Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 224 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
Today at 03:58 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
True 1
paul 1
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
#55200 - 01/13/16 11:28 PM ΙS LIFE ONLY EVOLVED CHEMISTRY?
minas Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 01/11/16
Posts: 9
Is life only evolved chemical reactions?

Top
.
#55203 - 01/14/16 11:39 PM Re: ΙS LIFE ONLY EVOLVED CHEMISTRY? [Re: minas]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Yes, live is based on complex chemical systems which evolved from simple organic compounds. The simple organic compounds in turn were created by natural events, some of them in interstellar space, some of them here on Earth.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#55206 - 01/15/16 03:56 AM Re: ΙS LIFE ONLY EVOLVED CHEMISTRY? [Re: Bill]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
The technical name for the theory just involving chemicals on a site like Earth is Abiogenesis which you can internet search for a layman explanation.

The Miller–Urey experiment was the first real test of the idea and at the moment there are over 100 experiments running on it just based on paper citations based since 2000AD.

With the discovery of strange lifeforms around black smokers (hydrothermal vents) in the deep ocean the theory of abiogenesis itself had to be widened because those areas have bacteria with lives that revolve around sulfur.

The other possibility is as Bill G said via space and that goes under the name, Panspermia theory which you can again search. That theory still requires Abiogenesis to operate locally but posits that life will be found at many places in the universe.

That should give you enough reading to do to get you started and good luck.


Edited by Orac (01/15/16 04:13 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#55209 - 01/15/16 05:15 AM Re: ΙS LIFE ONLY EVOLVED CHEMISTRY? [Re: minas]
Cindyrindy Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 01/14/16
Posts: 1
I'm wondering is there exist biological process? I think maybe.
_________________________
To know more about biotech thing.
-Cindy
Creative BioMart
http://www.creativebiomart.net/blog/

Top
#55210 - 01/15/16 11:38 PM Re: ΙS LIFE ONLY EVOLVED CHEMISTRY? [Re: Orac]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Originally Posted By: Orac
The other possibility is as Bill G said via space and that goes under the name, Panspermia theory which you can again search. That theory still requires Abiogenesis to operate locally but posits that life will be found at many places in the universe.

Just to make it clear that I wasn't talking about panspermia. I was just talking about the fact that many organic chemicals have been found in interstellar space, and in meteorites which predate the formation of the Earth. They could have come to Earth in various forms and been here to be used in abiogenisis.

I know about Panspermia, but I have serious reservations about it. And even if it is true it doesn't answer the main question. How did life begin? Panspermia just pushes it back further into the past and to some other place in the universe.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#55211 - 01/15/16 11:40 PM Re: ΙS LIFE ONLY EVOLVED CHEMISTRY? [Re: Cindyrindy]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Cindy, I'm not sure just what your question is. Could you restate it?

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#55222 - 01/19/16 02:01 PM Re: ΙS LIFE ONLY EVOLVED CHEMISTRY? [Re: minas]
minas Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 01/11/16
Posts: 9
Organic chemistry poses an infinite variability in terms of stereochemistry due to different isoforms. In such a complex chemical organic system with infinite possible interactions, equillibrium may be avoided. In the long term, only those reactions that can sustain themselves will be selected and prevail and will be there in the final mixture.
But, isn't life as a whole a sum of self sustaining chemical systems?
However, things are not that easy because in the former case, the system will not be characterized by negentropy, and to my opinion that is the basic difference between chemistry and biology. If biology wasn't about order and negentropy, then all our problems would be solved, because organic chemistry everytime would evolve into something like life, due to selection of chemical reactions and everytime the result would have the same.

Top
#55224 - 01/20/16 12:40 AM Re: ΙS LIFE ONLY EVOLVED CHEMISTRY? [Re: minas]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
This is the usual problems you try to understand something considering only half the story which unfortunately is all most are armed with by the end of their school days.

Lets start with chemistry which as a discipline derives laws based on observations under defined conditions. The problem with this, involves the words "defined conditions". Unfortunately chemistry does not cover the full range of energy (missing things like electromagnetic, nuclear energy and thermal energy) and so it has limited range of defined conditions. It is ill equipped to try and tackle situations that involve energy outside the discipline and at best all you can try and do is fudge the energy into it's laws. You will often see chemical equations written with an energy term but there is no careful description of the energy even it's basic type is often missing (heat, light, electric etc), it's just a basic energy number.

Biology sciences developed because it was realized that chemistry had other flaws such as organisms having the ability to change "defined conditions" under their self control. They needed to cover stimuli, growth and reproduction. So biology developed as a discipline that derives laws based on observations of organisms.

So both of these disciplines are of limited use when trying to tackle world or universal wide situations.

Lastly lets deal with the horrible and often misused term negentropy, you have chosen to use. First Biology is not about negentropy it is about observation of organisms. Negentropy is a ill defined horrific term, unless used in the context of information theory which at least realizes the Neg part of it is a misnomer (as the value must always be positive and it is never actually negative). For anyone who would like to argue then get them to define negentropy ... so lets give you an example

I see some religious pseudo-scientists argue for example that life leads to a decrease of entropy, because it involves things getting more organized over time and so they like the term negentropy because it backs this view. This is complete garbage what they are leaving out is the products of the process which aren't chemical. For you and me as humans it is water and vapors, excretions and tons and tons of heat which is not fully covered under our chemical description and discipline. Taken from a proper physics point of view, you and I have positive entropy on the world and to argue against that is to say we could live without ever eating. You have to eat because you are pouring energy into your surrounds in every direction and your entropy contribution to the universe is most definitely positive.

Even plants take a nice uniform energy source from the sun and messes it up into multiple other energy things to grow and like living things excretes and radiates different energies. From a chemical discipline you might see chemicals joining together BUT look from the energy point of view. The only perspective to view the entropy of the universe is from the universe. Chemistry and Biology can say nothing on the matter for the universe as they don't describe the universe and are very incomplete.

There is only one framework that completely describes energy of the universe and that is Information Theory. Most layman won't recognize their universe in that framework because it needs to treat every measurable change as a bit of information. Layman understanding aside there are no known violations of the theory. Your next best choice would be Quantum Mechanics, which as a framework will describe energy correctly everywhere excluding gravity. You can described QM inside Information Theory as the two theories are completely compatible (pretty amazing since they developed independently) and that is sometimes called Quantum Information Theory.

So now we get to what you said
Originally Posted By: minas
If biology wasn't about order and negentropy, then all our problems would be solved

Well Biology isn't about order and the butchered term negentropy it's about observation of organisms.

Originally Posted By: minas
because organic chemistry everytime would evolve into something like life, due to selection of chemical reactions and everytime the result would have the same.

No it wouldn't because chemistry is not a complete description of the universe, there are massive areas of energy exchanges it does not cover. It fares little better than biology in understanding entropy of an organism.

The lesson here is understand what discipline you are using to tackle a problem and what the limits of that discipline are.


Edited by Orac (01/20/16 01:31 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#55226 - 01/20/16 02:47 PM Re: ΙS LIFE ONLY EVOLVED CHEMISTRY? [Re: minas]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
I think in a way Orac answered your question, but I'm not sure that you would have caught on to what he is saying. He sometimes gets to thinking in bottom up terms and he can leave others behind. He starts with the quantum effects that drive everything except gravity. He is right in one way. At the bottom of everything is physics. Chemistry is just a very complex system of interactions at the quantum level. And of course life is just a very complex system of chemical reactions.

First question: What is negentropy? Is it a proper scientific word? I think Orac questioned that.

If you mean negative entropy then there is a relatively simple answer. There is no negative entropy in life. The concept of entropy tells us that a system always moves from a more organized state to a less organized state. For example if you have a perfectly insulated box full of air the molecules of air will tend to have the same (average) velocity. The molecules could all at once move to one side of the box, but the chances of that happening during the full lifetime of the universe (past and present) is negligible.

When we look at any form of life we find that molecules are assembled into very structured forms. This can look like negative entropy. But life is not an isolated system like the completely insulated box of air. Life is part of a very large system, and in the creation of all those highly structured forms of life we find that there is more energy used in he construction of those complex forms than is contained in the forms. So the construction of those forms results in an increase in entropy.

If you must use the word negentropy then you should realize that it doesn't happen.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#55228 - 01/21/16 02:11 AM Re: ΙS LIFE ONLY EVOLVED CHEMISTRY? [Re: Bill]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Thank you for that Bill G that is very accurate to what I was trying to say but I don't have the English language skills to do it like that.

The only bit I don't like in your simplification is equating Entropy to things like molecule movement because that is only semi true or at least true in the most general case.

So my only change would be instead of your sentence about molecule movement I would say:

Entropy is about what is happening to the energy (you can call it microstate information if you like). Entropy is not about whether things are getting complex in human terms it is whether the energy is getting spread into more complex form(s) requiring more information. A plant is an example of where equating human concepts rather than energy complexity will mislead you. I guess in layman terms is the energy being spread more widely.


Edited by Orac (01/21/16 02:13 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#55230 - 01/21/16 03:57 AM Re: ΙS LIFE ONLY EVOLVED CHEMISTRY? [Re: Orac]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
I was a little concerned about that paragraph, but for some reason couldn't figure what was wrong with it.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#55231 - 01/21/16 01:39 PM Re: ΙS LIFE ONLY EVOLVED CHEMISTRY? [Re: Bill]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
You turn entropy into faster molecules AKA heat in classic physics so you posit the same result as in the Lord Kelvin believed that the universe must die a terminal heat death. As I said your idea isn't horrifically wrong if you use a normal classical example but like Lord Kelvin you need to be careful because Entropy is a little bit subtle and tricky under classical physics.

I would normally refer you to wikipedia but the heat death of the universe page is horrible it won't help you.

Ok, so let me create an example using molecule speed for you to ponder. I have a two groups of molecules and in both situations I measure the same temperature.

a). The molecules are bouncing backward and forward between two plates horizontally in a nice continual pattern (so like a waveguide or laser cavity).
b). The molecules in this group are bouncing around randomly in a box.

So group (a) and (b) have the same temperature but do they have the same Entropy?

I really doubt you will need it Bill G, but some like minas may so here is a related help hint .... Look at Magnetic refrigeration its easy to see what happens.

Hint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_refrigeration ... look at the 2nd image down.

It's easy to see what is going on but there is no way to put a measurement on it under classical physics. The subtle reason why you can't even tackle the problem is because the entropy relationship between the particles is all relative, yes Einstein and friends solved this problem.

The above is why dealing with Entropy in classical physics becomes a bit of hand waving and there is no way to avoid it. It is also why so many errors about Entropy persist and are passed along.

So your answer would be correct for normal gas situations that a layman would encounter ... hence I used the term "semi true". It's something I wouldn't expected anyone to know unless they had done university physics.


Edited by Orac (01/21/16 03:06 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#55397 - 02/07/16 03:37 PM Re: ΙS LIFE ONLY EVOLVED CHEMISTRY? [Re: minas]
minas Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 01/11/16
Posts: 9
I think that darwinism is a concept that applies in many aspects of science. For instance, If chemical reactions avoid equillibrium, then they will undergo some sort of darwinism c, and the long term result will be the prevailance and selection of the most sustainable systems of reactions. But as i previously said, what is life other than a sum of self-sustainable chemical systems?

However, as you pointed out, things are not that easy, because this means that in the above scenario, a chemical chaos will be created instead, and if we assign an entropy on life as a whole system, this will increase over time. In this sense, chemistry is indeed the same thing as biology, only more complex.
However, i think that this actually might be the case after all, and i will explain..

We think of life as miracle and order, because for instance, some might say that a cell is much more ordered than its components, which means that a cell is an ordered and not a chaotic system.

But:
A cell is much more ordered than its components, but what we forget is that a cell never exists in isolation. Imagine you have a flask with water that is heated with fire. The molecules of water will start speeding randomly toward various directions. Virtually, what you are doing here with the cell argument is ignoring the fire and the majority of other water molecules and focusing only on subset of 1 or 2 specific molecules. These molecules will be perceived as gaining speed without an obvious reason,..
Lesson: Never forget the rest of the picture..

For this reason, i believe that we should re-evaluate everything from the beginning and accept nothing as an a-priori knowledge. In other words, we should test experimentally, those entropic changes over time in living systems as directly as possible..
If there are increases, i don't see why chemistry is any different from biology....

Top
#55401 - 02/07/16 11:48 PM Re: ΙS LIFE ONLY EVOLVED CHEMISTRY? [Re: minas]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Originally Posted By: minas
i don't see why chemistry is any different from biology....

Yes, biology is chemistry. The difference is the complexity involved. There are a huge number of different chemical molecules in a single cell. It is the interaction of these different molecules that creates life. The thing about it is that the interactions are so complex that it is impossible to completely describe them all. The best that biologists have come up with so far is a general description. They know what the molecules are and have made a lot of discoveries about the interactions, but there is still lot that isn't understood. The question is: Just how does life emerge from chemistry? It appears to be one of those emergent things that appear to come about without us being able to predict it from basic principles (in this case the theory of how molecules form).

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#55525 - 02/18/16 04:58 PM Re: ΙS LIFE ONLY EVOLVED CHEMISTRY? [Re: minas]
minas Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 01/11/16
Posts: 9
Reducing biology to chemistry is an important step, as it changes the way we view diseases, (as chains of chemical reactions that can be manipulated) etc, etc...
In my opinion, biology in theory can be reduced down to chemistry, which can even be reduced down to physics, but things grow tremendously complex and its not worth it.
Additionally, some people try to include mathematics as well! I think that mathematical models cannot apply to biological systems that easily. For instance, mathematical models cannot fully represent true biological phenomena because they don't account for the spatial factor. Additionally, they only assume that all chemicals can react with each other without accounting for inhibitory events, or other kind of interactions such as adhesive properties, hydrophobic interactions, etc, etc....Moreover, they can be manipulated until they work.
Some scientists (even legit ones) introduced some kind of these supposed models into computers, played with complexity and supposedly got some incredible hidden patterns that miraculously emerged, in other words, nothing less than bacteria, flowers, animals, etc...
Now i think this is an example how wrong initial assumptions, when used in wrong ways, can lead us to monstruously misleading conclusions.
If your approach in order to answer how from complex primordial chemistry we got to today’s life is this, then it is life answering to the question how from 1, 2, 5, 8 you got 5689 and you claim: Eureka!!! Its 1+2=15*5=3000*8=5689

On the contrary, I think that in a complex chemical system, due to all the kinds of interactions which are unpredictable, the most sustainable combinations of interactions (or else the resulting mixture) will be slowly selected in a step-by-step fashion, brick by brick, until we get the final mixture that will be super sustainable because it was sculped and shaped by eons of struggles and competitions...

Top
#55529 - 02/19/16 02:27 PM Re: ΙS LIFE ONLY EVOLVED CHEMISTRY? [Re: minas]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
First off let me make it clear that I am not now and have never been a biologist. Biology is much too complex for me. I prefer physics, even with Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. They are much more straight forward because the systems they deal with are much simpler than biological systems, at least as long as you don't try to explain things like biology in terms of QM.

Now, in general, I tend to agree with what you say. But I don't necessarily agree with your rejection of the application of mathematics to biology. Working with simple models can lead to insights that will be useful in guiding investigations into real systems. The use of mathematical models can bring out relationships that are hidden in the complexities of real systems. Careful interpretation of these relationships can be used to provide new insights into the functioning of biological systems.

There that ought to be enough BS for this morning.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#55530 - 02/20/16 07:58 AM Re: ΙS LIFE ONLY EVOLVED CHEMISTRY? [Re: minas]
Amaranth Rose II Offline

Superstar

Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 962
Loc: Southeast Nebraska, USA
I think you have got your math a little mucked up. 3000*8 = 24000, and 15*5 ia 75. I do not see where you get your airy fairy answer. Did you roll a lot of multi-sided dice?
Originally Posted By: minas
If your approach in order to answer how from complex primordial chemistry we got to today’s life is this, then it is life answering to the question how from 1, 2, 5, 8 you got 5689 and you claim: Eureka!!! Its 1+2=15*5=3000*8=5689

On the contrary, I think that in a complex chemical system, due to all the kinds of interactions which are unpredictable, the most sustainable combinations of interactions (or else the resulting mixture) will be slowly selected in a step-by-step fashion, brick by brick, until we get the final mixture that will be super sustainable because it was sculped and shaped by eons of struggles and competitions...


As a Biologist I can say there is a lot of mathematics that can be applied to Biology. Biology is mainly a study of populations and statistics are very useful in observing and interpreting the behavior of groups, if we are studying bacteria or mice. I'd like to know the source of your exotic mathematics, though, I could use something like that on my income tax forms.
_________________________
If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose


Top
#55535 - 02/20/16 04:34 PM Re: ΙS LIFE ONLY EVOLVED CHEMISTRY? [Re: Amaranth Rose II]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
I'd like to know the source of your exotic mathematics, though, I could use something like that on my income tax forms.


Have a care, Rose, with such exotic mathematics you could end up with your tax exceeding your income. smile
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#55564 - 02/27/16 09:34 AM Re: ΙS LIFE ONLY EVOLVED CHEMISTRY? [Re: Amaranth Rose II]
minas Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 01/11/16
Posts: 9
Originally Posted By: Amaranth Rose II


As a Biologist I can say there is a lot of mathematics that can be applied to Biology. Biology is mainly a study of populations and statistics are very useful in observing and interpreting the behavior of groups, if we are studying bacteria or mice. I'd like to know the source of your exotic mathematics, though, I could use something like that on my income tax forms.

Lol!! I can help you if you want. However, adding some exotic statistics can provide even more impressive results.

I was mainly referring to the problems of mathematics dealing with biological complexity and modeling chemical reactions. Statistics are amazing, I use a lot of it myself, but statistics are mainly a tool for answering relatively simple questions, such as yes or no. Increases or decreases? Sometimes it tries to answer more complex ones, but you can see that the more the parameters, the less reliableand precise it gets. You even have serious problems when dealing with 5 or 10 parameters simultaneously. Actually what you actually do in that case is choosing the less wrong model…
On the other hand, i don't agree with the widely cited phrase: " there are lies, more lies and statistics"..I think that they are an amazing tool but one has to be aware of its limitations

Top
#55567 - 02/28/16 12:17 AM (NA) Re: ΙS LIFE ONLY EVOLVED CHEMISTRY? [Re: minas]
Amaranth Rose II Offline

Superstar

Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 962
Loc: Southeast Nebraska, USA
Actually I need no exotic maths on income tax forms, I file no income tax, as according to the government I have no income. But thanks for the offer.

And I think the quote was, "Lies, damned lies, and statistics." But when all you have to study are populations, statistics become very useful. It would be very difficult to list up every American citizen who doesn't pay taxes, much easier to group them as a statistic and a subset. That requires ignoring certain characteristics about them and focusing on other attributes instead.
_________________________
If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose


Top
#55568 - 02/28/16 12:23 AM Re: ΙS LIFE ONLY EVOLVED CHEMISTRY? [Re: Bill S.]
Amaranth Rose II Offline

Superstar

Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 962
Loc: Southeast Nebraska, USA
Have no fear, Bill. I have no income that is taxable. IF I do, it's sufficiently small to keep me from having to pay taxes. I have some small stock income that is not enough to tax, and Social Security Disability is not taxable in Nebraska by legal stipulation. I live on air, earth and the good will of relatives and friends.
_________________________
If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose


Top
#55774 - 04/02/16 12:17 PM Re: ΙS LIFE ONLY EVOLVED CHEMISTRY? [Re: minas]
minas Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 01/11/16
Posts: 9
Apart from the solar energy, in a primordial soup of chemicals, lets say a flask full of chemicals, the following factors can shape the fate of the system, or else the natural history of the events:
1) By the different isoforms that organic stereochemistry pose, which adds to the diversity and mechanics that is needed to avoid equillibrium. Organic molecules are more stable. Thus, their number would slowly grow in the mixture....

2)Hydrophobic interactions (hydrophobic bonds, spatial configuration, separation and isolation of chemical systems, membranes, etc.
3)And apart from that, another crucial factor that shapes the system is the property of some molecules to strongly adhere to each other, or to membranes. In fact, if you put living cells and dead cells in a flask, then you can sort them easily because only the living ones will strongly adhere to the walls.
To see the importance of stickiness, take for instance the sponges. Recent studies has shown that they were one of the first organisms on earth, along with corals.
They don’t seem quite like the other animals. In fact, I would say that they are something in between, more like random chemical systems. However, the strong adhesions between molecules (as well as multiple other factors) in sponges makes those systems sustainable over time. In fact, they were created because they were not destroyed. They can sustain themselves for millennia and every sustainable chemical novelty can prevail and be selected.
4)Slow reactions can sustain themselves for a longer time...
There is not a certain plan that is favored, however the system will continue happening. The final resulting reactions will appear to have survival capacities if the observers are exactly those resulting reactions. Everything that happened lead to them. So the final combination of reactions will be the most sustainable of all combinations, given the particular conditions, because that’s exactly what happened. Those reactions prevailed in the long term. So to the eyes of the results, these reactions have some survival capacities. But what is life actually any other apart from sustainable complex chemical systems to our eyes, or else a sum of resulting chemical reactions?
Its something like a sort of evolution and selection of chemical reactions.

In the future i will explain why repeatability may not actually exist in the chemical reactions of life in the way we mean it in mathematics, but what we see as repeatability might be a result of the fact that huge numbers of different chemicals, under the same chemical laws with respect to their interactions, environmental factors, natural forces, tendencies, end up in similar ways. For instance, if they differ in 1 trillion reactions and their whole sum is 100 trillion, then they are 99% the same.

M Sakellakis

Top
#55804 - 04/27/16 03:50 PM Re: ΙS LIFE ONLY EVOLVED CHEMISTRY? [Re: minas]
minas Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 01/11/16
Posts: 9
One important question is why this specific organic stereochemistry that constitutes life prevailed and thrived so much, and from where did it come from. I can think of two logical ways:
Organic stereochemistry didnt reach equillibrium due to variability of possible isoforms and thus, everytime they were created, they persisted and survived, adding to complexity. Additionally, everytime they reacted with other organic or inorganic material (eg water, CaCO3 etc), they corrupted the other materials, adding to stereochemical complexity, and thus constantly adding novel material into the available for life chemical machinery of organic stereochemistry. In a similar way that prions corrupt the chemistry of the host organisms. This constantly increasing organic stereochemical reservoir can in theory undergo evolution and selection of the most sustainable chemical systems and theoretically create amazingly sustainable chemical systems such as ourselves or the other living beings.

Top
#55940 - 05/30/16 08:44 AM Re: ΙS LIFE ONLY EVOLVED CHEMISTRY? [Re: minas]
minas Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 01/11/16
Posts: 9
ANother factor that might help the chemical system to sustain itself theoretically is repeatability. However, there is problem with repeatability. How can arbitrary reactions gain, or even more amazingly, sustain their repeatability? Although in theory a process that can protect some repeatable reactions can evolve and be selected, another option is possible, that personally I think is more likely to be the case.
And the second thing is this: Are there trully repeatable processes in nature? For instance, if a descendant is 99% the same as its ancestor, and they are both composed of 100 trillion reactions, this means they differ by 1 trillion reactions. Also, if you have two systems of 100 organic compounds with various stereochemistries that interact with each other and they become increasingly complex to the point that each system becomes 100 trillions of different compounds, then one would expect that 99% percent of the compounds of one system will be somewhere present in the other system as well, only as a result of pure chance.
Now if two systems of 100 trillion reactions or possible interactions are exposed to the same chemical laws and conditions (variability prevails, hydrophobic bonds, adhesive properties prevail, stable molecules prevail, influx of external substances, same temperature, etc etc, then the two systems that will be mainly composed of the same substances, will share approximately the same fate, at least to our eyes. Because if by 95% the same thing happens in both systems, this means they differ by many trillion reactions, but for us, it is enough to consider the two processes identical.
So to conclude, anytime it may be possible for a group of organic chemicals to burst complexity and development, but this can’t happen indefinitely, because of various internal and external obstacles, so the process is regulated in a way. Only in some circumstances this happens (etc development, cancer, rehabilitation, etc). Theoretically, this can be the case everytime the process finds the opportunity.
Any thoughts?
PS Numbers used are inaccurate. They are only used to help me explain the philosophy of my arguments..

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.