The origins of abiotic species

Anomalism · Jan 5, 2016

How can life originate from a lifeless chemical soup? This question has puzzled scientists since Darwin's 'Origin of species'. University of Groningen chemistry professor Sijbren Otto studies 'chemical evolution' to see if self-organization and autocatalysis will provide the answer. His research group previously developed self-replicating molecules—molecules that can make copies of themselves—and have now observed diversification in replicator mutants. They found that if you start with one ancestral set of replicator mutants, a second set will branch off spontaneously. This means that ecological diversity as encountered in biology may well have its roots at the molecular level. The results were published on Jan. 4, 2016, in Nature Chemistry.

Paleocon · Jan 8, 2016

Anomalism said:
The origins of abiotic species

So not anything along the lines of life spontaneously coming from nonlife.

P.S. If you count self-replicating molecules as alive, then so are stars.

Deuce · Jan 8, 2016

Paleocon said:
So not anything along the lines of life spontaneously coming from nonlife.

P.S. If you count self-replicating molecules as alive, then so are stars.

Yes but if non-living material can spontaneously change, can't it eventually start to form something you'd call living?

You are made 100% out of non-living atoms. right?

Paleocon · Jan 8, 2016

Deuce said:
Yes but if non-living material can spontaneously change, can't it eventually start to form something you'd call living?

No. I don't see how random alterations in non-living matter mean said matter can become alive.

You are made 100% out of non-living atoms. right?

I don't adhere to the metaphysical reductionism you're proposing. You'll need to specifically define "non-living".

Anomalism · Jan 8, 2016

Paleocon said:
I don't adhere to the metaphysical reductionism you're proposing. You'll need to specifically define "non-living".

You are made of the same atoms that make the stars. If their atoms are non-living then the same is true of your atoms.

Paleocon · Jan 8, 2016

Anomalism said:
You are made of the same atoms that make the stars. If their atoms are non-living then the same is true of your atoms.

Well that's just nonsense. The atoms in my body are manifestly not the same atoms that are in the stars, seeing as that would require them to bilocate, which is not possible.

Now, if you're arguing that they're the same species of atom as some in the stars, that's true. But you need to be clear about this, and explain exactly how it supports your conclusion (and you need to be specific about that conclusion).

Anomalism · Jan 8, 2016

Paleocon said:
Well that's just nonsense. The atoms in my body are manifestly not the same atoms that are in the stars, seeing as that would require them to bilocate, which is not possible.

I think you're smart enough to know that's not what I was saying.

Paleocon said:
that's true. But you need to be clear about this, and explain exactly how it supports your conclusion (and you need to be specific about that conclusion).

That was all I wanted to add. They are the exact same types of atoms, so if the ones inside the star are non-living then so are the ones inside of you.

Deuce · Jan 8, 2016

Paleocon said:
No. I don't see how random alterations in non-living matter mean said matter can become alive.

I don't adhere to the metaphysical reductionism you're proposing. You'll need to specifically define "non-living".

Is carbon alive? Oxygen? Hydrogen?

Because we've covered basically your entire mass with those three.

It's not the molecules that are "alive." But arranged as they are, we get, well, you. You're alive.

So, it's when molecules form certain patterns that we get the building blocks of life.

Now, put those building blocks in the right pattern and you get something living. Right? Your complex parts are themselves an arrangement of simple parts that are themselves an arrangement of basic building blocks that are themselves an arrangement of nonliving molecules.

Finally, remember that we don't need to create you out of a bunch of stray protein structures. We just need some basic single-cell that replicates itself. Now, whether that is itself "alive" is a matter of definition, but as these self-replicating single-cell organisms become more complex at some point we call them alive.

Plausible, right?

grip · Jan 8, 2016

Animation is alive. What that entails is more complex.

Deuce · Jan 8, 2016

Another, more philosophical way of looking at it:

The transporters from Star Trek are said to break down the target object into its basic matter components, send them to a remote location, and then reassemble them exactly the way they were before. After Kirk used the transporter for the first time, was he still alive?

If the answer is yes, then that answers the question. If matter is arranged in a specific fashion, you have something living. It's not really important whether or not God intentionally placed each molecule in that arrangement, if my blender accidentally spat out that exact arrangement you'd still have something alive.

If the answer is no, then Star Trek is a lot creepier than I thought.

Paleocon · Jan 8, 2016

Anomalism said:
I think you're smart enough to know that's not what I was saying.

It wasn't what you meant, but it was what you said.

That was all I wanted to add. They are the exact same types of atoms, so if the ones inside the star are non-living then so are the ones inside of you.

You need to say precisely what you mean by "non-living".

Deuce said:
Is carbon alive? Oxygen? Hydrogen?

Those elements are present in living things. Asking whether a species of object has X quality (where X is a quality which exists or doesn't in individual things) seems incoherent to me.

Because we've covered basically your entire mass with those three.

Correct.

It's not the molecules that are "alive." But arranged as they are, we get, well, you. You're alive.

Arranged as they are, and animated, they make me alive. If I were to die, the molecular arrangement of my body would remain the same for some amount of time, yet I wouldn't be alive.

So, it's when molecules form certain patterns that we get the building blocks of life.

I don't agree with a reductionist view of life.

Now, put those building blocks in the right pattern and you get something living. Right? Your complex parts are themselves an arrangement of simple parts that are themselves an arrangement of basic building blocks that are themselves an arrangement of nonliving molecules.

No. What you say is true of a corpse as much as it is a living person. The difference is that the living person is animate.

Finally, remember that we don't need to create you out of a bunch of stray protein structures. We just need some basic single-cell that replicates itself. Now, whether that is itself "alive" is a matter of definition, but as these self-replicating single-cell organisms become more complex at some point we call them alive.

Plausible, right?

I don't find that plausible. I don't share the metaphysical assumptions which hold a bacteria to be the same as a molecule.

Deuce said:
Another, more philosophical way of looking at it:

The transporters from Star Trek are said to break down the target object into its basic matter components, send them to a remote location, and then reassemble them exactly the way they were before. After Kirk used the transporter for the first time, was he still alive?

If the answer is yes, then that answers the question. If matter is arranged in a specific fashion, you have something living. It's not really important whether or not God intentionally placed each molecule in that arrangement, if my blender accidentally spat out that exact arrangement you'd still have something alive.

If the answer is no, then Star Trek is a lot creepier than I thought.

Star Trek was a fictional show. There's no reason to assume that if we could (barring the fact that the laws of physics render it impossible) transport a person, they would still be alive when they got out.

Anomalism · Jan 8, 2016

Paleocon said:
You need to say precisely what you mean by "non-living".

Not alive.

faithful_servant · Jan 8, 2016

Deuce said:
Yes but if non-living material can spontaneously change, can't it eventually start to form something you'd call living?

You are made 100% out of non-living atoms. right?

That has NOTHING to do with life. The highly organized complexity of what constitutes life is the issue, not a normal molecular function.

Paleocon · Jan 8, 2016

Anomalism said:
Not alive.

It's correct that individual atoms aren't alive, but as I said, I'm not a metaphysical reductionist, so such distinctions don't bother me.

Deuce · Jan 8, 2016

Paleocon said:
s they are, and animated, they make me alive. If I were to die, the molecular arrangement of my body would remain the same for some amount of time, yet I wouldn't be alive.

But they wouldn't be the same. The reason you became dead in the first place is because some of those bits and pieces stopped working, through damage or degradation or poor upkeep. They got too cold, or they got too hot, or they got too dry, or they didn't have enough oxygen, and they stopped doing the things that make you stay alive.

I don't agree with a reductionist view of life.

That's not reductionist. That's fact. You are made of molecules and they are arranged in a certain pattern.

No. What you say is true of a corpse as much as it is a living person. The difference is that the living person is animate.

Incorrect, as explained above. The molecules in a corpse aren't the same as the molecules in a living person.
Generally quite a bit colder, for one!

I don't find that plausible. I don't share the metaphysical assumptions which hold a bacteria to be the same as a molecule.

Uhh, I didn't say a bacteria is the same as a molecule. I said a bacteria is made up of molecules. If you disagree, well, there's nothing else to discuss because you're just wrong.

Star Trek was a fictional show. There's no reason to assume that if we could (barring the fact that the laws of physics render it impossible) transport a person, they would still be alive when they got out.

I think you have a sort of magical view of "animate," as if "life" is some sort of intangible switch that is turned on or off for a particular object. There's no reason to expect that's true.

Deuce · Jan 8, 2016

faithful_servant said:
That has NOTHING to do with life. The highly organized complexity of what constitutes life is the issue, not a normal molecular function.

Is it "not a normal molecular function?"

Does carbon in your body react differently than carbon elsewhere? If I subject it to the same physical conditions, make it interact with other materials in the same way, will it not respond the same?

Personally, I think molecules are molecules and will always behave in a fashion dictated by physical laws. And those laws mean that under the right circumstances, we get living creatures out of what was previously nonliving. Quite awe-inspiring, when you think about it.

Deuce · Jan 8, 2016

Anomalism said:
They're not?

Nope. Generally colder and drier! And also damaged in some way, hence the dying.

Anomalism · Jan 8, 2016

Deuce said:
Nope. Generally colder and drier! And also damaged in some way, hence the dying.

Oh, I misunderstood what you were saying. :lol: Don't mind me.

Paleocon · Jan 8, 2016

Deuce said:
But they wouldn't be the same. The reason you became dead in the first place is because some of those bits and pieces stopped working, through damage or degradation or poor upkeep. They got too cold, or they got too hot, or they got too dry, or they didn't have enough oxygen, and they stopped doing the things that make you stay alive.

I'm aware that death is sometimes accompanied by body parts being displaced (e.g. decapitation). But it's possible for a person's body to simply stop functioning (e.g. cardiac arrest). In such a case, the composition of their body stays the same, it just ceases being animate.

That's not reductionist. That's fact. You are made of molecules and they are arranged in a certain pattern.

I know that. I don't agree that life is reducible to a physical arrangement of atoms.

Incorrect, as explained above. The molecules in a corpse aren't the same as the molecules in a living person.
Generally quite a bit colder, for one!

Do they get up and leave?

Uhh, I didn't say a bacteria is the same as a molecule. I said a bacteria is made up of molecules. If you disagree, well, there's nothing else to discuss because you're just wrong.

You implied it by assuming that the same principles apply to both.

I think you have a sort of magical view of "animate," as if "life" is some sort of intangible switch that is turned on or off for a particular object. There's no reason to expect that's true.

There's no reason to think that your reductionist view of life is true either.

Deuce · Jan 8, 2016

Paleocon said:
I'm aware that death is sometimes accompanied by body parts being displaced (e.g. decapitation). But it's possible for a person's body to simply stop functioning (e.g. cardiac arrest). In such a case, the composition of their body stays the same, it just ceases being animate.

But that's not the same at the molecular level. The heart doesn't just spontaneously stop beating. It does so because of some sort of damage.

Do they get up and leave?

No, they get colder or drier or damage like I said.

You implied it by assuming that the same principles apply to both.

Incorrect interpretation on your part.

There's no reason to think that your reductionist view of life is true either.

Yes there is, and this thread is one indication of that.

calamity · Jan 8, 2016

Anomalism said:
The origins of abiotic species

I'm not surprised. After all planets formed from dust, organizing into nice round balls of rock or gas. I sort of figured molecular chains do the same thing, some becoming amino acids and beyond. Self-replication seems like a natural endgame there.

Paleocon · Jan 8, 2016

Deuce said:
But that's not the same at the molecular level. The heart doesn't just spontaneously stop beating. It does so because of some sort of damage.

The universality of that statement depends on a rather circular definition of "damage". For example, if the heart is briefly defibrillated (and doesn't restart) you'll die, but the heart hasn't sustained structural damage. It'll just stop its electrical and mechanical function.

No, they get colder or drier or damage like I said.

I'm aware that death causes physical changes. Since cooling and drying are postmortem, they aren't intrinsic to corpses (only those who've been dead long enough).

Incorrect interpretation on your part.

Then give the correct interpretation.

Yes there is, and this thread is one indication of that.

No it isn't. The topic of the OP is nonliving matter.

faithful_servant · Jan 8, 2016

Deuce said:
Is it "not a normal molecular function?"

Does carbon in your body react differently than carbon elsewhere? If I subject it to the same physical conditions, make it interact with other materials in the same way, will it not respond the same?

Personally, I think molecules are molecules and will always behave in a fashion dictated by physical laws. And those laws mean that under the right circumstances, we get living creatures out of what was previously nonliving. Quite awe-inspiring, when you think about it.

So there are physical laws that determine that molecules will form life?? You've gotta be kidding me. A little basic physics shows that's simply not the case. Matter tends towards entropy and reducing organization, moving towards cold, dark and chaotic. What you're supposing is the polar opposite of everything we see in the universe.

Skeptic Bob · Jan 8, 2016

Given the various hypotheses it would seem there are numerous different methods through which abiogenesis could occur. But given the time involved and the microscopic size of the specimens I can't see how we could ever know which hypothesis is correct. FUn to think about, though.

Deuce · Jan 9, 2016

Paleocon said:
The universality of that statement depends on a rather circular definition of "damage". For example, if the heart is briefly defibrillated (and doesn't restart) you'll die, but the heart hasn't sustained structural damage. It'll just stop its electrical and mechanical function.

Yes, lack of an electrical charge is a difference too.

I'm aware that death causes physical changes. Since cooling and drying are postmortem, they aren't intrinsic to corpses (only those who've been dead long enough).

Something happened to cause the dying that does involve molecular changes.

Then give the correct interpretation.

That carbon will always behave like carbon, and sometimes this means forming basic building blocks of life.
Basic building blocks of life will always behave like basic building blocks of life, and sometimes this means forming complex parts of life.
Complex parts of life will always behave like complex parts of life, and sometimes this means life.

No it isn't. The topic of the OP is nonliving matter.

Correct, but this gives a picture of how it's possible for nonliving matter to change over time, which can potentially result in living matter.

The origins of abiotic species

Anomalism

Paleocon

Deuce

Outer space potato man

Paleocon

Anomalism

Paleocon

Anomalism

Deuce

Outer space potato man

grip

Light △ Bender

Deuce

Outer space potato man

Paleocon

Anomalism

faithful_servant

Paleocon

Deuce

Outer space potato man

Deuce

Outer space potato man

Deuce

Outer space potato man

Anomalism

Paleocon

Deuce

Outer space potato man

calamity

Privileged

Paleocon

faithful_servant

Skeptic Bob

Deuce

Outer space potato man