minaras

Thats right! If we all agree about the chemical evolution, i don't see why you think i am talking nonsense, or what i am saying is outrageous! Instead of assuming that chemical evolution gave rise to membranes, RNA, proteins and then we had a process of creating sophisticated structures with decreasing entropy, as the general consensus is, there might be another option. That this chemical evolution continued indefinitely, with increasing complexity (in which entropy of life as whole entity increases), and all we have today are chemical systems that prevailed, and thus have surviving capacities to our eyes. This option points that replication is not necessarily the starting point, but only an evolution of repeatable reactions, as the latter easily prevail and evolve in chemical reaction soup. Membranes, proteins and complex organics can easily be produced and prevail in a soup of evolving chemical reactions, since they are stable, with many isoforms of varying stereochemistry, that diminishes the chances for chemical equillibrium, thus further bursting complexity.

Because if evolution existed before replication, it means that there was only evolving chemical reactions undergoing natural selection. Nonsense! Not even close. I argue that there is only spontaneous chemical reactions out there and life is only a matter of our specific perspective. Is that a creationist view? I would rather say that you are closer to the creationist point of view than i am, whether you realize it or not. However, believing or not to god is a totally different thing! I cannot disagree very much with you, because you will beg the moderator to ban me and lock the topic! So... you are right on this!!!!

Replication is one of the most highly sophisticated procedures that we see in nature. Assuming that replication existed before evolution, means that it wasn’t helped by evolution at all. Indeed, some scenarios are proposed on how nucleic acid replication existed in the first place (without the help of evolution). However, they are speculations of possible crazy ways that it might have emerged in the first place, with a low likelihood to be the real case. Since it is difficult to get from some nucleic acids to replication, the proposed theories are as complex as……Hmm ok! Lets see how we got on Alpha Centauri…. Possibly a volcano eruption ejected a man into the space, where he met a comet that took him near Mars. Then the comet fell into one of its moons. After that, the moon was hit by another comet and the man was transferred near Pluto, where the comet collided with another comet, etc etc , until he was brought to Alpha Centauri.. Yes, but this means that they were not destroyed before eating capacity was created, which means that evolution was there for a lot of time before this could happen. Before eating capacity, the organisms that posed survival capacities, were those that could adapt to the environment. Given the harsh initial conditions of Earth, I don’t see why this didn’t lead to less complicated, steady organisms, instead of complex higher sophisticated organisms with lower entropy. Not only do they have heritable characterists, but also they can also undergo evolution and natural selection. http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/12/31/evolution-without-genes-prions-can-evolve-and-adapt-too/

a) Assuming you have a system that replicates in the first place sounds like "give me one miracle for free and i will explain all the others" b)Your scenario means that no extinction of species is possible. If a primordial system that you described, with nucleic acids, membranes, proton pumps etc was there for so many centuries without being decomposed, then why don't we see these kinds of entities today? If they were able to survive back then, why did they become extinct after some years? And what about prions? Are they primordial organisms or the exact opposite?

In a recent paper scientists are proposing a way that the very first species started Darwinian evolution. The first species presumably came from mixed genetic material withut well defined species. http://phys.org/news/2015-11-species-darwinian-evolution.html However, from the paper that I referenced, it is evident that scientists make the unsupported assumption that in the beginning there was a big genetic jumble. In other words, they think that nucleic acids were created first, as the basis of all life. However: a)Not all organisms have nucleic acids (e.g. prions) b)Even if you cut nucleic acids in every kind of way, if you isolate them and you place countless of them together, even after billions of years, this will not result in what we call as life!

In a system in which living beings are mechanistic systems of chemical reactions, actually what is there is extremely complex (and complicated) chemical automatons. Aging comes as a process that involves a change in chemical systasis of the system over time, as the phenotypes of younger and older organisms are different. As we said, this implicates that we can theoretically control the change rate, by controlling the initial substrates of the system (e.g. food, gut bacteria). In theory you can have a certain combination of initial substrates and environmental factors in which changes in the living system are reduced to a minimum. But, how do we know how to reach this state of stability? Answer: By analyzing the end products of the system. If they have constant synthesis, this means that the chemical reactions are repeated as they are, and no changes occur. If their synthesis changes, it is an indicator that we must modify the initial substrates. This method can also serve as a way to experimentally test this theory, because if the rate of stability of the gut content is correlated with aging delay, it means that actually living beings are in fact chemical automatons, and it would open new ways to approach human diseases… Just a thought!! Once again, I want to note that I am not arguing this is the case, but this is only because it is not tested yet….

Maybe someone might find this new study interesting and relevant to this topic: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-10-moderation-diet-advice-poor-metabolic.html

Recent understandings on the mechanisms behind carcinogenesis and metastasis can be summarized on the following 2 key points: 1)All tumors (and other diseases) are different from person to person. Even tumor cells from a single individual are different. 2)Cancerous behavior is not only a matter of genetic material. It has to do with a complex and reciprocal cross-talk between cells and their environment. Extra-cellular matrix is not static, but on the contrary is very dynamic. Genes by themselves are not enough. In a nice lecture, Mina Bissel explains all these findings And my question is this: Isn’t it obvious that all these discoveries suggest that actually it is all just a matter of complex chemical reactions after all? They (reactions) all belong in a system that can be seen as a catalogue of chemical reactions. Some happen intra-cellularly and others happen extra-cellularly, but why does this matter? They all belong in a unique catalogue of spontaneous chemical interactions. And as explained before, the whole life can be explained in that way…

Life in the beginning was limited spatially into a small chemical system, interacting with external energy. It was thus, a unique and separate chemical system. Through the eons, that system got larger and more complex, and it created us that we live inside it, as a part of it. However, for an outside observer, life nowadays came from, and remains exactly the same system as it was before, only it became larger and more complex. Indeed, no cell or animal or plant can be created is isolation. They are integrated inside a bigger system that is: Life as a whole. And if life as a whole is studied only as a unique entity (without subdiving into cells, organisms, etc), what about its entropic changes over time, from the beginning up to now, with all the complexity we see? Maybe that of any complex chemistry that interacts with external energy and increases its entropy? What are the scientific data on this?

And what does this mean for the order of the system you mentioned?

Thank you Essay!! I will Here are some more objections: Question: If we let alone a cell in an isolated box, the result will eventually be a chemical mixture and not the organized cell. The final disordered mixture is more entropic than the the organized cell. Doesn’t this prove that lowering entropy is a hallmark of life and every organism spends an amount of energy to increase its order?? Answer: Not necessarily. The story of any individual living being actually is a journey towards gradual decay into disordered chemistry. In the beginning it’s a zygote in which so much information is disclosed about future events, patterns, etc in a very small space. So we can say that a zygote has less entropy compared to later stages. This entropy gradually increases as we become infants, childs, teenagers, adults, etc, because less and less information is carried over time… A simple cell in isolation will indeed decay quickly, but don’t forget that cells never exist in isolation, and higher organisms are much more complex and they interact with external energy. So the fact that they don’t instantly decay doesn’t necessarily mean that they use energy to decrease their entropy. Never underestimate our inability to fully comprehend the value of huge numbers. I will explain: Lets assume that a human body everyday degrades towards a higher entropic state. Lets assume for this reason, that after each day, the body loses, lets say 100 thousand of chemical reactions. Suppose we have an 80 years old man. He has lived 29200 days. This means that he has lost nearly 3 billion reactions during his lifetime. If the total amount of chemical reactions he has is, lets say 1 trillion, then after 80 years he will be composed of 997 billion reactions, which means virtually still 1 trillion. So the impact of the whole process on the chemical reaction count will be almost negligible. Of course, if we stop giving him food, he will degrade faster, but this is an example how can life can be compatible with a gradual loss of entropy.

Life is an existing thing with measurable properties. Entropy is a real thing as well and can be calculated.I am only skeptical with the use of "order", especially for things we ourselves are involved, that makes them subjective issues and may lead to bias. I think entropy in life systems should be calculated, in order to quide us to build theories. Its time to put some direct evidence-based facts in the science of "life and entropy". And someone might say that if living beings are only a sum of complex chemical reactions then what prevents them from degrading into chemical chaos? For instance, if there is not a major adverse event or a catastrophic external factor, how can a human maintain its body structure at a viable state for nearly 100 years instead of spontaneously degrading towards a higher entropic state? A possible answer lies in our inability to fully appreciate and comprehend big numbers. I will explain. Lets assume that human body everyday degrades towards a higher entropic state. Lets assume for this reason, that after each day, the body loses, lets say 100 thousand of chemical reactions. Suppose we have an 80 years old man. He has lived 29200 days. This means that he has lost nearly 3 billion reactions during his lifetime. If the total amount of chemical reactions he has in his body is, lets say 1 trillion, then after 80 years he will be composed of 997 billion reactions, which means virtually still 1 trillion. So the impact of the whole process on the chemical reaction count will be almost negligible.

According to the common viewpoint, life is an open system that interacts with external energy. The mainstream viewpoint is that this causes a decrease in its entropy, enabling life to emerge on the first place and to sustain itself, thus avoiding chemical chaos. In return, the system releases entropy to its surroundings so that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not violated. The common view that the origin of life is characterized by accumulation of order, as order means lower entropy. However, the term order can be very subjective, as an object non involved in life such as a rolling stone can say that it sees no order or no meaning in living systems’ chemical reactions. Just chaotic chemistry. So lets just leave order on the side and calculate entropy changes directly. Does the entropy in living systems actually increase or decrease? If it increases, is it doing so in a pattern that suggests an arbitrary system? Although I am not a physicist I will welcome suggestions on how to calculate changes in the entropy of life over time. Here are some simple approaches: Forgive me for any mistakes… 1)Does the life-associated heat production increase or decrease over time and how? Can life-associated changes in temperature be calculated? 2)Since chemical systems with higher entropy are characterized by increased gas production, does a life-associated gas production increase over time? In a system of decreasing entropy, one would expect a declining life-associated gas production… Any ideas:?

And of course the question is how these emerging structures can do other things as well, such as translation, etc apart from their self-replicating role. A creationist must have said that he knows the answer, but we want a better explanation, as i think that science is the effort to read gods mind, aka an effort to understand how world was created without refering to god..

Recently i read about an interesting discovery, that although it does not exactly support the OP suggestion, however it is very interesting and underscores the increasing importance of nutrition in scientific research as it is more and more linked directly to metabolic pathways of the organism. Scientists have identified a novel kinase cascade involved in cancer cell growth in response to nutrients. The study is published in Cell Reports this months and it has to do with dysregulation of mTORc.

A deeper view on the studies regarding caloric restriction effects: The concept that caloric restriction without malnutrition can increase longevity is known for many decades. As a result, numerous studies had been performed, in order to study the effect of nutrition in healthy lifespan. A thorough analysis of all the studies strongly supports the concept that a strictly steady diet can indeed increase lifespan. I will explain: First of all, what happens in a complex system of chemical reactions? Without providing initial substrates for reactions (food), then the existing system will reach an equilibrium state and die. If insufficient amount of food is provided (malnutrition), then equilibrium will be eventually be reached at some point, as well. If sufficient amount of initial substrates are provided, then the reactions will happen normally. If you provide some additional substrates, this will neither be of a benefit for the system, but it will be an extra stress, nor the pace of the reactions will increase. On the contrary, it will have a negative impact on the chemical reactions. Now, why existing evidence support this is the case? a)The fact that nutrition affects longevity points to a mechanistic system . b)The differential effects of caloric restriction on different organisms are dependent on the composition of the reactions of each organism. Caloric restriction effect is not universal. c)Everytime there is a lowering in metabolic rate, there is an increase in lifespan…Slower reactions last for more…simple as that. d)This cannot be satisfactorily explained by a reduction in the production of reactive oxygen molecules as the culprit of this phenomenon per se, as some studies provide contradictory results. e)Some studies in insects has shown that the relative proportion of nutrients (e.g. proteins/carbohydrates) is what plays the most decisive role, not caloric restriction. f)Caloric restriction(CR) only produces longevity if it counteracts a significant metabolic imbalance. Animals under CR were compared to ad-libitum controls, that usually become overweight and obese. CR increases lifespan only in animals that become obese while on ad libitum diet. On the contrary, weight stability was an indicator that animals were receiving an optimal diet, so as to reach the longest lifespan possible. For further study, I propose this article as well as some of its cited references … http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891584914002317

Indeed, but it is highly untestable for the moment.....however, it is a hypothesis!! I hope one day it can be formally tested...

Two scientists have recently developed a new model to explain how could early replicating molecules could have worked. I cannot explain it because I found it rather crazy, complex, and highly unlikely to represent a real scenario. However, it was published in a respectable journal and for anyone interested it can be found here: http://phys.org/news/2015-07-life-emergence-self-replication-early-earth.html If life seems to be a sum of chemical reactions, and everytime a system of chemical reactions becomes repeatable, this helps it to sustain itself in the long term. Gradual complexity could be built and sustained in this way. Organic molecules can be created and prevail later on the course! Why do scientists need to explain at first how proto-nucleic acids were formed and self replicated? Can somoene explain me why it has to be this way first? It is difficult to think of a possible way the first self replicating molecules were created this way. It needs a lot of creative imagination...

Yes, but there is a lot more than simply having a healthy lifestyle, or simply use a x vitamin, or avoid something, etc. There is a whole new scientific research field behind the intervention of complex nutritional habits to complex biological systems of chemical reactions, such as living beings. The discovery of the optimal diet for a small animal to improve, lets say a specific function, is a continuum and must be the focus of continuus improvements based on previous evidence. Due to the ease of experiments and interpretation of data, one does not have to be working on a University lab to contribute.

Life as chemical reactions, diet and human disease. Cancer If a living organism is a sum of chemical reactions, then tumor cells are also a group of chemical reactions with specific by largely unknown properties. What is known however is that the reactions of the tumor have deviated from normal metabolism. Tumors are characterized by cells that are rapidly replicating. Hence, chemical reactions of the tumors are turned into “fast forward” mode. The rapid use of glucose in cancer is the basis of a powerful diagnostic test called PET scan, as tumor cells selectively uptake the tracer. What causes the shift into unusual metabolisms is a hot topic in cancer research nowadays. Over the last decades, scientists have found a lot with respect to molecular pathways linked to cancer. They have also managed to analyze cancer genomes rapidly and in great detail, with the help of next generation sequencing. However, results from targeting these pathways with drugs has proven to be relatively disappointing, mainly due to a significant amount of cross-talks between pathways. Currently there is enthusiasm for immunotherapies (that can extend life for some months in some selected cases), but the next best thing is the study of cancer metabolomics. More and more scientists discover metabolic disruptions that are oncogenic. Metabolic disruptions and the speed of tumor chemical reactions can be exploited from scientists to develop novel treatments. Additionally, complex metabolic disruptions are found also in other multi-cause chronic diseases such as atherosclerosis, autoimmune diseases etc. Most of these conditions are age related. Seems that metabolic disruptions due to aging are hidden behind these age related diseases. It is something like a whack a mole game.

Some individuals can age three times faster than others: During a 20th high school reunion what you notice is quite interesting. They are all 38 years old, but they appear to be aging at different rates. Signs of aging are already evident in this relatively young age group. Researchers have recently published in PNAS a long term study, in which they used a panel of 18 biological measures to address whether an individual is aging faster or slower than the average. The panel included parameters of specific organ function, length of telomeres, cardiovascular fitness, etc. What they found was those that physically appear to age faster, scored worse in this panel and were biologically older. It is also apparent that the aging rate of twins is genetically determined only in 20%, suggesting a greater role of environmental factors, and thus interventions can be possible. Althought faster, cheaper and more efficient ways to determine aging rates are needed, this study points that you don’t have to wait 110 years to test the efficacy of an anti-aging strategy. Longevity Cookbook: There is a new project that is called Longevity Cookbook that is mainly a scientific initiative by a group of researchers, to study the effects of nutrition in aging and longevity. I particularly liked the moto that one of its scientists posted on the groups site. It goes something like: We all have a big problem. Aging that slowly kills us. If we don’t do something about it, we will die….

Athough not definite, there are indirect ways (e.g. gene expression patterns) to estimate the aging related outcome of an intervention, without having to wait 120 years. An example is here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150610131728.htm Lowering metabolism is a possible explanation for the anti-aging effect of caloric restriction diets. Additionally, a new interesting study has shown that periodic fasting can boost longevity and healthy lifespan, most propably by lowering the pressure and giving time to metabolism to compensate various errors. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150618134408.htm

You are right on your point. That’s why I used the term “delay” instead of “prevent”, as not only dietary factors cause changes in the body. However, despite fluctuations in weather, exercise, illness etc can occur and disrupt the theoretical effect of a steady diet, a steady diet is the best way to every time re-achieve a new temporary equilibrium on a new basis after every unexpected event.

An innocent child would ask: I think we all agree that life is all about chemical reactions at the end. So lets make an effort forget everything for a moment and focus heartlessly only on the reactions part of the organism. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that these reactions are not arbitrary. Chemical reactions and Aging. If the phenotype of an organism is the sum of its chemical reactions, one thing is obvious. That these reactions become different as we age. However, we don’t know whether the initial reactions are programmed to change and lead to the latter ones, or the transition is a result of other events. In other words, is it possible to maintain the same composition of reactions for a long time, thus preventing changes in phenotype, thus preventing further aging? Answer: In the case our reactions are programmed to change, then things are more complicated. However, in the case that the reactions can be maintained as they are, then it can happen. And below is a possible way to achieve it. The most important thing is to prevent changes. This can be achieved by providing a certain amount, composition and pace of initial substrates to the reacting system in the form of food. We are only interested in maintaining the system unchanged. We don’t care about the composition of this system, as long as it remains unchanged. This means that any diet that repeats itself every day,( that is providing everyday the same nutrients, in the same manner without any deviations in the routine) can cause the maximum of phenotype preserving in an organism, providing that the diet is viable and supplies all essential elements for life. Question: Is there any existing evidence that this theory can work in reality? Answer: A possible evidence can be the fact that the long term maintenance of the same weight (which is achieved by relatively stable food habits) pose an anti-aging effect. On the contrary, frequent changes in body weight accelerate aging. Additionaly, anyone that tries to lose weight with the help of a specific nutrition, knows that even if he is very compliant to the perfect diet, he must periodically eat something else so as to further make changes in his body, because the body gets used to the diet and resists to further loss. It seems that eating the same food both in quality and quantity tend to cause stabilization of our body’s composition.

So it seems that you understood what i my arguments are, but you simply disagree! Good. Now that we both know what we are talking about, i can offer you some clues (and evidents) why i might be right.. New insights Scientists from the Scripps Research Institute published a paper showing that only a single base substitution causes major unexpected changes on phenotype, as it causes multiple changes, other than that are connected with the activity of the gene. This chaotic behavior underscores the unimaginable complexity and the inter-reactions between molecular pathways. The more we uncover the hidden complexities, the more complexities we found, which to my opinion will eventually lead us to a model in which we will only have chains and systems of chemical reactions that inter-react. In a new study published in PNAS, scientists from UMMS found that long-lived mutated roundworm, despite the fact that they lived longer, they spent most of their life in a frail condition. This means that longevity is not synonymous with well being. This supports the chemical reaction model that we described, because if you intervene with chemical reactions just to make them last longer, inevitably you pay the price for it (e.g slower reactions, creation of other pathways and thus frailty, etc). Its not just that you intervene with stem cells that rejuvenate the body and everything starts from the beginning as time has not passed at all.