Tibor Gánti's ideas about the origins of life

Post by BlueTemplar » Wed, Dec 23, 2020, 9:11 AM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #115

alex_young wrote: post #112

Isn’t the question of just-what-is-life-anyway more of a worry for linguists and philosophers rather than scientists? “Life” as it were, is a concept invented with either the intention of distinguishing “us” from the rocks around ourselves, or, if you’re being slightly less charitable, giving “us” a way to insult the, um, others. Sure, drawing some line in the sand between mice and boulders is a great idea, but it’s…

This seems like just another way of saying we don’t understand life scientifically yet. When we do finally agree on a mathematically rigorous definition of life, it will seem obvious in retrospect and scientists will kick philosophers off the field, just like they did with previous subjects like the composition of matter, the movement of heavenly bodies, etc. Every scientific topic has to go through a messy definitio…

Post by kaba0 » Wed, Dec 23, 2020, 9:22 AM UTC

cdogl wrote: post #110

kaba0 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because it happens outside the ‘parents’ body doesn’t mean the environment does it anymore than a mother being only a filter around the womb and the environment. An egg is a complex life that can reproduce the whole organism (and actually with energy stored INSIDE, that’s why they are great nutritios value for others)

The distinction between environment and organism here seems a little arbitrary. The organism’s cells have membranes, but they’re permeable and the organism can’t do its job without an interaction between itself and the environment. Even with the energy stored inside, it requires warmth and atmospheric pressure. I suspect there are any number of counter examples of life forms that challenge the simplicity of this form…

Post by BlueTemplar » Wed, Dec 23, 2020, 9:29 AM UTC

cossatot wrote: post #80

Ericson2314 wrote: post #5

Considering that the first proto-computers were not programmable, I can't help but be skeptical that the first life needed genetic material. Certainly there were lipid membranes. Maybe there were spontaneous proteins, maybe there was purely-catalytic RNA. I guess it's also a matter of line drawing. I'm OK with calling crystals life, for example. One should feel bad about breaking up big ones the same as one should fe…

The crystal thing is throwing me (a geologist) off. Basically all Earth materials are crystalline. So rocks are alive (colonial organisms I guess since they are aggregates of crystalline minerals) but the magma that they crystallize from is not alive? Or is magma alive too? What about obsidian, which is glass but compositionally identical to a crystalline igneous rock. No crystals! The Earth's crust and mantle: Cryst…

Post by BlueTemplar » Wed, Dec 23, 2020, 9:51 AM UTC

kubanczyk wrote: post #86

geomark wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Metabolism has two parts: Catabolism breaks down complex molecules into smaller building block molecules - think proteins -> amino acids. Then anabolism uses those building blocks to build up larger molecules for growth and maintenance. Crystals don't do the catabolism part.

Nah, this seems more like an implementation detail than an actual core of life's "functionality".

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Dec 23, 2020, 12:47 PM UTC

goodthenandnow wrote: post #57

tjchear wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there will be any consequences of importance, for a different, simple reason: people generally resist changing their worldview and will do mental gymnastics to preserve it.

Exactly. Not really the same thing, but if alien life was found on Europe or Enceladus, religions would resist to change their theologies.