Live data from Hacker News

Tibor Gánti's ideas about the origins of life

nationalgeographic.com

21–30 of 143 posts

Re: Tibor Gánti's ideas about the origins of life

#21
post #4

If someone figures out how to create life, the theological and ethical consequences will be insane.

I don't think so. Primitive proto-life has little moral value, just as vegans eat plants, hypothetical super-vegans only eat blue-green bacteria, and hypothetical hyper-vegans have a 500 year deadline to be electrically powered. I don't believe in a hard barrier between life and non life, so any discrete moral function would be non-computable, and therefore I reject it outright.

I don't believe in hard barrier between life and non life but interestingly the barrier between human and non human animal are seemingly very discrete.

Re: Tibor Gánti's ideas about the origins of life

#22
post #15

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…

How would you define genetic material? I think some kind of movement and a metabolism can already be called alive. It's not so much about the material but rather the interaction between the materials that gives rise to behavior and then natural selection.

"Genetic material" is memory. Therefore it must have the following properties:

1. It must be able to store any random sequence of symbols belonging to a certain set (e.g. any possible sequence of bases in the case of nucleic acids).

2. There must be a way to make identical copies of it (e.g. nucleic acid replication).

(the previous 2 properties are true both for its own genetic material and for a foreign virus that does not have any use for a living being)

3. There must be a way to use the stored sequence of symbols to direct some process that is useful for a living being.

(for nucleic acids, the better known useful processes are protein synthesis and the synthesis of certain kinds of useful by itself RNA, but there are also some other poorly understood functions of most of the "junk" DNA)

Re: Tibor Gánti's ideas about the origins of life

#23

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…

I think you've got a minority opinion calling crystals "alive," although it does jibe with one definition of life that I heard: "any self-sustaining system that reduces internal entropy."

While obviously crystals are not alive, they satisfy more careless definitions of life that were sometimes encountered, i.e., when put in a "nutritive" solution, they are able to grow and reproduce themselves.

Re: Tibor Gánti's ideas about the origins of life

#24
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think the ethical consequences will be? Genuinely curious, because I don't really see what they would be, or why there would be any. At least not compared to something like e.g. creating an actual artificial intelligence, and then needing to decide if it has rights, and what kind and so on. Creating a novel type of microorganism out of non-living components doesn't really seem to come with the same kind o…

Well, for those whose ethics are founded on their religious beliefs and whose religious beliefs are dependent on the premise that only God can create life, then there might be some adjustment to be made - but people are very good at dealing with inconvenient facts in ways both rational and irrational.

I think goal posts will rightly move towards creating a universe. I guess agnostics have already ”given up” with the thought that a creator was needed for biological life. A creator for a universe is a greater question.

Re: Tibor Gánti's ideas about the origins of life

#25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, for those whose ethics are founded on their religious beliefs and whose religious beliefs are dependent on the premise that only God can create life, then there might be some adjustment to be made - but people are very good at dealing with inconvenient facts in ways both rational and irrational.

I think goal posts will rightly move towards creating a universe. I guess agnostics have already ”given up” with the thought that a creator was needed for biological life. A creator for a universe is a greater question.

I think that goal post has already been moved. Big bang theory created a perfect point to separate god the natural world.

Re: Tibor Gánti's ideas about the origins of life

#26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think so. Primitive proto-life has little moral value, just as vegans eat plants, hypothetical super-vegans only eat blue-green bacteria, and hypothetical hyper-vegans have a 500 year deadline to be electrically powered. I don't believe in a hard barrier between life and non life, so any discrete moral function would be non-computable, and therefore I reject it outright.

>I don't think so [...] and therefore I reject it outright That's not a problem. There can be insane theological and ethical consequences for everyone else.

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.

Re: Tibor Gánti's ideas about the origins of life

#27

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…

It is pretty certain that the first life did not use any kind of genetic material, because that is impossible.

When RNA or any other kind of genetic material first appeared, the first thing that must have been possible to do with it was to copy it, a.k.a. to replicate it.

If the genetic material was used first to do anything useful, e.g. to control protein synthesis or to catalyze directly any useful reaction, that genetic material would have disappeared immediately, because it could not be replicated.

So the first genetic material must have been able of being replicated without doing any useful function, therefore is was actually an RNA virus.

The useful functions must have appeared later and then the genetic material was integrated as an essential part of the living beings, allowing a much faster evolution towards levels of complexity that would have been impossible to reach without having a genetic material.

To be able to replicate the first genetic material, there must have already existed some life forms able to exploit an energy source to reproduce themselves.

You have noticed a correct analogy, exactly like the control automaton of a CPU, which can be either hard-wired, having a dedicated structure that cannot be easily changed to perform other functions, or it can be microprogrammed, using a control memory, whose content can be easily rewritten to implement a very different CPU, a self-reproducing living being can use genetic material, in which case it can easily evolve into a different living being, or it may use no genetic material, but consist, like how it seems to be said in Gánti's work, of which I was not aware until now, by a cycle of reactions, where in each reaction some cell component assembles another cell component, until the last component, which assembles the first component.

Such a living being, without a genetic material, could not evolve easily, because almost any change would have damaged the cycle of reactions, most likely stopping the reproduction.

Regarding RNA, before the first RNA molecule was ever assembled, the existing life forms must have been using ATP and the other nucleotides as dehydrating agents able to condense smaller molecules into larger molecules, e.g. for creating peptide bonds.

Therefore ATP (with some of it current uses) is certainly older than RNA.

The polymerization of nucleotides into RNA must have been initially an undesirable side reaction consuming the useful nucleotides.

Re: Tibor Gánti's ideas about the origins of life

#29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you've got a minority opinion calling crystals "alive," although it does jibe with one definition of life that I heard: "any self-sustaining system that reduces internal entropy."

While obviously crystals are not alive, they satisfy more careless definitions of life that were sometimes encountered, i.e., when put in a "nutritive" solution, they are able to grow and reproduce themselves.

I think even under that definition they don't truly reproduce and still aren't really life -- they don't create the same material they arise from for example (so not allowing for additional crystals to form). A non-renewing source of the material has a maximum amount of crystal that can grow, I would imagine. This is different than something like a virus, which carries the instructs to replicate itself and the ability to travel to new hosts to create more of itself (and still isn't really considered alive).

Re: Tibor Gánti's ideas about the origins of life

#30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While obviously crystals are not alive, they satisfy more careless definitions of life that were sometimes encountered, i.e., when put in a "nutritive" solution, they are able to grow and reproduce themselves.

I think even under that definition they don't truly reproduce and still aren't really life -- they don't create the same material they arise from for example (so not allowing for additional crystals to form). A non-renewing source of the material has a maximum amount of crystal that can grow, I would imagine. This is different than something like a virus, which carries the instructs to replicate itself and the abilit…

> A non-renewing source of the material has a maximum amount of crystal that can grow

So any biosphere that fails to escape its looming red giant was never alive?

I'm not a "all abstractions leak" type of person, so I will choose my definitions very carefully, with funny choices about clays, crystals, virus, etc. as an acceptable causality.

Post reply on HN