Origin of Life: Two theories I have heard of lately

[Guardsman Bass]

The first one is based on emergent laws of complexity. The hope by researchers in this avenue, is that by combining random processes with some self-organizing capabilities, that self-replicating molecules may form and then increase in complexity. This is the view that Paul Davies(discreetly) advocates in his book The Fifth Miracle:The search for the origin and meaning of life.


The second is based on quantum mechanics. One way in this avenue was suggested that DNA is somewhat like an aperiodic "quasi-crystal" where the pattern of atoms nevers repeats. This means that in order for such crystals to form, they need some form of self-organizing capability. Roger Penrose suggested that subtle nuances of quantum mechanics, and possibly quantum gravity, might play a role. The second is quantum computation. This view is advocated by Johnjoe McFadden in his book Quantum Evolution.
His view is that in an isolated "pond" where all the amino acids needed to form something similar to a self-replicating peptide that has been discovered are present, until the "pond" is measured and collapses back into classical reality, it is like Schrodinger's Cat experiment(where until the box containing the cat is opened and measured, the cat is both dead and alive simulataneously). When the pond is measured, one combination out of the 10^32 possible combinations of the 32 needed amino acids will remain.

I may have explained these badly so I would suggest you read the books: Paul Davies' book The Fifth Miracle, and Johnjoe Mcfadden's book Quantum Evolution.(By the way, these books were published in 1999 and 2000 respectively, so I am unsure if they are outdated or not)

[Guardsman Bass]

I am curious what the official view is on all of this, and if Davies is considered correct in stating that the odds against the formation of one of the possible self-replicating molecules are so astronomical that if it was purely arranged by chance it will have occurred only once in the visible universe.

p.s. Please don't consider me an idiot if this all turns out to be incorrect; I am merely reporting what I have read.

[Zoink]

[quote="Guardsman Bass"]I am curious what the official view is on all of this, and if Davies is considered correct in stating that the odds against the formation of one of the possible self-replicating molecules are so astronomical that if it was purely arranged by chance it will have occurred only once in the visible universe.
quote]

Which is sufficient to explain how we came to be. If there is only one planet with life in the entire universe... we'd have to be it.

[Mr Bean]

Never belive the Creationist Probability Aurgment

Fokes time you learned that 10^32 number is quite a bit less because
The dice are loaded
There simply are certain ways amino acids combine and they ONLY combine in these ways, they don't do it willy nilly randomly, they are geared towards only certian sequences, these being, suprize suprize, tilted towards forming life

[Wicked Pilot]

There simply are certain ways amino acids combine and they ONLY combine in these ways, they don't do it willy nilly randomly, they are geared towards only certian sequences, these being, suprize suprize, tilted towards forming life

The Bean man is right, chemical reactions are not random. If you combine CH4 and 2O2, you will get CO2 and 2H2O. There is no other outcome, it is not random.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Never belive the Creationist Probability Aurgment

Fokes time you learned that 10^32 number is quite a bit less because
The dice are loaded
There simply are certain ways amino acids combine and they ONLY combine in these ways, they don't do it willy nilly randomly, they are geared towards only certian sequences, these being, suprize suprize, tilted towards forming life

For that matter, 10^32 isn't a lot. Say you had a random mixture of Carbon, Oxygen and Hydrogen with a mass of 100 grams. And each atom reacted with another atom every second, by the end of the year more than 10^32 such reactions would take place.

[SirNitram]

Einstein would roll over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded!

[Gil Hamilton]

This is a fun one.
Take a deck of cards. Shuffle it throughly. Now draw the cards one at a time and write down the result. In the end, you should have a list of 52 cards. Now calculate the odds of you drawing that specific order. Gor blimey! It's a 1 out of 8.066e67 chance of happening! If we use creationist logic, it must have been divinely guided since the odds of you drawing that order is fantastically unlikely. Do it again. Egads! Another 1 out of 8.066e67 chance event! God is truly with you! There must be a God guiding your actions, or such an event happening twice was just pure luck and given the odds pure luck just doesn't happen that way (incidently, don't calcute the odds of doing it twice, my computer calculator gave me the message "Operation will take a very long time, do you wish to continue?").

Of course, what the argument doesn't tell you is that there are 8.066e67 possible outcomes, so you have a 100% chance of getting a 1 out of 8.066e67 result every time. In order for the argument to have any meaning you need to know the amount of possible outcomings. If you assume there is only outcome, you can all sorts of wacky numbers. Thats the problem with the argument. It assumes that comtemporary life is the only possible form of life and therefore its a miracle. But without knowing how many forms of life there are possible, it's meaningless. For all we know, life could be damn near inevitable simply be virtue of it being possible at all.

[Peregrin Toker]

The second is based on quantum mechanics. One way in this avenue was suggested that DNA is somewhat like an aperiodic "quasi-crystal" where the pattern of atoms nevers repeats. This means that in order for such crystals to form, they need some form of self-organizing capability. Roger Penrose suggested that subtle nuances of quantum mechanics, and possibly quantum gravity, might play a role. The second is quantum computation. This view is advocated by Johnjoe McFadden in his book Quantum Evolution.
His view is that in an isolated "pond" where all the amino acids needed to form something similar to a self-replicating peptide that has been discovered are present, until the "pond" is measured and collapses back into classical reality, it is like Schrodinger's Cat experiment(where until the box containing the cat is opened and measured, the cat is both dead and alive simulataneously). When the pond is measured, one combination out of the 10^32 possible combinations of the 32 needed amino acids will remain.

Is it just me, or does that sound like a bunch of pseudoscientific babble???

[Guardsman Bass]

First, I would like to say thanks for the enlightenment.

Second, I would like to explain on the first suggestion for the quantum mechanical theory. A aperiodic crystal is a molecular structure stable enough to retain its form, but complex enough to store a lot of information. Here's where the quasi-crystal comes in. A quasi-crystal is an aperiodic crystal with a five-fold symmetry; this means it looks the same when rotated through 72 degrees. However, it can be proved that the pattern of atoms forming the crystal never repeats itself. Roger Penrose proved that an infinite wall can be tessellated using a fat and thin rhombus; normally you can not tesselate a wall using pentagons. Think of a quasi-crystal as a 3-dimensional analogue of that tessellated wall. Because of the five-fold symmetry, a quasi-crystal has very little information in its orientation, but an unlimited amount in its linear aperiodic sequence. (note: I quoted most of this from the book Quantum Evolution. Feel free to pick holes in it if you wish)

[Durandal]

Most people just don't realize how staggeringly large the universe is, and just how many galaxies are present. There are hundreds of millions of galaxies, each with billions of stars which may or may not have a planet circling them that is capable of supporting life. Even if the odds were infinitesimally small, the universe is infinitely large, so life will happen somewhere. It's had plenty of time (billions of years), so it's no surprise that life sprang up somewhere. We're not as "miraculous" as most people think. There's nothing in the emergence of life which defies natural processes, so it's inaccurate to describe life as a miracle.