Modern self-assembly theory of evolution

[gracy]

There is a sentence in the note of " modern self -assembly theory of evolution " as follows

"The accepted model of protobiogenesis suggests that information or proto-information flowed from amino acids in the geochemical matrix to protein in the first organism."

Please help me to comprehend these lines.

 

[phyzguy]

It sounds like meaningless pseudo-scientific babble to me. Do you have a reference?

 

[jim mcnamara]

Hmm. Without context this sounds a bit woo-woo to me, too. Please post a reference that we can access.

 

[equi_librium]

Well, the idea of "proto-information" is suspect but I think that it's possible to make some sense of what this sentence is attempting to convey. One way of defining life which is increasingly accepted (though not universally accepted) is to use information/complexity theory to model life as a process of information flow. Here are some links which may help you to understand this approach.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-physics-theory-of-life/
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20151119-life-is-information-adami/
https://www.yahoo.com/news/origin-life-needs-rethink-scientists-argue-000826792.html
and
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/life-rocky-start.html

I hope these links help.

 

[ogg]

Yeah, the sentence is suspect. First: there IS no "accepted model"! At least, if by "accepted" the author means accepted by the majority of experts in the field as being correct. Secondly, unless author has previously defined what s/he means by "proto-information", it is gibberish (or obfuscatory jargon). One of the more obscure assumptions of our Physics is the conservation of information. In the context where information can be neither created nor destroyed, the information "content" of a protein molecule must come from its precursors (as well as the process it was synthesized by). I personally see zero utility in envisioning biogenesis as a "flow" of information. I'm currently struggling to define the (scientific) term "life". Today, I'm thinking that it can't be done without context; that is: life(1), life(2),life(3),...where you have different scales, Scale(life(1))=4 billion years, Scale(2)= 1 generation, etc. (note different units)

 

[256bits]

I think the author is stating that life compounds arose from the "ground up", from the simpler molcules to the more complex.
As a general phrase, I would consider it OK. As a specific phrase on how life originated, then it is not the only viepoint on how a protocell formed and what constuents were of the protocell.

 

[MRBlizzard]

If memory serves me correctly, the theory goes like this. Cellular automata can be made from the interplay of charges on the surfaces of clay particles.

If these automata* arise, then they can eventually manipulate their environmental chemistry to their own ends: procreation, or memory, or exploration ...

The environmental chemistry was thought to be proteins, but, of course, it may be RNA or polysaccharides.
Eventually the chemical automata become self serving and form the first cells.

* I believe many of us have seen short news notices about apparently solid state, nano/micro particles that are found both underground and in life forms. I think the last news was from a biology lab in Australia.

 

[Fervent Freyja]

Hmm. Without context this sounds a bit woo-woo to me, too. Please post a reference that we can access.

Yep, they introduce this in molecular evolution courses. This is really how they describe the formation of life to students. I don't blame them for being confused.

 

[gracy]

geochemical matrix to protein in the first organism."

What is "geochemical matrix" ?

 

[russ_watters]

gracy, please provide a reference where you go that quote.

 

[256bits]

Yep, they introduce this in molecular evolution courses. This is really how they describe the formation of life to students. I don't blame them for being confused.

It certainly can't be a freshman course.

 

[gracy]

gracy, please provide a reference where you go that quote.

It's in notes made by my instructor.

 

[gracy]

What is "geochemical matrix" ?

Geochemical matrix is the inert portion of Live Rock. But I don't think this definition fits here.

 

[phyzguy]

Geochemical matrix is the inert portion of Live Rock. But I don't think this definition fits here.

What is "Live Rock"? Do you mean to say rock that is alive? Also where are there amino acids inside rocks? Again, the whole quote makes no sense to me.

 

[MRBlizzard]

Fervent Freyja

Could you please provide a reference to research on the replicating solid state particles. I've looked for references, even among my saved files (probably was before this computer). I don't even know what they are named.

Thanks,
MRBlizzard

 

[Fervent Freyja]

Fervent Freyja

Could you please provide a reference to research on the replicating solid state particles. I've looked for references, even among my saved files (probably was before this computer). I don't even know what they are named.

Thanks,
MRBlizzard

The word "replicating" doesn't mean anything with this, maybe you meant self-replicating molecules? "Solid state" and "particles" may have been used together to distinguish terminology in something you read. I hope it isn’t a discipline… that may cause a person to begin seizing upon reading it.

If you really aren’t kidding, try looking around for studies in active soft condensed matter physics, much of it is recent and the unification is lovely. I may start referring to people as “a lovely system of self-propelling particles” to get some reactions.

What is "Live Rock"? Do you mean to say rock that is alive? Also where are there amino acids inside rocks? Again, the whole quote makes no sense to me.

“Information” refers to thermodynamics of the early earth. “Flow” refers to exchanges in the system. The “geochemical matrix” refers to the steady state of the solid matter components of earth, which also includes ocean floor sediment…I know, it is confusing, but her Professor may have intended it that way for good reason. Not sure if I want to inject myself further on that sort of model and make it worse.

 

[Fervent Freyja]

Yeah, the sentence is suspect. First: there IS no "accepted model"! At least, if by "accepted" the author means accepted by the majority of experts in the field as being correct. Secondly, unless author has previously defined what s/he means by "proto-information", it is gibberish (or obfuscatory jargon). One of the more obscure assumptions of our Physics is the conservation of information. In the context where information can be neither created nor destroyed, the information "content" of a protein molecule must come from its precursors (as well as the process it was synthesized by). I personally see zero utility in envisioning biogenesis as a "flow" of information. I'm currently struggling to define the (scientific) term "life". Today, I'm thinking that it can't be done without context; that is: life(1), life(2),life(3),...where you have different scales, Scale(life(1))=4 billion years, Scale(2)= 1 generation, etc. (note different units)

This is actually valid. It seems to be more in use for nanotechnology. You should also remember that concepts have other purposes and it helps to know why and how it is applied before assuming. This model certainly isn't intended to give an ultimate definition.