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.

Comments

"Complexity" is very subjective.

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:"Complexity" is very subjective.

[pepty]

No, complexity is not subjective. You are just using a very casual definition for complexity in a discussion for which there is a much more precise definition. In this case, complexity is a quantifiable property of physical systems. This is true for your analogy as well: in CS one definition for complexity is the number of steps that it takes to solve an instance of the problem as a function of the size of the input. Read the wiki and try again.

Re: "Complexity" is very subjective.

[Anonymous Coward]

Meh, your brain is far more complex than a protein and somehow reactions to posts in this thread are very predictable, almost simple, as if most of you are just children.

Hard to compute != hard to understand

The Problem

[Ol Olsoc]

The problem with arguments from personal incredulity is that the dumbest person in the room always wins.

Re:The Problem

[Ol Olsoc]

So, you find the article's proposal... incredulous?

Do note that all scientific progress derives from a willingness to look at a given model (say, Newtonian mechanics, "Luminiferous Ether", the Copenhagen Interpretation) and say "I don't really believe that", though.

So you figure I said that people are not allowed to "not believe"?

Hell no!

If a person wants to have a different idea that's just fine. But the idea that a person can invalidate a whole lot of dat by saying "I simply cannot believe, and having their "I simply cannot believe be the crux of their argument - well now that's different.

If I were to say - "I look out, and the whole world doesn't look curved, I simply cannot believe it is round." or "Look how the sun, moon, and stars rotate around the earth - I simply cannot believe the earth is not the center of the universe." is no different than saying "Life is so complex - I simply cannot believe anyone other than My particular Deity made it" is the exact same thing.

There is a whole lot of evidence that the world is a globe.

There is a whole lot of evidence that the earth is not the center of the Universe.

There is a whole lot of evidence for life forms evolving, from fossils to DNA to biology, and all of the evidence fits into the timelines delivered by physics.

So no, someone saying "I simply cannot believe" means they cannot comprehend, not much else.

The dumbest person in the room.