Scientists discover chemistry that may help explain the origins of cellular life • Hacker News Board

Re: Scientists discover chemistry that may help explain the origins of cellular life

#21

Post by bediger4000 » Wed, Jul 24, 2019, 6:06 PM UTC

ibraa wrote: post #14

yehosef wrote: post #5

The problem is that once you start to appreciate the immense complexity in a single, most basic cell, you realize how far away we are from understanding how life got started. This article would be comparable to some future generation trying to figure out how our computers were made and then stumbling upon factory that could make the cases. The case is important, but relatively trivial part of the machinery. Similarly…

I find it funny that people would rather believe in the matrix/simulation rather than God

I don't. The available evidence, if you look at it with a preconceived bias towards some theological origin, seems to indicate either a single, quixotic or even malevolent god, or a pantheon that includes tricksters, weirdos and haters.

A matrix/simulation origin allows goofy things like ring species, parasites and molluscs with lots of different eye paradigms - they're either glitches or leftovers from the last run, or exercizes in imagination for the matrix runners.

Re: Scientists discover chemistry that may help explain the origins of cellular life

#22

Post by drallison » Wed, Jul 24, 2019, 6:33 PM UTC

Stuart Kauffman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Kauffman) has long maintained that the complexity of biological systems and organisms results from self-organization, far-from-equilibrium dynamics, and the inherent fundamental properties of chemistry, particularly carbon chemistry. In his view, the origins of cellular life are baked into the fabric of the universe.

Re: Scientists discover chemistry that may help explain the origins of cellular life

#23

Post by ibraa » Wed, Jul 24, 2019, 7:25 PM UTC

keithwhor wrote: post #17

yehosef wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> pretty convincing conceptual pathway These phrases come up very often when discussing Origin of Life, but it's basically handwaving. It's like saying "we built a plane, which gives us a convincing conceptual pathway on how to get to the moon." The differences in complexities are sooo vast, there is really no comparison. I can state it more clearly - We couldn't create a functioning cell from scratch (atoms) if we w…

We've never created a dinosaur in the lab like they did in Jurassic Park, does that mean no dinosaurs were ever spontaneously born? You're right, biology is a complex field that, mechanistically, we don't understand all of the intricacies of from first (physical) principles. But invoking the simulation hypothesis as a reasonable substitute for what you, personally, believe is the unlikelihood of abiogenesis is functi…

> "it's not unreasonable to believe that, given long enough timeframes, similar constructs may have spontaneously self-replicated, even if inefficiently.".

It is unreasonable. I'm afraid your long enough timeframes (3.8 billion years) are not even remotely close to long enough if you consider any serious actual statistical measure of how long it would need for something as complex as just a single cell to "spontaneously" exist, the numbers just don't workout.

Any hypothesis that just guesses how life started with no substantial evidence whatsoever, is just a desperate try to blind yourself form the elephant in the room, that this insane complexity can't just make itself.

No matter how long time passes, a watch can't just come to existence without a watchmaker.

Re: Scientists discover chemistry that may help explain the origins of cellular life

#24

Post by ibraa » Wed, Jul 24, 2019, 7:41 PM UTC

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #19

yehosef wrote: post #5

The problem is that once you start to appreciate the immense complexity in a single, most basic cell, you realize how far away we are from understanding how life got started. This article would be comparable to some future generation trying to figure out how our computers were made and then stumbling upon factory that could make the cases. The case is important, but relatively trivial part of the machinery. Similarly…

I think a fallacy, and this is not aimed at your comment, of intelligent design people is that because humans can't really comprehend the complexity of cells, biodiversity, and life chemistry, that it couldn't have arisen from somewhat basic preconditions and "bioalgorithms". It's really a condescending bias in disguise. Because I , who consider myself awesome and smart, cannot decipher how this could have come into…

The problem is not with failing to comprehend the complexity of cells though, it's that stuff can't just come to existence given enough time.

First of all, the time is not enough, given the complexity of a single cell, the number of conditions/variables needed for something like that to just blindly happen is absurd, a couple billion years is nothing.

Secondly, even if we assume enough time just for the sake of argument, time is not the only factor, you can't just throw "given enough time" and fix everything, things don't just make itself given enough time, a plane would not just come to existence given a billion years.

It's very easy to just oversimplify and throw "billions of years" "mass scale evolution", but once you check the details, it's just not that simple.

Re: Scientists discover chemistry that may help explain the origins of cellular life

#25

Post by rowanG077 » Wed, Jul 24, 2019, 7:42 PM UTC

ars wrote: post #20

ibraa wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it funny that people would rather believe in the matrix/simulation rather than God

The difference is that God wants you to behave a certain way, but a simulation doesn't. People don't like to be told what to do, so they'd rather the simulation. On a "what created the universe" level, they are both identical.

That's not true. God doesn't imply he wants you to behave a certain way. Most religions work that way but a God which simply created the universe and doesn't care what humanity is doing is a possibility.

Re: Scientists discover chemistry that may help explain the origins of cellular life

#26

Post by papito » Wed, Jul 24, 2019, 10:22 PM UTC

varjag wrote: post #10

fergalish wrote: post #8

Since reading it somewhere in the distant past, I have become convinced that the moon played a vital part in the origin of life, by creating the tides. Picture a coastline in early Earth. Tide washes up a bunch of chemicals that get baked in a warm sun, while simultaneously getting exposed to a harsh atmosphere with plenty of energy surges (volcanic/atmospheric). Tide washes in a bunch of fresh chemicals to reiterate…

To be fair, at this point we have no idea how rare is the life in the Universe.

I like the theory that states the Universe is just big enough for one occurrence of intelligent life to evolve. So, in a way, you can never prove the existence of God, because the math checks out.

Re: Scientists discover chemistry that may help explain the origins of cellular life

#27

Post by yehosef » Wed, Jul 24, 2019, 10:32 PM UTC

keithwhor wrote: post #17

yehosef wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> pretty convincing conceptual pathway These phrases come up very often when discussing Origin of Life, but it's basically handwaving. It's like saying "we built a plane, which gives us a convincing conceptual pathway on how to get to the moon." The differences in complexities are sooo vast, there is really no comparison. I can state it more clearly - We couldn't create a functioning cell from scratch (atoms) if we w…

We've never created a dinosaur in the lab like they did in Jurassic Park, does that mean no dinosaurs were ever spontaneously born? You're right, biology is a complex field that, mechanistically, we don't understand all of the intricacies of from first (physical) principles. But invoking the simulation hypothesis as a reasonable substitute for what you, personally, believe is the unlikelihood of abiogenesis is functi…

> We've never created a dinosaur in the lab like they did in Jurassic Park, does that mean no dinosaurs were ever spontaneously born?

We're talking about one amoebae - try to make just one.

Sorry I mentioned the Simulation hypothesis - it's a red herring. It's not important.

>We have to rely on the properties of large stochastic systems, nearly unfathomable timeframes, and extremely rare events to explain most of the world we see around us today.

This is if you want things to happen by chance in a myriad of different environments (acidic, basic, oxidizing...) then we think that a few billion years is enough. But in a lab settings, you can get things just right and coerce the reactions you want. Even then, controlling everything, we have know idea how we could do it. If you know a molecular or evolutionary biologist who disagrees, I'd love to talk with them.

And these time frames are very fathomable - big, but things we can put our head around. We can talk about the physics and dynamics of the universe, the great expansion, etc. It's not something that's beyond us. Making diamonds naturally is a long, multi-million/billion year process. But now we can make them in the lab. With cells, we're talking about a similar time frame but something vastly more complicated.

As I said, when I look at the science/math I don't see any current models of abiogenesis (RNA world, protocells, etc.) as remotely viable. IMO, the only reason for a to hold on to this approach is because the alternatives are untenable. I'm open to hearing other approaches - proving or denying abiogenesis does not threaten my worldview.

Re: Scientists discover chemistry that may help explain the origins of cellular life

#28

Post by yehosef » Wed, Jul 24, 2019, 10:41 PM UTC

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #19

yehosef wrote: post #5

The problem is that once you start to appreciate the immense complexity in a single, most basic cell, you realize how far away we are from understanding how life got started. This article would be comparable to some future generation trying to figure out how our computers were made and then stumbling upon factory that could make the cases. The case is important, but relatively trivial part of the machinery. Similarly…

I think a fallacy, and this is not aimed at your comment, of intelligent design people is that because humans can't really comprehend the complexity of cells, biodiversity, and life chemistry, that it couldn't have arisen from somewhat basic preconditions and "bioalgorithms". It's really a condescending bias in disguise. Because I , who consider myself awesome and smart, cannot decipher how this could have come into…

>I think a fallacy, and this is not aimed at your comment, of intelligent design people is that because humans can't really comprehend the complexity of cells, biodiversity, and life chemistry, that it couldn't have arisen from somewhat basic preconditions and "bioalgorithms".

You're definitely correct that we often apply our mindset onto the world and interpret events according to the model we've made for ourselves. It's hard to be brutally objective and accept the facts, even if it means throwing everything I know out the window. (note, I'm saying this about the meta discussion, not this specific one.)

Re: Scientists discover chemistry that may help explain the origins of cellular life

#29

Post by quadcore » Wed, Jul 24, 2019, 10:48 PM UTC

yehosef wrote: post #5

The problem is that once you start to appreciate the immense complexity in a single, most basic cell, you realize how far away we are from understanding how life got started. This article would be comparable to some future generation trying to figure out how our computers were made and then stumbling upon factory that could make the cases. The case is important, but relatively trivial part of the machinery. Similarly…

I believe this is an opening for a proof that this world is really a simulation.

Or that we are missing some physical laws. I wonder if it's not kind of all the same ultimately. What difference do you make between a simulation and a physics system knowing that there is logical reasons why my screen lights up the way it does when I'm playing a video game for example. There is a logical explanation on how my avatar has spawned, it's because some code is executed.

What is a simulation exactly? Something where things appears out of.. what? out of nothing logical? Why not I guess.

Re: Scientists discover chemistry that may help explain the origins of cellular life

#30

Post by yehosef » Wed, Jul 24, 2019, 10:57 PM UTC

yehosef wrote: post #27

keithwhor wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've never created a dinosaur in the lab like they did in Jurassic Park, does that mean no dinosaurs were ever spontaneously born? You're right, biology is a complex field that, mechanistically, we don't understand all of the intricacies of from first (physical) principles. But invoking the simulation hypothesis as a reasonable substitute for what you, personally, believe is the unlikelihood of abiogenesis is functi…

> We've never created a dinosaur in the lab like they did in Jurassic Park, does that mean no dinosaurs were ever spontaneously born? We're talking about one amoebae - try to make just one. Sorry I mentioned the Simulation hypothesis - it's a red herring. It's not important. >We have to rely on the properties of large stochastic systems, nearly unfathomable timeframes, and extremely rare events to explain most of the…

I said to make a amoeba - my mistake - that's a eukaryote which is more complicated. Start with a bacteria.

BTW - Sir Fred Hoyle (an atheist) used his "tornado in a junkyard" idea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkyard_tornado) to describe what he thought was the likelihood of a working cell forming naturally.

The idea is universally reject by evolutionary biologist, as Wikipedia states, "no biologist imagines that complex structures arise in a single step." The problem that gets swept under the rug is that until you have a single functioning cell, there is no reproduction and therefore nothing that will perpetuate the chemical advances made to get there.