"Immortal Molecule" Evolves — How Close To Synthetic Life?

An anonymous reader writes with word of ongoing work at Scripps Research Institute: "Can life arise from nothing but a chaotic assortment of basic molecules? The answer is a lot closer following a series of ingenious experiments that have shown evolution at work in non-living molecules."

Comments

what is a living molecule?

[meow27]

"evolution at work in non-living molecules."

molecules can live?

ok just making sure :)

Re:what is a living molecule?

[John Hasler]

> molecules can live?

You are molecules. Do you live?

Re:what is a living molecule?

[cyborg_zx]

Composition fallacy: the properties of the whole are the same as its parts.

Example: a watch can keep time therefore a cog can keep time.

Re:what is a living molecule?

[Tablizer]

Except for the metabolism bit which viruses also lack.

At the C2 wiki a mad debate once broke out[1] about the definition of "life". What I've come to conclude based on my participation is the borderline is probably inherently fuzzy. Some things are "half alive". It's not a Boolean concept but rather a continuum, or at least many variables that we as humans have conveniently, and perhaps naively, packaged together into the mental concept called "life".

[1] I was about to say "lively debate"

Re:what is a living molecule?

[MrNaz]

He did also say "while we compute". None the less I actually agree with your point; it is obvious that you have the equivalent amount of computing power as the average iceberg.

Evolution is a Process.

[headkase]

Evolution is a process, it applies equally well to many substrates. Organic molecules are one of the classes and many other phenomena can be described in evolutionary terms. If you go to an extreme you can say the all structures in our Universe are evolved with the loosest definition of Evolution as: "Change over time."

Re:Evolution is a Process.

[thms]

I would not follow you to that extreme. For some substrate to evolve it has to be able to replicate itself, i.e. locally work against entropy. The following steps of mutation due to imperfect copies and selection are then simple or even self-evident. I wonder if you could call the process before that point a competition between non-replicating substrates to become the first one to replicate itself.

And if science finally manages to crack the abiogenesis nut there, I can still appease those of more religious conviction that a simple god has to build everything himself, but that awesome being you worship made the universe so that life and thus us just sprung from its ingenious rules.

Re:Evolution is a Process.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

More interestingly, something resembling the much tighter definition that applies to biology is also applicable to a fair few situations:

If you have a set of entities capable of some analog of reproduction(whether those be organisms, these catalyst molecules, or religions that spawn sects), a source of variation(whether it be genetic mutation, stochastic thermal buffeting in the test tube, or people dreaming up new rituals and scriptural interpretations), and some sort of selective pressure(whether it be predation and starvation, running out of substrate molecules, or a combination of competition for converts and outright violence), you can have an essentially "evolutionary" process in a manner quite similar to the biological one.

"Change over time" applies essentially universally; but is so much more limited that it is barely of interest. The surprisingly broad reach of nearly-biological evolution, with its interesting features, is quite notable, though.

God who is not God.

[headkase]

The older I get the more I wonder about the relationships in our Universe. Now, it may just be cognitive cob-webs but who is to actually say that God is not waiting for us beyond the last theorem? Physics is not complete yet so isn't it hubris to proclaim that there is no God without a complete understanding of where our Universe came from? I am finding it more difficult to remain an atheist to the point that I have become an igtheist as I have gained more life experience. Just because most of what the world pushes on you as the concept of "God" is complete crap does not mean that "God" does not exist. The definition is where the meat lies. Perhaps someday physics will be complete assuming the incompletness theorem doesn't prevent that and we will know for sure. Until then, don't be so cock-eyed and smug in your "logical" denial.

you have that burden of proof on backwards

[misanthrope101]

who is to actually say that God is not waiting for us beyond the last theorem? Physics is not complete yet so isn't it hubris to proclaim that there is no God without a complete understanding of where our Universe came from?

You are getting the issue sort of backwards. You are asking for evidence of a negative--evidence that God does NOT exist, and since proving a negative is impossible (disregarding logical impossibilities, like square circles), it's no wonder that you're coming up short. The issue is whether or not there is any reason TO believe.

I am finding it more difficult to remain an atheist

Have you found it more difficult to continue not believing in Zeus, Thor, Quetzalcoatl, etc? It's not in dispute that there are many things about the universe that we do not understand. I just don't see how "I don't know" maps to "God did it." Ignorance is not a theological argument.

Just because most of what the world pushes on you as the concept of "God" is complete crap does not mean that "God" does not exist.

Isn't that just as true of all the other gods? I'm an atheist because I see no reason to believe in God, not because I claim to have total knowledge of the universe and can definitively tell you that there is no God. Please stop acting as if atheists are the one making untenable knowledge-claims. Theism is the claim that God exists, and atheism is just skepticism towards that claim. The burden of evidence still rests on the theists, just as it always does for the person making the claim.