Slashdot Mirror
The Origin of Life and the Hidden Role of Quantum Criticality
KentuckyFC writes One of the great puzzles of biology is how the molecular machinery of life is so finely coordinated. Even the simplest cells are complex three dimensional biochemical factories in which a dazzling array of machines pump, push, copy, and compute in a dance of extraordinarily detailed complexity. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how the ordinary processes of electron transport allow this complexity to emerge given the losses that arise in much simpler circuits. Now a group of researchers led by Stuart Kauffmann have discovered that the electronic properties of biomolecules are entirely different to those of ordinary conductors. It turns out that most biomolecules exist in an exotic state called quantum criticality that sits on the knife edge between conduction and insulation. In other words, biomolecules belong to an entirely new class of conductor that is not bound by the ordinary rules of electron transport. Of course, organic molecules can be ordinary conductors or insulators and the team have found a few biomolecules that fall into these categories. But evolution seems to have mainly selected biomolecules that are quantum critical, implying that that this property must confer some evolutionary advantage. Exactly what this could be isn't yet clear but it must play an important role in the machinery of life and its origin.
"Complexity" is a very subjective thing. It's solely determined by the intellectual capabilities of the person or people involved.
Just look at computer programming. We have smart people who understand C++. To them, it isn't complex. It's just a really powerful tool. Then we have less-smart people who use Ruby. They don't have the mental capacity or acuity to understand C++, so they see it as being complex. The complexity of C++ really just depends on who you are and what your mind is capable of working with.
It's totally the same for the SQL versus NoSQL issue. Some people are intelligent and totally capable of understanding and using SQL. They don't find it complex. But there are other people who lack the intellectual ability to comprehend SQL. To them, it's "complex". So to try to combat their inability to understand SQL, they come up with NoSQL and shenanigans like that. SQL itself isn't complex. It's just that some people find it to be complex, based on their limited intellect.
Complexity is subjective. While these biological phenomenon may appear difficult for some people to comprehend, they aren't really all that complex at all.
Is there someone more narcissistic than this guy?
The most obvious advantage why these cells would be preferred is communication. In Newtonian physics when you suddenly realize you are looking at a tiger in the bushes, it is just biological and chemical processes that get your body into fight or flight mode. So a chemical reaction can spread fear over your *entire* body in a split second? But if there was quantum communication going on, it more readily explains how the entire body can go from normal to fight or flight in a split second.
Personally, I find it interesting that ancient healing techniques focused on some type of unknown energy healing that was laughed at by modern science. And before it is all said and done, I think it is going to turn out not so crazy after all.
One of my favorite books is The Field, by Lynn McTaggart. Yeah, some of it may not be real science, but some parts of it may hold up under the microscope and change a few things. Maybe not, but it's a hell of a good read.
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
"One of the great puzzles of timepieces is how the clockwork machinery is so finely coordinated. Even the simplest wristwatches are complex three dimensional assemblies in which a dazzling array of gears, springs, bearings and escapements spin, oscillate, tick and tock in a dance of extraordinarily detailed complexity. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how the ordinary processes of Newtonian mechanics allow this complexity to self-emerge from random bits of metal, glass and stone given the losses that arise in much simpler machines."
I did my Ph.D. in physical chemistry, focusing on electron transport in DNA, proteins, and other organic molecules. I read the arxiv paper and found it almost incomprehensible from this perspective. There is no reference to existing models of electron transport in biological systems(*), and it's not clear that their "generalized fractal dimension" for a protein has anything at all to do with electron transport. While it's possible that this approach is just so revolutionary that it doesn't need to be grounded in what's already known/believed about this field, it's more likely that this is just pseudoscience. Further supporting this hypothesis is the existence of phrases like "Why life persists at the edge of chaos is a question at the very heart of evolution" in the text. Serious science doesn't need that kind of hype in the paper.
*except at the end where they reference a couple experimental papers that tangentially relate to this topic
Complexity is a real property of natural systems. Biological systems are highly complex by any measurable standard. Proteins and protein complexes are nanomachines that operate on principles that have no counterpart in modern technology, such as computers. Take a look at detailed maps of protein complexes like the ribosome, proteosome or F1/F0 particle in mitochondria, and how they operate and are regulated. They are extremely complex despite being only nanometers in size.
A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
Yeah me too... I want to ask him/her how many failed attempts it took to evolve this great decision... It does look like an infinity or similar number of attempts before one of them stuck... And then those other things that don't stick are still attempted even though the right one has already been chosen...
Question for religious people: where do unrepentant masochists go when they die?
The problem with arguments from personal incredulity is that the dumbest person in the room always wins.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Use Quantum and Bio-molecules in a sentence, Win!
Quantum criticality is a zero-temperature phenomenon, although it get's "blown up" by temperature into a quantum critical regime, where quantum fluctuations dominate over temperature ones. This typically doesn't survive into temperatures as high as the room temperature, but some people believe quantum critical point related to metal-insulator transition (the one they are talking about) gives rise to the "strange metal" phase of cuprate superconductors. This leaves me wondering - are those molecules supposed to be strange metals? Haven't found it in the paper.
idra, but is this like quantum tunneling? seems like the advantage whoul be similar to transistors? smaller the gate, the less energy required to switch on.?? hmmm
>>"But evolution seems to have mainly selected biomolecules that are quantum critical, implying that that this property must confer some evolutionary advantage. Exactly what this could be isn't yet clear but it must play an important role in the machinery of life and its origin."
A scientist should understand evolution sufficiently well to not use arguments like this.
Why are we carbon based and not silica based? Either works just fine. Evolution doesn't pick the "best" option, it picks a "functional" option. After something has proven to function, evolution stops caring (until it no longer functions). Why iron and not copper in our blood? Either works fine.
Why quantum critical "bio"molecules? Because they work. There is NO other criteria. They could be better than the alternative, they could be worse, they could be the same. But they work. That is all we can assert.
The Zoroastrians and Greeks called. They want their afterlife back. And it's not hard to imagine doing a better job of creation than Yahweh, especially with infinite power and knowledge to hand. Plus, sacrificing yourself to yourself to stop yourself from doing something you can freely chosse to do or not to do makes as much sense as a screen door on a spaceship, especially when it mostly doesn't work (and a bad weekend isn't much sacrifice...)
There ay be a God. I think there is. It's not the genocidal egomaniac of the abrahamic religions. If YOU want to spend eternity in Hell with it, be my guest, the sooner the better.
"However, if you happen to make it to heaven before I do, I'm going to insist on a room far away from yours." Which, since you will be exhibiting bigotry towards one of God's chosen, will get you dropped right down to hell. Nice journey.
Now ... researchers ... have discovered that the electronic properties of biomolecules are entirely different to those of ordinary conductors.
Ya, everyone already knows this - duh. That's why Voyager has bio-neural circuitry.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Fuck medium.com
So the article is saying basically this: this shit is complex. We already didn't understand it very well, but now we found a whole new angle from which we don't understand it so shit is even more complex and we're just letting you know that. We'll keep you posted, this will likely turn out to be even more hard to understand.
my friend dr alex hankey - someone who is himself slightly err critically stable shall we say - has written several papers on exactly this subject, well ahead of their time. from my understanding of conversations with him, criticality of biological systems is critical to life as well as consciousness. from his training which includes two PhDs, one in mathematics and one in physics (MIT and Cambridge), dr hankey actually had to invent a new form of quantum mechanics in order to properly do this justice: one which he calls "self-referral" i.e. it has a feedback loop on the quantum equation itself (just like in neural networks). yes i have asked him if he could write it up as a separate paper (just the QM enhancements) and he is in the process of doing that, but it is going to take time (yes i have told him it's really really important because his work could open up so many different areas: he knows already! it's complicated, and he has a lot going on).
but in a nutshell, if you think of the difference between "normal" math and "chaos" math, the difference is the same between QM and QM-enhanced that he had to invent in order to deal mathematically with critical-instability systems. so for example where normally if you go down in the number of dimensions you are dealing with, when you get to zero dimensions, "normal" math and "normal" QM goes haywire because you get 0/0 or possibly infinity/infinity and it's impossible to determine which and even guessing what the hell is going on is completely out of the question: QM-enhanced is, from what i can gather, actually able to still operate under these insane type of conditions - conditions which are part and parcel every day in dealing with critical instability points.
i believe there was a paper published (and announced here on slashdot) which said that in a neural network (or other system) which is at "criticality", you only need to change *one* bit of information in *one* entity anywhere within the system and the *entire state* of the system may change (i.e. react). now if you think about it, for cells this is really *really* important. think of a cell being attacked by a virus, or going cancerous. you'd, obviously, want the *entire* immune system to react to that, instantly, wouldn't you? otherwise it could well be far too late by the time the virus spreads to more than one cell. so it would make sense from an evolutionary perspective that any system of cells which did *not* react as a whole, instantly, if even a single cell was attacked, would be penalised in terms of successful survival compared to those systems of cells which did.
the next phase will be that the "regular" scientific community begins to catch up with the work on consciousness, the effect of homeopathic medicine and more, and dr hankey's work will be much more widely understood and respected beyond the very small community that currently even understands it. i do have to point out that it is very unfortunate that the language that he uses makes even a highly renowned traditionally-trained physicist's mind freeze and lock up, but, honestly, that's just how it is: if people don't want to be open to new ideas, you just have to be patient....
One of the great puzzles of biology is how the molecular machinery of life is so finely coordinated.
Is it? Surely the answer is that if it wasn't so "finely coordinated," it wouldn't work and you'd have a lump of goo, not a hamster.
Sounds like the sort of "puzzle" the creationist types like to invent to give their god a gap to live in.
extraordinarily detailed complexity.
By whose standards?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
As a former molecular biologist who happens to be in the middle of a course on the design/synthesis of biomolecular electronics (biological semiconductors, conductors, LEDs, solar etc.), I wonder if the solution isn't as simple as this:
Essentially all biomolecules are synthesized by enzymes. Most are acted upon by enzymes or have some enzymatic activity during their functional life. Quantum criticality could be a useful property to enhance binding and catalysis at enzyme clefts (or other active sites) by enhancing charge/electron transitions in/on a molecule. Criticality may allow transitions and thresholds to be sharper, snappier, more selective.
"Quantum criticality" is just a label we give to a group of mechanisms (and the structures that encourage them) based on some test. I might label the many things that scare my friend's neurotic but otherwise imposing German Shepard as "Fido-phobic". This category might even be scientifically interesting -- if pulling pranks or stealing from my friend were major scientific goals at this point in time. That doesn't mean that squeeze toys that groan, rubber cubes that bounce erratically, and electric toys that "awaken" at random or after a delay share a fundamental property. They simply have properties that have interesting effects toward a certain goal (keeping her dog from interfering in our hijinks)
that watches are not really all that complex. Nor do they ever evolve to better survive in a changing environment, or reproduce of their own accord. But (scientifically) the fact that we do not completely understand how something works does not mean that, a "God" must therefore have created it. The fact that we find something difficult to understand is not an excuse to abandon the Scientific Method, shrug our intellectually lazy shoulders, and attribute (said difficult to understand thing), to a creator...You are not suggesting we do...are you...really?
The USA is only 4X older than me...perspective
As an engineer and computer scientist, I can tell you that there will always be mysteries to understand, and to which the scientific method can be applied. But the mystery of the origin of life has, so far, resisted that method. In fact, we are getting further from a satisfactory materialistic explanation all the time. When cells were considered simple blobs of jelly, the complexity of life was barely conceivable as deriving from evolution. When DNA was discovered, and the existence of multiple digitally-encoded databases and programmed machines (my field) became apparent, the complexity was overwhelming for evolutionists. Epigentics -- the mathematical layering of information streams in DNA -- is completely unexplainable through evolution.
Atheists want to preclude the existence of God, as a prerequisite to the scientific method. But science is failing to explain the origin of life, and it's failing harder as time passes.
But evolution seems to have mainly selected biomolecules that are quantum critical, implying that that this property must confer some evolutionary advantage. Exactly what this could be isn't yet clear but it must play an important role in the machinery of life and its origin.
Why talk as though evolution has a purpose, a mind , as if evolution itself is some sentient being?
Stop anthropomorphizing or deomorphizing evolution. Evolution hates such talk. :-)
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
wj0ighuagherapnv; u0cu
has much more "entropic information" than
mary had a little lamb
(despite both being able to contain the same amount)
But the latter contains information, whereas the former doesn't.
This fake paper seems to have fooled you.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Which, since you will be exhibiting bigotry towards one of God's chosen, will get you dropped right down to hell. Nice journey.
More love and forgiveness from our loving and forgiving God then?
Gentlemen, I submit to you another shining example of the Salem Hypothesis.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
But Bruce never proved his hypothesis. He did not empirical studies. He analyzed no rigorous data. He made it up.
:)
Yet another religion
And the solar system is completely unexplainable with quantum physics, and particles are completely unexplainable with relativity. It doesn't mean we should just say "God does it", and be done.
And the solar system is completely unexplainable with quantum physics, and particles are completely unexplainable with relativity. It doesn't mean we should just say "God does it", and be done.
The idea that belief in God somehow interferes with scientific discovery is unfounded. Most scientists, until recent history, believed in God without conflict, and made great discoveries without seeing any inconsistency. Mendel, Kepler, Bacon, Descartes, Pascal, Newton, Faraday, Planck and many others handily disprove the idea that belief in God and science are mutually exclusive. Many living scientists today are happy to explain why they believe in God and don't see any conflict
So your statement "It doesn't mean we should just say "God does it", and be done." is actually true for both atheists and theists: we don't stop seeking truth because we believe in God, any more than atheist stops seeking truth because they have no reason for living.
Well, that's the ugliest Islamophobic attitude I've seen modded up to +5 in a while. How did Slashdot come to this disgusting bigotry? You realize billions of people disagree with you, and you didn't even take their feelings into account?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
It's very revealing how your only strategy is to try and pull everyone else down to the level of epistemological failure you yourself are wallowing in. I would bet you understand little or nothing of evolutionary theory, either. Or basic logic, Mr. Tu-Quoque.
Do yourself, and the rest of us, a HUGE favor and read a few good books on the subject before you spout off again. Every post you make makes you look more and more foolish to people who actually have background in this stuff. Your epistemology is bollocks too; you have no justification for any claim to knowledge in your worldview, as you believe the very laws of logic are contingent on your God, who has in several places in the Bible admitted to deceit.
And stop using Deist arguments ("Hey atheist, if there's no God, explain X!") as if they were Christian apologia. Even a cursory reading of the Bible reveals that your supposed God doesn't know a damn thing about the very universe he's created (and a closer reading, with some background in comparative myth, shows tremendous amounts of plagiarism from the Sumerians).
Yes, but aside from being flamebait, it's also complete nonsense. Complexity is a mathematical concept that can be measured, by definition it's objective. It has nothing to do with varying degrees of human comprehension. There's a whole branch of mathematics devoted to it called "complexity theory", much of which is closely related to computer science.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
any more than atheist stops seeking truth because they have no reason for living.
And here is where you reveal that you're trolling, rather than just making poor arguments.
too broad a brush. I am an Engineer, and can tell you that many of us hold to scientific discipline in solving engineering challenges. We do this without being atheist, or while being atheist as the individual case may be. Wanting something to be true, really badly wanting something to be true, in the absence of good, confirmed, triple checked, data, can be deadly. But really, anyone, of any profession, who attributes the unknown/unexplained to (a) God, are not (should not claim to be) scientists.
The USA is only 4X older than me...perspective
I don't think the Salem Hypothesis asserts all engineers are Creationists, just that as a professional group, engineering seems to produce more than its fair of Creationists.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Reread the sentence.
And yet engineers keep falling into the trap of thinking a. they're scientists and B. they have expertise and experience that give them some special insight into fields they really have no significant knowledge of.
It might be something if a chemical engineer with expertise in organic chemistry were to critique abiogenesis theories, but to have a guy with a degree in mechanical engineering and CS appealing to his own authority is precisely what the Salem Hypothesis speaks to.
It is dangerous enough when a scientist speaks to a field of research he has no expertise in, and some even brilliant career have ended on a sad note because of just that, but to have creationist engineers declaring that they have some special ability to declare a field of study wrongfooted is simply absurd.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Let's say 30% of the population are creationists.
Let's say 10% of Engineers are creationists, because creationists are less likely to pursue the field and/or because their education convinced them to no longer be creationists.
Let's say 1% of scientists are creationists, because creationists are less likely to pursue the field and/or because their education convinced them to no longer be creationists.
Result: Any creationist claiming to have a "science degree" has something like a 90% chance of turning out to have an engineering degree.... even though engineers are unlikely to be creationists.
That's the Salem Hypothesis. Creationists claiming science degrees tend to be engineers, even though engineers tend not to be creationists.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
EIther that, or I'm some kind of genius, which a lot of folks here will assure you I'm nuttin' of da kind.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
DNA is software. It's my field.
Are there any existing models of electron transport in biological systems?
Or.........
as a computer scientist you could look into the field of evolutionary algorithms, discover that evolution is an applied science used by half of Fortune 500 companies, discover how evolution does work, and write your own code and witness first hand that evolution works.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I actually do work with genetic and evolutionary algorithms, since routing on the Internet is a variant of the NP-hard Traveling Salesman Problem. But EAs are only inspired by Darwinian evolution, and just one aspect of evolutionary theory: natural selection. EAs perform their automated selection function in an ideal environment, where there is no loss of information, no friction, and no entropy. The selection function, however, is the crux of EA, and it must be devised by an intelligent programmer. EA selection algorithms do not "evolve" on their own.
In the end, nothing in EA proves anything about evolution, or vice-versa. The experimental realms are totally different.
A much more interesting application of biology to CS is DNA itself, as an information store, and protein construction as programmable machines. No evolution is involved, but the complexities of DNA has given great insight into practical massive computation methods. In particular, a novel proof of concept for solving an NP- hard path problem was devised by computer scientist Leonard Adleman, who employed the massive parallelism of polymerase chain reaction to simultaneously evaluate all possible paths. The final answer was literally spun out of the computation reaction with a centrifuge. This launched the field of DNA Computing.
It's not a matter of not keeping up with the field. This unreviewed manuscript just doesn't jive with what's already known about electron transfer in biomolecules, an area with five decades of empirical work completely ignored in the manuscript.
.: Semper Absurda
As a current biochemist, I do wonder why the paper doesn't even mention Marcus theory or other previous work in enzymatic charge transfers. There really are some sweet quantum effects in biology, like enzyme-catalyzed proton tunneling, but I think the unreviewed manuscript under discussion here is hokum.
.: Semper Absurda