But isn't there a major flaw here? If you require all 3 components (proteins, RNA, and lipid bilayers) as what classifies "life", then what necessarily created _those_ components? Aren't only basic compounds and elements the only thing naturally occuring in the universe? So where did the amino acids and fats come from? It's back to the chicken or the egg problem.
Tibor Gánti's ideas about the origins of life
91–100 of 143 posts
Re: Tibor Gánti's ideas about the origins of life
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
While that is an interesting fact about the evolution of ribosomes, no kind of ribosome could have ever appeared, except after the process of RNA replication was already a perfected process. Otherwise the first ribosome would have disappeared soon after it was first assembled, without leaving any descendants. The first ribosome was probably made only of RNA, as there were no other ribosomes to assemble the ribosomal…
Many statements made with certainty about an era about which we know absolutely nothing for sure.
It's good to make bold statements, because if anything it enables clear and convincing counter-arguments to show up.
Re: Tibor Gánti's ideas about the origins of life
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "any self-sustaining system that reduces internal entropy." Planet Earth would/should definitely count as alive, especially if it "reproduces" via us terraforming other planets to become like Earth.
Ultimately, this is a semantic debate trying to apply human linguistic constructions to physical processes.
Good plot for Rick and Morty. Wait, they already did it.
Re: Tibor Gánti's ideas about the origins of life
#94Earlier 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…
It depends. For me it would be incredibly interesting. If we take that life plausibly "started" as as one single-celled individual who then "reproduced" through cell division (let's call him Luca), then he's effectively never died - in the same way that we consider ourselves to have not died despite regularly cycling tissues and cells. All life as we know it, if viewed like that, is one organism whose chain of cell d…
> If we take that life plausibly "started" as as one single-celled individual
That's quite an assumption. I think there were 42 original proto-organisms spread over all the aeons. Creating a 43rd artificially is not a big deal.
Re: Tibor Gánti's ideas about the origins of life
#95But isn't there a major flaw here? If you require all 3 components (proteins, RNA, and lipid bilayers) as what classifies "life", then what necessarily created _those_ components? Aren't only basic compounds and elements the only thing naturally occuring in the universe? So where did the amino acids and fats come from? It's back to the chicken or the egg problem.
The common theory is of the RNA world. In theory, if the entire organism is just a long RNA strand, there is no need for proteins or lipid bilayers. How such an organism emerged in the first place is already quite hard to know.
Actually lipid bilayers are extremely complicated as they have to filter what gets into the cell and what doesn't, as well as what might leave it. Earlier systems might have done without them and instead attached everything onto long chain like structures... You know like a keychain. Both RNA and Proteins are long chains so maybe that's how they evolved.
Re: Tibor Gánti's ideas about the origins of life
#96But isn't there a major flaw here? If you require all 3 components (proteins, RNA, and lipid bilayers) as what classifies "life", then what necessarily created _those_ components? Aren't only basic compounds and elements the only thing naturally occuring in the universe? So where did the amino acids and fats come from? It's back to the chicken or the egg problem.
All of these components can form through nonbiological means. For example, amino acids[0] and nucleobases[2] can be found in interstellar gas clouds.[0] Lipid membranes form simply because of their polar properties.[1]
[0] https://physicsworld.com/a/amino-acid-detected-in-space/
Re: Tibor Gánti's ideas about the origins of life
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
It depends. For me it would be incredibly interesting. If we take that life plausibly "started" as as one single-celled individual who then "reproduced" through cell division (let's call him Luca), then he's effectively never died - in the same way that we consider ourselves to have not died despite regularly cycling tissues and cells. All life as we know it, if viewed like that, is one organism whose chain of cell d…
> If we take that life plausibly "started" as as one single-celled individual That's quite an assumption. I think there were 42 original proto-organisms spread over all the aeons. Creating a 43rd artificially is not a big deal.
Definitely. If I'm mistaken and we can point to an organism living right now which isn't directly related to / descendant from the Last Universal Common Ancestor then we're already dealing with multiple "individuals", and having another indeed would be no big deal.
Otherwise, I still think that it would be.
To clarify, though: I'm not at all against the creation of another individual.
Re: Tibor Gánti's ideas about the origins of life
#98Considering 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 am not sure we have colonized the minerals, but I am pretty sure we have been relying on fossil fuels as so-called "energy slaves."
Re: Tibor Gánti's ideas about the origins of life
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems nonsensical in any case to claim something that contains life among its constituent parts is not itself alive. Plenty of organisms have 'dead' tissue as part of their gestalt and no one thinks of them as 'mostly' alive.
Life isn't a constituent part of the Earth. It's a coating.
That statement is such a gross oversimplification of a tiny fraction of the whole picture.
Life permeates deep into Earth and even influences its geology:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole#Resear...
Re: Tibor Gánti's ideas about the origins of life
#100Considering 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…
Is key word "alive" or is it "conscious"? Or at least "sentient"?