Slashdot Mirror
Should Science Rethink the Definition of "Life"?
ambermichelle pointed out a story about the search for life on other planets, and the likelihood that it would be much different than what we find on Earth. With the increase of extremophile discovery in recent years perhaps it's time to reassess what the definition of "life" should be. "In November 2011, NASA launched its biggest, most ambitious mission to Mars. The $2.5 billion Mars Science Lab spacecraft will arrive in orbit around the Red Planet this August, releasing a lander that will use rockets to control a slow descent into the atmosphere. Equipped with a 'sky crane,' the lander will gently lower the one-ton Curiosity rover on the surface of Mars. Curiosity, which weighs five times more than any previous Martian rover, will perform an unprecedented battery of tests for three months as it scoops up soil from the floor of the 96-mile-wide Gale Crater. Its mission, NASA says, will be to 'assess whether Mars ever was, or is still today, an environment able to support microbial life.' For all the spectacular engineering that's gone into Curiosity, however, its goal is actually quite modest. When NASA says it wants to find out if Mars was ever suitable for life, they use a very circumscribed version of the word. They are looking for signs of liquid water, which all living things on Earth need. They are looking for organic carbon, which life on Earth produces and, in some cases, can feed on to survive. In other words, they're looking on Mars for the sorts of conditions that support life on Earth. But there's no good reason to assume that all life has to be like the life we're familiar with. In 2007, a board of scientists appointed by the National Academies of Science decided they couldn't rule out the possibility that life might be able to exist without water or carbon. If such weird life on Mars exists, Curiosity will probably miss it."
Life is defined as something that feeds and reproduces.
The requirement for water or carbon is not part of the definition, it's simply properties we thought all life forms had.
FTA: Simply, Life is "self-reproduction with variations" - like mutating computer viruses?
Sure, life in the universe COULD be different than our carbon-based, water-needing forms. But there are restrictions on how many detectors etc. you can package on one rover. Given that difficult decisions need to be made in regards to equipping our search for life, it makes sense to search for life in a form that we are 100% sure exists at least one place in the universe.
Overly inclusive perhaps, but life could generally be defined as the ability to actively resist entropy (maintain low entropy) coupled with a method of passing that ability along. You could say that crystal structure represent a low entropy state, but they have no method to actively propagate it or pass it along other than growing. Throw out counter arguments at will, but I say it's pretty good.
Life is anything that dies when you stomp on it.
Or, my personal favorite: Life is a monosyllabic morpheme consisting of a fronting diphthong followed by a labio-dental voiceless fricative.
On my planet, 'replicating' involves producing identical offspring (or nearly so.) If your method of reproduction involves a continual reduction in mass, we may need to rethink how the dictionary works.
In all seriousness, though, the definition of 'life' taught to young scientists doesn't proscribe any particular construction materials; hence this article (or at least this summary) is deceptive. The requirements are:
1. Homeostasis. It must make a detectable effort to maintain the conditions of its internals, and to adjust to changes in its environment.
2. Reproduction. It must be capable of creating copies of itself (or approximate copies of itself.)
3. Evolution. Its offspring must be able to adapt to changes in the environment through to natural selection.
That being said, there are circumstances in which some of these are suspended, like ancient trees and soldier ants that can't reproduce but are most definitely alive. The maintenance of an internal environment (homeostasis) is considered the most important, and the primary reason scientists have hesitated to consider transposons and viruses to be alive, even though they can reproduce and evolve.
Outside of these guiding principles, though, biologists really have no problem with the Enterprise running into plasma filament creatures, or Doctor Chaotica's henchmen duking it out with photonic life forms (although physicists might.) We're very good at pointing out flaws with some of these ideas (like "silicon is extremely bad at supporting life when compared with carbon") but that doesn't mean chemical evolution will never find a way to do it anyway.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Actually, a rock falling and breaking IS evolution. Evolution simply means change. What it is not is genetic replication.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Perfect replication + deliberate error mechanisms = evolution. Evolution has a tolerance rate; too many mutations too quickly and your evolutionary magic turns into lethal dysfunction. The rate of evolution for E. coli, for example, is a few orders of magnitude smaller than 1/(the number of nucleotides), which means that most of the time the offspring are a perfect match. Relatedly, humans manifest a substantial number of new point mutations when the gametes are formed, but have a much lower rate when producing somatic cells through mitosis. It's replication with a very small p-value. The article discusses the thermodynamic inevitability of mutation, if you're genuinely interested.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Why would we care? We have a hard enough time communicating and getting along with those beings who we share 99.9999% of the same DNA with. Imagine trying to talk to some blob of silicon that is trying to say hello with ionizing radiation.
They are looking for organic carbon, which life on Earth produces and, in some cases, can feed on to survive.
This is likely to trigger red flags in the minds of a lot of people with biological training. Just what is "organic carbon"? That's a media phrase that isn't too well defined in scientific circles. There's a great variety in the "organic" carbon chemistry of our world. But we should expect that any life on other worlds, even if it uses carbon, will produce compounds and radicals that are different and/or more varied than what we see here.
Another problem is that astronomers long ago pointed out a probable path for Earth bacteria colonizing the rest of our solar system, and possibly beyond. Earth has a thin "dust tail" produced by the same solar light pressure that produces comet tails. This is a problem for some kinds of astronomical observations in the plane of the solar system, since our dust tail reflects back back to us. Anyway, back in the 1970s, satellite and upper-atmosphere probes verified the presence of both fine dust particles and bacterial spores at all altitudes. The planet's dust tail thus contains such dust and spores. So the Earth has been contaminating the outer solar system with bacterial spores, presumably for some billions of years. We don't know whether any of those bacteria can survive on the outer planets. But the default assumption should be that some of them have, and have adapted to some degree over those billions of years to their new environments. Maybe they have; maybe they haven't. But if we find Earth-like bacteria out there, they probably came from here.
Some astronomers have also calculated out that part of our dust tail (and comets' tails) escapes the solar system. So we've been contaminating the galaxy with bacterial spores for billions of years. A billion years is around 4 or 5 orbits of the galaxy, up to 20 or so orbits since life arose here. The chaotic nature of galactic dynamics mean that our dust has spread through the entire galaxy, as has the dust from other planets with atmospheres.
This argument is more often used by the "panspermia" supporters, who point out that life from anywhere else in the galaxy could have colonized Earth in its early years, since the galaxy is around 13 billion years old, while our solar system is only about 1/3 that age. But some astronomers use it to explain how earthly life could have colonized the rest of the galaxy before humans evolved here. And, of course, both could be true.
Of course, the main problem with all this is that we have no data on how well bacterial spores can survive the millennia in interstellar space. Probably not well, but it doesn't take a whole ecosystem to establish a colony. For bacteria, it only requires one spore (and hundreds of millions of years ;-).
Probably the best prediction is that eventually, some probe will find a few bacteria on Mars and/or other planets, and they'll be somewhat similar to bacteria on our planet. This will raise more questions than it answers, as is common in most scientific fields.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
James Lovelock came up with a perfectly good definition that doesn't stipulate any specific chemistry - he merely stated that life is that which will actively sustain a dynamic equilibrium when the non-living parts of the system passively change*. (He also argued that the distinction between living and non-living was stupid anyway, since there are too many inter-dependencies to make such a distinction in a productive way. Since his work forms the backbone of almost all modern life science, it seems pointless NASA resorting to definitions of "life" that have been considered obsolete for a decade or more.)
Indeed, Lovelock's theories on life are exceptionally useful to astronomers, because you CAN monitor the chemistry of the atmosphere of an exoplanet and you CAN monitor things like the solar radiation it gets. You can therefore utilize Lovelock's work to determine if the planet has life on it or not, remotely, without any regard whatsoever to the chemistry of that life or the mechanisms it utilizes.
*The basis of Lovelock's definition is that all life MUST geo-engineer. It has to, with no exceptions. That goes for viruses, bacteria, algae, etc. Not only must it geo-engineer, but in order for a system to be in dynamic equilibrium, the geo-engineering HAS to contain a negative feedback loop. The mere presence of life will alter the planet, but if it were to alter it without creating a dynamic equilibrium it would necessarily create a positive feedback loop that would destroy itself. In his view, you cannot treat the geology, the meteorology and the biochemistry as distinct fields - they interact and compartmentalizing will never let you understand the processes going on.
Analyzing soil samples will help on Mars but really it shouldn't be necessary. Dormant's another matter. If life exists in an active form, there will be variables that are held to a value and do not passively fluctuate with the seasons. If life *ever* existed on the planet, then the chemistry of the rocks will show that variables were held to a specific value and did not fluctuate with the seasons. The geology will record the feedback processes that all life (in this model) must have. The soil samples would let you identify what that life was/is, and to understand HOW it operated, but to merely detect if it was there to begin with you need look no further than the chemistry of the sedimentary rock we already know exists on Mars.
That is, if his theory is correct.
Evidently, despite the views of the life sciences, NASA is not following this path. Ergo, NASA thinks that despite the fact that it doesn't know what to look for, it shouldn't look where Lovelock said. I would hope they have a really good reason -- it's exceptionally bad science to ignore the prevailing theory, particularly if you have none of your own. They have to be rejecting his theory because if they accepted it then they wouldn't need to care about carbon, water, etc. They'd merely need to care about whether the chemistry could or could not be explained by passive processes alone. What the process was would simply not matter.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
We classify viruses in the same way we classify living organisms, but there's still a lot of debate about whether or not they're alive. I could come up with a half-baked underslept computer analogy, but just going to Wikipedia would probably be more useful.
Regarding #2: a truly reliable and perfect form of biological reproduction is asymptotically impossible due to thermodynamics (this is mentioned in the article.) Assuming 'nearly perfect' = 'perfect', I meant 'approximate' to refer to complex mechanics like sexual reproduction, where the traits of multiple parents are mixed, and random evolution is enhanced.
Regarding #3: It means the organisms produced by mutation must be sufficiently different for natural selection to act upon them. A photocopy machine operating repeatedly in the absence of humans will produce imperfect copies, but no one cares.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Well, that's what I get for oversimplifying things for the Slashdot audience and not remembering lectures verbatim from four years ago. But you may want to take your ad hominems out back and shoot them: the Wikipedia page is somewhat more thorough, and includes organization, which is the critical quality that rules out fire. To be living, an organism must do all of these things (evolve, adapt, reproduce, respond to stimuli, and maintain its internal environment) through orderly, controlled means. In standard organic Terran terms, that means metabolic chemical pathways.
And for your information, the exceptions I listed aren't exactly classic exceptions. The question of whether viruses constitute life is under debate, and sterile organisms are essentially modifications of other members of their species, which are very much capable of reproduction.
Finally, the definition is supposed to be used to differentiate large groups of phenomena from life, and has widely been recognized as inexhaustive and incomplete for a long period of time. You expect too much of experimental science if you believe that a scientific definition must be so rigourous.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
I think this is actually a physical chemistry talking point, so don't feel too bad. :) When a chemical reaction occurs, very rarely is it an instant on/off thing caused during a single, instantaneous collision. Most reactions take a number of steps, each of which has a certain probability of occurring. Misreactions also have a small probability of occurring, albeit generally lower; in organic chemistry every reaction has a percent yield and needs purification afterward (an imperfect process.) Because of all this, reaction as complex as a biological enzyme binding, modifying, and then releasing its substrate can take many, many attempts (I don't have the magnitude on hand, but you can bet it's many times larger than a billion molecular vibrations) before it occurs, and is never perfect. To make things worse, the reproduction of DNA requires multiple enzyme reaction steps per nucleotide, and one of the steps is responsible for verifying that the nucleotide being inserted is correct. There are additional steps on top of things that try to do proofreading, but since everything is error-prone, the whole process can, ultimately, fail.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
... a labio-dental voiceless fricative.
I don't know why, but I feel a little dirty after reading that.... Is that, like, Latin porn or something?
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
According to your definition of life, all my hard disks are alive!
What you have missed: 1. perception of proximity, sensing 2. behavioral intent
There you are, staring at me again.
One word : Parasites
They are highly evolved to a specific environment, but are simplified often to an absurd degree as they do away with unnecessary organs and structures ...
They do not retain information they deliberately lose it, they are not "higher" except in the sense that they are as efficient as possible (which is all evolution produces, a best fit for an environment)
Puteulanus fenestra mortis