origin of life

[minass]

The entire history of revolutions in human thinking is full of examples in which complicated human-centered theories gave its place to simple explanations in which human is just a part inside a system and because of this fact, he has a subjective view. In the beginning, people thought the earth was flat, because that was what everybody observed. However, there were fundamental inconsistencies with this model, both mathematical and logical. Additionally, human couldn’t feel the motion of the earth and thus, believed their eyes and tried to explain the skies with the assumption that earth was the center of the universe. However, things were getting far too complicated, and finally this model was replaced with the heliocentric which made things easy and clear. In all cases we were a part inside the system and we couldn’t have an objective view of things. However, can we say that today we got rid of all thee subjectivities? Is there still way to go? I believe the latter is the case.

Take for instance the phenomenon of life. All that is there is a complex system of countless chemical reactions. These reactions seem to have some amazing properties that violate the way generally nature works, because as we know, nature tends to simplify things by increasing entropy and moving toward lower energy states. What we have in life instead, is a system of sophisticated and stochastic reactions that lead to more and more sophisticated organisms with higher organization. These organisms are self-sustained through a complicated process that is called homeostasis. The complexity of the latter becomes more and more evident as we try to study every aspect of it in detail. For instance, acid base balance in an organism depends on a series of events that are cooperating in a way that if a single procedure was not there, then the whole system would be malfufunctiong. Even a relatively simple process such as Krebs cycle is composed of such a complex system of reactions, including upregulators and downregulators that ensures that the cycle is self regulated. Countless reactions, but not a single one is placed in chance. How extraordinary!!

How can all these occur spontaneously? My question is: Can human subjectivity help us find a more simple explanation? In fact, can we make this extremely simple and assume that all the reactions that compose life on earth are actually random? Can they just be reactions that with the help of external sources of energy like sunlight are simply becoming more and more complex over time?

Before you say that the answer is no, just think who is the observer of all these. WE. The end results. A part inside the system that judges this system from the inside. The causes judged by the result. In other words, subjectivity on its extreme.

Think about it: Even if there were only random chemical reactions what would happen on primordial earth? The reactions with repeatability that occur in a cyclic manner would not eventually lead to a dead end and eventually would go on indefinitely in the long term (what we perceive as reproduction?). In addition, some reactions with specific characteristics would eventually survive, either because they promote their own existence, or they give them survival advantage toward others. This fact, with a little help of repeatability would lead to the creation of reactions with three characteristics: survival capacity, complexity and repeatability. If the reference frame is the results of these, or else ourselves, the whole process is actually perceived as evolution. To put it mathematically, evolution is called the study of the random series of events that lead to the transformation of A to B, where B=[b1,B2,B3,….Bv], when things are viewed through the perspective of either B1, or B2, or B3, …….or Bv.

In other words, we exist not because a conspiracy force promotes our evolution, but because our reactions continue to occur. We are the ones that give value to our existence.

The importance of this viewpoint is that apart from the fact that it answers previously unanswered questions, it assumes that living beings are actually complex systems of reactions, and can thus be manipulated in predictable ways under chemical laws. This means that apart from the fact that the theory is testable and falsifiable, it indicates major implications for medicine.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

minass,

 

This is a discussion forum, not your soapbox. Do you have anything that you wish to engage in converstion about and if so, what? It doesn't appear to be veyr clear from your thread what that might be.

[Moontanman]

Take for instance the phenomenon of life. All that is there is a complex system of countless chemical reactions. These reactions seem to have some amazing properties that violate the way generally nature works, because as we know, nature tends to simplify things by increasing entropy and moving toward lower energy states.

 

 

 

This is not true, I suggest you go to http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ and read something not slanted by pseudo science..

[Strange]

it assumes that living beings are actually complex systems of reactions, and can thus be manipulated in predictable ways under chemical laws.

 

Can you explain what is new about this?

[physica]

I’m not really quite sure where this post is supposed to go however, there are a few issues. At a guess I think minass should look into statistical mechanics and statistical thermodynamics. These concepts have been around for ages. Since 1906 we have acknowledged that we cannot know every state that every particle is in so we go on the probability of that state and make predictions based on the distribution. This is extremely accurate as there are millions of particles in a system making the probability calculations very reliable.

 

As for the implications in medicine you seem to be very vague with this so let me clarify. I have had 3 years’ experience in emergency medicine with experience in medical research and I’m now a second year undergrad in physics. In terms of the practicalities of medicine it certainly is far from an exact science. Truth is it’s only recently become evidenced based. Only recently have the proper scientists (mathematicians and physicists) come into medical research under their own disciplines. Through personal experience I have worked with many medical professors who can’t comprehend the probability of multiple die rolls. The average blood test is testament to the fact that we use chemical laws to predict patient outcomes in medicine. As for applying probability the most practical is the prevention of disease. Mathematical probability is booming in advanced measurements and monitoring of patients. There are a ton of diseases like cancer that can be easily dealt with if caught early. This isn’t done through probabilities of chemicals as there are too many factors. These are usually tackled by profiling such as people over a certain age, sex, gender medical history running in the family ect.

A quick grounding in the practically of medicine can be found in genetics. The link below talks about a study that got families with a clear history of clotting disorders (clots in every generation). They then screened them for every genetic clotting disorder that they knew of and only 50% of them tested positive for a genetic disorder that we know of. The practicality of this is that you can spend a ton of money screening your patient for every genetic disorder that we know of and you’ll still only have a 50% chance of knowing if they have a genetic disorder that will affect their blood clotting. Talking to them about their family history is a ton cheaper and more accurate.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfGbeOd70bQ

 

The reason why I have posted this lengthy reply to a post that has no real direction is that I think you should be encouraged. It’s your first post on this forum and anyone wanting to talk about science should be encouraged in my book. However, vaguely stating bits of science that’s been around for years and packaging it as if it was new and then vaguely stating that it has implications for medicine isn’t going to help anyone. I don’t know you but from this post it isn’t crazy to suggest that you should read up on maths and physics if you want to comment on these theories and shadow a doctor or a nurse if you want to comment on the implications of medicine.

[Greg H.]

These reactions seem to have some amazing properties that violate the way generally nature works, because as we know, nature tends to simplify things by increasing entropy and moving toward lower energy states.

 

This is probably the worst summation of how entropy works I have ever seen. Entropy will only increase within a closed system, which the earth, and every living thing on it, are not. With an outside energy source, such as the sun, or the heat from the earth's core, a system can, in fact, locally decrease entropy.

[minass]

Greg H:

Of course life is an open system and thats why i am arguing that chemical reactions on earth were becoming more and more in terms of numbers and complexity over time, instead of leading to equillibrium that would be the case if life was a closed system. Do you really believe that life forms were created as a result of local decreases in entropy? And if this happened once, what is the chance that it happened again and again in all the creatures?

And why do you think that living beings have low entropy states? Only because they have a survival capacity? Why is survival capacity so important? Maybe because of our perspective? Even random reactions would lead in a state in which those reactions that prevail would be those with repeatability and survival capacities in the long term. Through the eyes of the result of all these reactions, the system would be perceived as lowering its entropy.

 

Physica:

 

People think that because there are huge leaps in modern technology, there are also huge leaps in medicine as in every other science. The truth is that this is not the case for medicine. In fact, if you read a medical textbook back from the 1970s or 80s, you can see that very little has been changed in terms of what matters the most: the effectiveness of treatments. If you go to a hospital, you have almost exactly the same possibility to leave the hospital alive, as you had back in the 70s or 80s. In some case howeverthe prognosis is better, but definitely these cases don't overcome iatrogenic causes of death. Textbooks nowadays are double in size, but they are full of details and useless knowledge in terms of practical significance. I think that this problem will be more evident in the future.

What medical research does is to test a regimen if it poses positive effects for the organism, testing the statistical significance of the obtained results. If you exclude diseases causes my microorganisms that need to be killed, or diseases caused by the lack of a single substance, in fact most diseases especially in the elderly, are caused by multiple factors. Human is composed of trillions of chemical reactions that are replaced by others as we age. Elderly people become diseased because there is a general deregulation. The particular disease is only the edge of the iceberg. Even if we treat it, in a month the patient will be admitted for another reason.

My question is: No matter how many we understand, how can we reverse the whole process with a single regimen? How to stop a river with your finger?

I think that the current approach has no role in the future of medicine and the sooner we understand this the better. Medicine must become personalized and analyzed under mathematical and chemical rules. If human is a sum of random chemical reactions, this means that they can react predictably as a chemical automaton. Thus we can manipulate the whole system by controlling the first substrates (food) of the system. We dont even have to know all the reactions in the system.

Only the way the end products are changing depending on the quantity and quality of the first substrates. In the case of longevity and preventing aging, the goal is to maintain the system as unchanged as possible.

Don't you have a feeling that this will inevitably will be the face of medicine in the future?

[Ophiolite]

Greg H:

Of course life is an open system and thats why i am arguing that chemical reactions on earth were becoming more and more in terms of numbers and complexity over time, instead of leading to equillibrium that would be the case if life was a closed system.

I don't think anyone knowledgeable in these fields would disagree that "chemical reactions have increased in number and complexity", so why do you feel you need to argue this well accepted point? Sometimes we express this by speaking of emergent properties, especially in relation to complexity.

 

 

Do you really believe that life forms were created as a result of local decreases in entropy?

Would it not be more accurate to say that the emergence of life forms necessarily led to a decrease in entropy in the life-form, with a concomitant increase in energy in the environment? You seem to be asking us to place the cart-horse before the abiogenesis.

And if this happened once, what is the chance that it happened again and again in all the creatures?

Well we know that life forms routinely form a lower entropy "bubble". It happens with each act of procreation and subsequent ontogenesis.

 

 

And why do you think that living beings have low entropy states? Only because they have a survival capacity? Why is survival capacity so important? Maybe because of our perspective? Even random reactions would lead in a state in which those reactions that prevail would be those with repeatability and survival capacities in the long term. Through the eyes of the result of all these reactions, the system would be perceived as lowering its entropy.

You seem to be arguing with yourself here. Survival capacity is important since without survival there is no opportunity for reproduction and therefore no preservation of that unique genotype.

 

I feel that you are either trying to say something profound that I am, somehow, missing, or you are stating the trivial, to no avail. Perhaps you can clarify your thinking for me.

 

In fact, if you read a medical textbook back from the 1970s or 80s, you can see that very little has been changed in terms of what matters the most: the effectiveness of treatments.

I tend to lose confidence in the assertions of members when some of them are blatantly wrong.

 

Are you seriously suggesting, for example, that the survival rates from many cancers are much better now than forty years ago? Or am I seriously misinterpreting what you mean?

[Strange]

I think that the current approach has no role in the future of medicine and the sooner we understand this the better.

 

As you don't appear to know much about medicine, or the amazing advances made in recent decades, I am somewhat sceptical about your judgement.

 

 

Medicine must become personalized and analyzed under mathematical and chemical rules.

 

It already is: http://pcpgm.partners.org/about-us/PM (for example).

 

 

If human is a sum of random chemical reactions, this means that they can react predictably as a chemical automaton.

 

They are not random chemical reactions. An organism could not survive if that were the case.

 

As for reacting predictably, that is is true to some extent which is why modern medicine works at all. On the other hand, lib=ving organisms are incredibly complicated, with many interactions and feedback loops. So sometimes changing the chemical reactions at one point can have unwanted effects elsewhere (directly or indirectly) - hence "side effects".

 

I'm still not sure what your "new" idea is. We already know a lot about the chemistry involved in most aspects of metabolism, gene expression, various pathologies, etc.

 

What exactly are you adding?

Edited April 4, 2014 by Strange

[minass]

To Ophiolite and strange:

In a few words what I am trying to say:

I am arguing that evolution cannot simply explain everything. It is incomplete as a theory. For instance, it cannot explain how life was created in the first place. On the other hand, I am saying that given the fact that we (a sum of chemical reactions inside the system) are the reference frame for the phenomenon of life, can give us another perspective of the term evolution. This means that even if complex reactions near the surface of earth were actually random, in the long term, a sequence of events would have happened (as previously explained), that through the eyes of a sum of end reactions (like us), would be perceived as evolution (survival of the fittest reactions). In this case, evolution and natural history of random spontaneously occurring reactions seems to be the two different sides of the same coin.

As of what new does this different viewpoint offers apart from how life was created in the first place (Simply and clear, just spontaneously occurring random chemical reactions, without debates regarding entropy changes, extremely fortunate coincidents, etc..)?? hmm

Ophiolite:

Despite the fact that our point is not to accuse medicine, I will tell you this. Oncology is the area in which most research is conducted. All money goes there and it’s the area in which most progress was made during the past decades.

Despite the fact that our knowledge regarding cancer has dramatically increased, apart from some exceptions (e.g. imatinib, trastuzumab), the highly celebrated leaps in therapeutics, refers to statistically significant increases in progression free and/or overall survival of 2, 3, 4 or even 6 months.

Strange:

Personalized medicine already exists, but its only in its infancy. I am suggesting a different approach though.

[Moontanman]

I am arguing that evolution cannot simply explain everything. It is incomplete as a theory.

No in fact evolution is a "fact" you do not know what a theory is in science...

 

 

For instance, it cannot explain how life was created in the first place.

Abiogenesis is not part of the Theory of Evolution and while it doesn't have the overwhelming evidence that Evolution has abiogenesis is well supported and the investigation into abiogenesis is on going..

 

 

On the other hand, I am saying that given the fact that we (a sum of chemical reactions inside the system) are the reference frame for the phenomenon of life, can give us another perspective of the term evolution. This means that even if complex reactions near the surface of earth were actually random, in the long term, a sequence of events would have happened (as previously explained), that through the eyes of a sum of end reactions (like us), would be perceived as evolution (survival of the fittest reactions). In this case, evolution and natural history of random spontaneously occurring reactions seems to be the two different sides of the same coin.

Chemical reactions are not random, evolution is not random, where do you get this stuff?

 

As of what new does this different viewpoint offers apart from how life was created in the first place (Simply and clear, just spontaneously occurring random chemical reactions, without debates regarding entropy changes, extremely fortunate coincidents, etc..)??

Again, chemical reactions are not random...

 

Despite the fact that our point is not to accuse medicine, I will tell you this. Oncology is the area in which most research is conducted. All money goes there and its the area in which most progress was made during the past decades.

Citations please...

 

Despite the fact that our knowledge regarding cancer has dramatically increased, apart from some exceptions (e.g. imatinib, trastuzumab), the highly celebrated leaps in therapeutics, refers to statistically significant increases in progression free and/or overall survival of 2, 3, 4 or even 6 months.[Personalized medicine already exists, but its only in its infancy. I am suggesting a different approach though

What approach are you suggesting?

[minass]

Ok! The first 2 paragraphs in the OP were written very briefly, only to make a brief introduction. As I can see, I made a lot of errors while expressing myself, such as the following expression: evolution is incomplete as a theory.

But please don’t see the tree and miss the forest.

Of course chemical reactions are not random, as anything in this universe is not random.

But as a native English speaker, please help me find the right term. If you have a bottle with boiling water, then the water molecules that are moving inside the bottle are moving randomly or what? Of course, no movement is random as everything follows natural laws, but don’t you say that they move randomly if you want to say that they move purposelessly? Also, what would be the picture of the system through the eyes of a moving molecule? I want to use something analogous for a sum of billions of chemical reactions that just happen to occur randomly near the surface of earth.