Spiegelman's Monster
31–36 of 36 posts
Re: Spiegelman's Monster
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither fire nor crystals mutate. That's the thing. A crystals arrangement of its microscopic structure will always be the same, as will the oxidation reaction in fire. A virus undergoes darwinian evolution and will adapt to its environment
Crystals actually do mutate, the crystallization process is not perfect and introduces defects.
Re: Spiegelman's Monster
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
why the pseudo? it seems living rather than pseudo-living. it needs a particular environment, but that's true of a lot of living things.
The monster itself is just a strand of RNA. The definition of living by most biologists wouldn't include a strand of genetic material. Fire replicates in particular environments, as do viruses. But we don't typically classify either as living. I think the point you're getting at is that the distinction between living and non-living is a bit arbitrary and meaningless. I agree.
Spiegelman's monster isn't alive under any common definition of alive, but it has fascinating properties nonetheless and appears to be an attractor in the RNA sequence space, which is quite interesting on its own.
Re: Spiegelman's Monster
#34Re: Spiegelman's Monster
#35The Wikipedia page doesn't do the best job at conveying the idea of the experiment, in my opinion. We've long been searching and wondering about the origin of life (aka abiogenesis). The famous Miller-Urey experiment ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment ) demonstrated that conditions similar to early Earth (plus lightning) spontaneously creates important organic compounds that are necessary…
I learned about this "monster" from reading a Great Courses book on Information Science. Apparently the molecular "organism" is fascinating to information theorists because it evolved to have less information in response to an environment where more information, and the burden of longer-replication times, was unfavorable.