Can we prove that life is random?

[whap2005]

I’m a pupil of science. To me the creationist views of the world’s organized religions is ridiculous; but to say that life is definitely the result of random events as most scientists believe is not so easy for me to see. Evolution is definitely happening and it must take a lot of will power not to see it. I have not yet however come across any proof, or have been able to rationalize how a pool of complex chemicals could become “alive”. I do know that there is no clear line that divides what is alive and what isn’t, but there is one thing that does set life apart from all other things in the universe; and that is “purpose”. If you take life out of the equation, all other things that happen in the universe are completely random. Life however appears be a step above the random happenings in the universe. Life is the only event in the universe (that we know of) that has the ability to actually react and adapt to random events; and it reacts with purpose, even if that purpose may only to replicate and to continue to exist.

 

To me, proving that life can spring from random events should be one of the top priorities of scientists. The fact that we have not been able to create a biological cell from scratch yet is surprising to me when you take into consideration everything else we now of life and its process (we actually seem closer to doing it electronically with computers). Does anyone know of any instance where a cell has been built from scratch in a lab?

[ecoli]

I have not yet however come across any proof, or have been able to rationalize how a pool of complex chemicals could become “alive”.

 

For that, read up on the Miller/Urey experiment.

[Sisyphus]

No, they haven't built a cell from scratch, but they're working on it. Far more gaps in that early sequence of events have been filled in today than even ten years ago. Give it time.

 

Now what makes you think there is "purpose," as you put it? Everything obeys physical laws, and really, nothing is random. A rock reacts to what you do to it according to its physical composition, and so does a human. Humans are just hugely more complicated than rocks.

[ydoaPs]

btw, evolution is NOT random.

[Cloud]

Why isn't evolution random?

 

Isn't it just about being at the right place at the right time

(for a period of time)

 

Some survive, some don't.

[CharonY]

Basically the mechanisms of evolution (mutation, genetic drifts etc.) are random, but selection shapes it. Those that survive are those that under the given selective force have a higher fitness. Therefore this process is not random. Of course, if you take a global historical view one could argue that the changes of selective forces do not follow a distinct pattern and thus the whole process is random.

[swansont]

Furthermore, there are outcomes of chemistry and physics that are not random. If you e.g. mix together some chemicals, you get predictable outcomes.

[bascule]

to say that life is definitely the result of random events as most scientists believe is not so easy for me to see.

 

"Life results from the NON-RANDOM survival of randomly varying replicators"

 

-- Richard Dawkins

 

(Wonder how many dozen times I've quoted that in these forums)

[whap2005]

"Life results from the NON-RANDOM survival of randomly varying replicators"

 

-- Richard Dawkins

 

Ok what the hell does that mean lol. I do agree, as someone pointed out in an earlier post, that the basic building blocks of the universe and their interactions are predictable; But to say that life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators is a paradox.

 

Bascule, since you appear to be more familiar with RD the I, how do you interpret that quote. To me, to say that life is the result of non random events would be to suggest that life is inherently unpredictable. How can it be possible that anything in a universe made up of predicable interactions be random?

[CharonY]

I am aware that the question was not directed at me, but actually you could answer the question by yourself by careful reading.

The varying replicators are essentially the genes (read a lil' bit about the selfish gene theory to understand why Dawkins is talking about genes as the replicating units and not the ). Genes vary randomly (as mutations usually do not follow a predictable pattern, resulting in different alleles), but there is a non-random selection against detrimental alleles. That is, those that survive improve the fitness of their carriers, or are at least not detrimental. This is a selective process and hence, non-random.

[RoyLennigan]

no processes in the universe are random, including evolution. the closest to randomness you get is probable events at the quantum level. every action is dependant upon these quantum events, and so everything is just a probability. but when looking at actions on a larger scale--say the reactions of chemicals and the formation of life--it can be seen as being deterministic. effect follows cause; life is formed by this loooooooooooong chain of cause and effect. thus, the origin and evolution of life is not random.

[bascule]

Ugh, for all intents and purposes, mutations are random.

 

However, those lifeforms who cannot outcompete their neighbors for resources, or are eaten as food, or are in some other way removed from the gene pool do not reproduce. Only the adept survivers (who have working sexual hardware and can attract a mate) reproduce, hence the "non-random" bit

[RoyLennigan]

Ugh' date=' for all intents and purposes, mutations are random.

 

However, those lifeforms who cannot outcompete their neighbors for resources, or are eaten as food, or are in some other way removed from the gene pool do not reproduce. Only the adept survivers (who have working sexual hardware and can attract a mate) reproduce, hence the "non-random" bit[/quote']

yes, 'for all intents and purposes' mutations would be random, but not randomly passed on, as you are saying. it is the natural selection that makes the process non-random and based on strictly cause and effect events; a mutation gives a certain fish a sleeker, more muscular body and the effect is that it can swim faster, therefore surviving in a situation where others of its species can't.

[Moonquake]

yes, 'for all intents and purposes' mutations would be random, but not randomly passed on, as you are saying. it is the natural selection that makes the process non-random and based on strictly cause and effect events; a mutation gives a certain fish a sleeker, more muscular body and the effect is that it can swim faster, therefore surviving in a situation where others of its species can't.

Which is basicly what he said if you bothered to read it all.

[Wintran]

I think what confuses most people today is: What exactly caused the first replicator to appear in the first place? What would be really interesting is if we could understand the replicator's need to replicate on a very basic level, so that we can explain it using the mechanisms of fundamental interaction that we know of today.

 

Personally, I'm mostly interested in if it even can be completely explained by the current known mechanisms, which seems like the most logical assumption, or if there is another, yet undiscovered, (scientific) "law of nature" involved.

[SkepticLance]

Building a cell from scratch in a laboratory.

 

No, it cannot be done, at least not yet.

What we need to remember is that the eucaryote cell (from all 'higher' forms of life) did not evolve till about 2 billion years ago. Plus or minus some hundreds of millions. For the purposes of this discussion, I am not counting the much smaller procaryote cell, which may have existed a billion years earlier.

 

Life, however, is 3.5 to 4 billion years old. In other words, almost 2 billion years of evolution had already occurred before the first true cell with a nucleus came into being. That's a lot of evolving, and represents enormous complexity in that cell. It is hardly surprising that no-one has yet been able to do it.

 

From one view point, a simple eucaryote cell is half as complex as the human body. It is the result of 2 billion years evolution, while the human body is the result of 4 billion. (OK, you can attack me on exact dates. However, that will not change the point I am making.)

[bascule]

I think what confuses most people today is: What exactly caused the first replicator to appear in the first place?

 

I'm of the belief that it descended from an autocatalyst with variadic products which catalyze the production of themselves, giving way to a primitive system of heredity. Circumstances were such that the reaction never stopped, and here we are today.

[FreeThinker]

We already know that the membrane molecules (lipids with hydrocarbon tales and a phosphate group) arrange themselves in such a way that: The hydrophilic end (Phosphate group) faces towards water and encloses the hydrophobic end (the hydrocarbon tales). So a membrane can form, and does in the lab, according to the laws of physics. Now imagine how this would have created a different environment from the one on the outside of the membrane. Different chemicals would have either made this membrane a) more stable or b) cause it to collapse. So even at this level, which can be explained by the laws of physics, some form of selection took place.

[lucaspa]

to say that life is definitely the result of random events as most scientists believe is not so easy for me to see.

 

That is because this idea is false. Life is the result of chemistry and chemical reactions are NOT "random"

 

I have not yet however come across any proof, or have been able to rationalize how a pool of complex chemicals could become “alive”.

http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/issue1.htm'>http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/issue1.htm

http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/

http://www.siu.edu/%7Eprotocell/

http://www.christianforums.com/t155621

 

I do know that there is no clear line that divides what is alive and what isn’t, but there is one thing that does set life apart from all other things in the universe; and that is “purpose”. If you take life out of the equation, all other things that happen in the universe are completely random.

 

Gravity is random? Not at all. It is completely directional and deterministic. So your premise about all other things in the universe are completey random is false. Even quantum events have rules. We cannot know WHICH radioactive atom will decay next, but half of them ALWAYS decay within a half-life.

 

Life is chemistry. THere is no inherent long-term "purpose" to life.

 

Now, natural selection does have a short term purpose: to find a design that fits the environment.

 

The fact that we have not been able to create a biological cell from scratch yet is surprising to me when you take into consideration everything else we now of life and its process (we actually seem closer to doing it electronically with computers). Does anyone know of any instance where a cell has been built from scratch in a lab?

 

A modern cell? No. But A cell? YES. see the websites I posted above.

[GutZ]

 

Now' date=' natural selection does have a [b']short term[/b] purpose: to find a design that fits the environment.

 

 

I always have trouble with this. Where are the options? NS is an odd concept for me.

[The Peon]

"Life results from the NON-RANDOM survival of randomly varying replicators"

 

-- Richard Dawkins

 

(Wonder how many dozen times I've quoted that in these forums)

 

 

Just sig it allready

[bascule]

Just sig it allready

 

Good idea

[RichF]

Here's a thought to ponder. How long did it take for humans who migrated to Europe/North Western Asia to develope lighter skin, eyes and hair? It makes since that they would eventually due to the colder environment. I think that it's amazing that the human body can adapt/evolve to fit such a vast environment.

 

Adapt/Evolve can be considered an argument in itself. Do random mutations cause the adaption or does the environment encourage it? As stated before; I am not an expert here...just throwing stuff out.

[lucaspa]

but to say that life is definitely the result of random events as most scientists believe is not so easy for me to see.

 

That's because life is NOT the result of random events. Chemistry is not random. The selection part of natural selection is NOT random.

 

When scientists speak of "random" in evolution, what they mean is that variations are random with respect to the needs of the individual or the population. Period. That is, in a climate that is getting colder, just as many deer with shorter fur will be born as those with longer fur. However, only the deer with longer fur will do better at surviving the colder winters.

 

I have not yet however come across any proof, or have been able to rationalize how a pool of complex chemicals could become “alive”.

 

Here:

http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/issue1.htm'>http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/issue1.htm

http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/

 

I do know that there is no clear line that divides what is alive and what isn’t, but there is one thing that does set life apart from all other things in the universe; and that is “purpose”. If you take life out of the equation, all other things that happen in the universe are completely random.

 

Wrong on both counts. What "purpose" does a bacteria have? And gravity is not "random". It ALWAYS attracts. No randomness of sometimes attracting and sometimes repulsing. Also, mix oxygen, hydrogen, and add a spark. You ALWAYS get water. Never any other compound. And water is ALWAYS H2O. Never HO, HO2, H3O, H2O2, or any other combination of H and O. NOT RANDOM!

 

The fact that we have not been able to create a biological cell from scratch

 

The sites above do make a biological cell from scratch. However, remember that MODERN cells are the product of 3.8 billion years of evolution. Even by the time multicellular organisms appear, there was at least 1 billion years of evolution to get the cellular machinery. It's impossible to duplicate that billion years of non-random processes in the lab in the weeks or months that an experiment lasts.

[lucaspa]

I always have trouble with this. Where are the options? NS is an odd concept for me.

 

The "options" are each individual. Remember, individuals vary, no two (except twins) are alike. So, the environment presents a design problem to the population. Each individual represents a possible solution to that design problem. Each individual is a design. Since there are more individuals born than the environment can support, there is a competition among individuals for the scarce resources. Only the better designs will win the competition. Those individuals with the better designs will then breed with one another, passing their designs to their offspring. Which, because each individual varies, will have modifications to the design. Again you have the competition and only the "good" modifications win. And this continues generation after generation.

 

Now, the "competition" is not head-to-head. One example is the tailings from copper and other mines of heavy metals. The tailings (waste) is dirt that has toxic levels of these heavy metals. Seeds from nearby plants land on the tailings. Those plants that are able to even a little bit handle the presence of copper and the other heavy metals. They don't die. They might not do as well as their non-tolerant siblings not on the tailings, but they do better than their non-tolerant siblings on the tailings. Here the competition is against the toxic levels of copper. Not directly with each other.

 

So, the ones that survive, even if they don't do well, breed. Their offspring are now on the tailings and in a few generations fill up the space on the tailings. NOW the competition is not just to be able to survive, but do WELL growing in the toxic dirt. The individuals that are even MORE tolerant of the heavy metals do better than their siblings who are not AS tolerant. They grow faster, larger, and are healthier. They have more offspring. This progresses from generation to generation until you have a population of plants that thrive on soil with heavy metals. The genetic changes have also made them a new species from the original that still grows in the adjacent soil without the heavy metals.

5. Toxic Tailings and Tolerant Grass by RE Cook in Natural History, vol90(3): 28-38, 1981

 

Notice that nowhere does the "competition" involve one plant actively trying to kill another. The competition is metaphorical, just as Darwin stated.