Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by timothy on from the non-instant-soup dept.

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."

4 of 270 comments (clear)

  1. Evolution is a Process. by headkase · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."

    --
    Shh.
  2. Re:what is a living molecule? by John+Hasler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > molecules can live?

    You are molecules. Do you live?

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  3. Re:what is a living molecule? by cyborg_zx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re:what is a living molecule? by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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"

    --
    Table-ized A.I.