What is life?
| 16 September, 2010 | Richard P. Grant |
6
|
|
A couple of months ago I had the pleasure of interviewing Ernesto Di Mauro of the Universit
|
|
previous post6 thoughts on “What is life?”
Legacy comments are closed.
User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the post under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks.
Click here to post comment and indicate that you accept the Commenting Terms and Conditions.
As for me, Life is flux of energy trough a body that manipulates against the second law of thermodynamics, meaning – “fighting to raise the energy level in the system and to keep the order.
I suggest Professor Di Mauro and Darwinians review the contrarian arguments elaborated by the late Dr Leslie Orgel in a PLoS 2007 article regarding the implausibility of primordial evolution based on speculative “if pigs could fly” biochemistries. Another look at the complex interactions of the host of substrates and enzymes in a chart of Metabolic Pathways, familiar to most of biochemists, further illustrates the infinitesimal probability of energy to mud to maggots evolution in any time frame of seconds to megabillion years.
HR, M.S. chemistry
So Herman Ruter, M.S. …love jesus much?
Prof. Di Mauro suggestion or theory (or whatelse we may call it) is the classical solution for the “Origin of Life questio”. However, the probability of Di Mauro`s scheme to evolve is about 0.00000000000…………………. , and this has been already evaluated if my memories are still good, but no proof came out properly.
As for Herman Rutner one has a more reliable road for foreseeing a solution for this unbelievably hermetic problem.
I think one needs a project, a physical or physical-chemical project, that has not yet been devised. It could be that Physics has still not identified the physics that is needed to go fromm the “rock” to the “cell”. In a sense, all these molecules out of a cell are a “bit riocks”.
I shall come back to highly interesting matter in another occasion.
We have to continue thinking of it.
Wish all of you a pleasant day
Mario
Whence And Whither
2010 Update Concepts Of Life/Evolution
On Life’s Twist
A. Di Mauro’s RNA formation concept is great.
http://www.f1000scientist.com/2010/7/1/23/1/
But, a step further is required. How had the RNA become alive, i.e. how did it (1) uptake the sun’s radiation and how did it (2) catalytically use it to perform work, to keep augmenting its constrained energy by keeping augmenting its self-propagation, WHICH IS THE ESSENCE OF LIFE ?
THIS IS THE STILL MISSING TWIST IN THE BRANCHING OF LIFE FROM OTHER SURVIVING, ENERGY DIGESTING, MATTER SUCH AS BLACK HOLES. THIS TWIST IS THE BIOLOGICAL ENTITY “CULTURE”, LEARNING-ADAPTING, THE ESSENCE OF DARWINIAN EVOLUTION SINCE LIFE’S DAY ONE. THIS MUST HAVE BEEN THE CRUCIAL PROCESS TWIST, EVEN WITHOUT YET KNOWING ITS MECHANISM.
Or, is the mechanism of this twist known now?
It is now known how the RNAs, Earth’s primal organisms, adopt an enhanced energy event’s DNA conformation. But what is the mechanism of its recognizing the enhanced energy event? Does it derive from augmented RNA propagation and alternative splicing feedback loop, or is the augmented propagation a result of an energetic feature recognized by the RNA?
B. Ponder with plain commonsense, and stick to obvious data.
Sleep and chirality are data, evidence that RNAs ARE ORGANISMS, alive, that came into being and were active prior to evolution of biometabolism. RNAs are not just “genes in the organisms”. They are Earth’s base primal organisms. Plain and simple. Why complicate the obvious simple evident data?
Add to this the embarrassingly obvious evident data-based concepts of the dual cycle universe, with cosmic expansion as the driver of universal evolution, the continuous melee of mass formats for energy.
Our essential science interests should be the BASIC ESSENTIAL existential matters. Seek them carefully within the infinite number of mechanisms. Focus on the mechanisms that are rational evidence for the basic matters.
This is the opinion of an old-timer, a self-considered scientist, tired of the preposterous 20th-21st centuries technology culture and of the century-old corrupt science tradeunion-guild-establishment.
Dov Henis
(Comments From The 22nd Century)
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/user/profile/1655.page