backtop


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
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: Pathetic Evolution
By elderwilson on 12/15/2012 8:43:50 AM , Rating: 2
It’s nice that you at least try to use some science in your explanation, but your grasp of physics and biochemistry is tenuous at best. Your basic description of entropy is technically correct, but you are really reaching when you try to apply it to biological systems. You conveniently ignore the fact that Earth is orbiting a massive fusion reactor that has been providing energy for over 4 billion years. Eventually thermodynamics predicts the “Heat Death” of the universe, but that is trillions of years away and as long as there are concentrations of energy in stars life will most likely exist.

Your math concerning protein folding is nice, but also pointless. Most proteins form their tertiary structure on their own, thanks to your friend thermodynamics. As the polypeptide exits the ribosome, intermolecular forces immediately begin to shape the protein. Polypeptides achieve the lowest energy state possible in the given conditions. If the lowest energy state is nonfunctional then the gene that codes the protein will be at a disadvantage and be selected against. Primitive, even pre-cellular life was most likely RNA based which consisted of small, self-replicating molecules. Peptide chains evolved later as they provided advantages to systems that developed them. What works best is what propagates.
From experience I will safely assume that the core of you objection to evolution is based in religion. You cling to the fallacy that evolution and faith are at odds and mutually exclusive. Science doesn't undermine faith (unless the faith is weak to begin with), for the open-minded it reaffirms it.


RE: Pathetic Evolution
By heerohawwah on 12/16/2012 3:58:27 PM , Rating: 2
Just some brief comments regarding yours, simply adding energy/heat like the sun to the earth may indeed 'add' energy to the system but can not increase its complexity. Plants are highly complex organisms which convert sun light into chemical energy, highly efficent but not nearly 100%. (thermodynamics) So the question we end up at is, which came first, the plant or the chemical energy? The plant would have to exist first, fully complete and fully functional. Even the simplest living cell, living bascially on solar power, needs to have all the 'tech' in place to not only convert energy into different and usable forms, but also have the tech to consume it.
Also my math is straight forward and conclusive, protiens don't form on their own. They are put together by living organisms. Again, which came first?

You will find a good article regarding RNA here.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?cat...


"Well, we didn't have anyone in line that got shot waiting for our system." -- Nintendo of America Vice President Perrin Kaplan














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki