Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A new theory sheds light on the emergence of life’s complexity

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 36 posts

Re: A new theory sheds light on the emergence of life’s complexity

#11

Post by EGreg »

JoBrad wrote: post #10
EGreg wrote: post #6

Heard this before. What do y'all think of this twist on "atheism vs intelligent design" debate? A wild swing from "life is improbable" to "life is almost certain". I think there's some major flaw in this reasoning. Otherwise, how do you explain Drake's equation? How come every planet we have seen so far doesn't have any form of complex life on it so far as we know? Here's what I think the flaw is: the more a planet h…

I don't think we have enough data to be sceptical about the presence of certainty of life on other planets. We've only found ~3,700 planets other than Earth - and only ~20 of those are near the size of Earth[0]. We couldn't even see those planets directly until very recently, so it doesn't seem certain (to me, a layman) that we could even identify Earth as having life, at the same resolutions. That's assuming that we…

But we have explored Mars and the moon!

Re: A new theory sheds light on the emergence of life’s complexity

#12

Post by rpedela »

EGreg wrote: post #11
JoBrad wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we have enough data to be sceptical about the presence of certainty of life on other planets. We've only found ~3,700 planets other than Earth - and only ~20 of those are near the size of Earth[0]. We couldn't even see those planets directly until very recently, so it doesn't seem certain (to me, a layman) that we could even identify Earth as having life, at the same resolutions. That's assuming that we…

But we have explored Mars and the moon!

Not really, not at the level necessary to rule out the existence of life. Both Jupiter and Saturn have moons that may have life based on our current understanding of life and its origins. And Mars may still have life that we haven't found yet. The truth is that we are just now able to start seriously asking the question: is there life elsewhere in the universe? It may take a few hundred years to answer that question.

Re: A new theory sheds light on the emergence of life’s complexity

#13

Post by rpedela »

medymed wrote: post #5

Not new. Seems like a repost. Also: "This article was originally published in our “Adaptation” issue in March, 2016." Someone is really pushing this guy's scientific (or literary) branding.

March 2016 is pretty new, and I am happy for the repost because I didn't see it the first time and it is a very interesting idea.

Re: A new theory sheds light on the emergence of life’s complexity

#14

Post by vanderZwan »

j_m_b wrote: post #7

This theory reminds me a lot of the folding funnel. It used to be thought of as a paradox that a protein could fold in mere minutes if it needed to explore each possible configuration before arranging into its "correct" configuration. This paradox was solved with the theory of the folding funnel ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folding_funnel ) which states that the potential energy surface is not flat, but rather it…

The wiki page still calls it a hypothesis, but also doesn't seem to have had substantial updates in a decade (where I define "substantial" as "an expert updated the information" - not a critique of the other types of edition that have happened). Is there any more recent material on this? An animated visualisation, perhaps?

Re: A new theory sheds light on the emergence of life’s complexity

#15

Post by pnut »

Myrth wrote: post #8

The next step will be the realization that asymmetry of direction towards self organization on all levels, coded as energy consumption/dissipation efficiency, is a built in property of our reality, and life and counsciousness as we understand then are not random accidents. Quarks -> protons/neutrons, nucleus+electrons -> atoms, atoms -> molecules, molecules -> proteins, proteins -> cells, cells -> organisms, organism…

There seems to be more of a bell curve of complexity as you move through the powers of ten... Galaxies have some general organizational properties at the very large scale, as do atoms etc at the very small end, but directly in the middle of those extremes lie us, the alchemical pinnacle of self organisation until proven otherwise.

Re: A new theory sheds light on the emergence of life’s complexity

#16

Post by chiefalchemist »

Myrth wrote: post #8

The next step will be the realization that asymmetry of direction towards self organization on all levels, coded as energy consumption/dissipation efficiency, is a built in property of our reality, and life and counsciousness as we understand then are not random accidents. Quarks -> protons/neutrons, nucleus+electrons -> atoms, atoms -> molecules, molecules -> proteins, proteins -> cells, cells -> organisms, organism…

This just struck me. As something is becoming organized, something else is becoming disorganized or even failing to exit. We seem to recognize and study the one, but ignore the other. But perhaps there's something to be gleaned from taking the perspective of what's gone, not what is now?

Re: A new theory sheds light on the emergence of life’s complexity

#17

Post by chiefalchemist »

JoBrad wrote: post #10
EGreg wrote: post #6

Heard this before. What do y'all think of this twist on "atheism vs intelligent design" debate? A wild swing from "life is improbable" to "life is almost certain". I think there's some major flaw in this reasoning. Otherwise, how do you explain Drake's equation? How come every planet we have seen so far doesn't have any form of complex life on it so far as we know? Here's what I think the flaw is: the more a planet h…

I don't think we have enough data to be sceptical about the presence of certainty of life on other planets. We've only found ~3,700 planets other than Earth - and only ~20 of those are near the size of Earth[0]. We couldn't even see those planets directly until very recently, so it doesn't seem certain (to me, a layman) that we could even identify Earth as having life, at the same resolutions. That's assuming that we…

But, what does life have to do with an earth like planet? And when you study the history of the earth you come to realize that life as we know it today is the result of countless events, some of them catastrophic.

As I understand it, if you simply shifted the location of Antarctica, that would change ocean currents, this effect weather, and so one. Life as we know it today might not exist if it weren't for Antarctica.

And the fact is, we'd be toast, literally, without a magnetic field. That's more important that planet size. How many planets have we found with a magnetic field like ours? What are THOSE odds?

So it seems to me, an earth like planet (in size) is a cute exercise but in the end close to irrelevant.

Re: A new theory sheds light on the emergence of life’s complexity

#18

Post by observation »

EGreg wrote: post #11
JoBrad wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we have enough data to be sceptical about the presence of certainty of life on other planets. We've only found ~3,700 planets other than Earth - and only ~20 of those are near the size of Earth[0]. We couldn't even see those planets directly until very recently, so it doesn't seem certain (to me, a layman) that we could even identify Earth as having life, at the same resolutions. That's assuming that we…

But we have explored Mars and the moon!

Perhaps in the way a holidaymaker considers themselves aware of other cultures! For real exploration we have to be living there. This is just because it focuses our attention, allows large numbers of people to be aware of their surroundings in a non-theoretical way.

Re: A new theory sheds light on the emergence of life’s complexity

#20

Post by rpedela »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #17
JoBrad wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we have enough data to be sceptical about the presence of certainty of life on other planets. We've only found ~3,700 planets other than Earth - and only ~20 of those are near the size of Earth[0]. We couldn't even see those planets directly until very recently, so it doesn't seem certain (to me, a layman) that we could even identify Earth as having life, at the same resolutions. That's assuming that we…

But, what does life have to do with an earth like planet? And when you study the history of the earth you come to realize that life as we know it today is the result of countless events, some of them catastrophic. As I understand it, if you simply shifted the location of Antarctica, that would change ocean currents, this effect weather, and so one. Life as we know it today might not exist if it weren't for Antarctica…

Our life planet data set is an N=1 so we are searching what we know. It is certainly possible life is found on non-Earth-like planets and isn't carbon-based, however we don't have any examples so we don't know what to look for. The initial search is focusing on Earth-like planets because we know the signs of life in that case.

As for Antarctica, that may true but there would still be life, maybe not humans, on Earth. The fossil record shows there was life before Antarctica existed.

Post reply on HN