bible proclaims the earth to be millions of years old. The flood was local, the two of every flesh were local and Noah, who's family's pedigree or dna were pure, did not mix with those fallen ones from the heavens that were destroyed in that flood of Genesis 6."

Can you please post where to find that info, in what section does it say any of that, especially the millions of years old part.

That is the good ting about that book, its all #'d and easy to fact check in that manor ;)

RE: You do this on purpose dont you Jason?
By elderwilson on 12/14/2012 10:32:57 AM , Rating: 1
The fact that you believe that Noah took 2 of every animal shows that you haven't actually read the Old Testament. Anyone who has really read it knows what I mean.

What is really troubling to me is the prevalence of archaic blind hollow bible worship. People cling to the bible without having ever read it and not even knowing what it is. When confronted with a passage they didn’t know was there and don’t agree with, they suddenly aren’t such ardent believers.

I have read and studied all the independent works complied in the “bible”, and I have a degree in molecular biology. Where science and religion disagree one, or both is wrong.

By Jeffk464 on 12/14/2012 11:17:16 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think you can really grow up in our culture without knowing at least the basics of the bible.

By Jeffk464 on 12/14/2012 11:11:22 AM , Rating: 1
The bible proclaims the earth to be millions of years old.

Yeah, but the earth is billions of years old.

"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki