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.
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
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.
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.
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
No it doesn't. If you do the chemical equations for respiration using carbon, you end up with CO2 as a waste product that's easy for an organism to get rid of since it's a gas. If you substitute silicon for carbon, the equations still work but you end up with SiO2 as a waste product -- sand -- a solid that's pretty much impossible for an organism to get rid of.
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
Do you have any examples of silica-based lifeforms to back that assertion?
Iron is more efficient in environments humans live in.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.