Novel Idea on the Origin of Life

In summary: This self-organizing behavior is a central part of many other physical systems as well, and it's connected to the very process of entropy itself.So the proposal is that life is a self-organizing system that is driven to dissipate energy, but it's not necessarily efficient at doing so. However, it is more efficient than non-life at dissipating energy. So the theory is that life evolved as a way to more efficiently dissipate energy.
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #3
This sounds overmathed to me, based on two dubious starting assumptions. To put a finer point on it: humans are terribly inefficient users of energy - and so what?
 
  • Like
Likes mfb and Silicon Waffle
  • #4
russ_watters said:
humans are terribly inefficient users of energy
You mean the human body?
 
  • #5
zoobyshoe said:
You mean the human body?
Yes, them too.
 
  • Like
Likes 1oldman2
  • #6
russ_watters said:
Yes, them too.
OK. I'm baffled by your post. In the sense that, I don't understand what you were trying to say.
 
  • #7
zoobyshoe said:
OK. I'm baffled by your post. In the sense that, I don't understand what you were trying to say.
To be perfectly frank, I'm not sure what to do with that. Sorry.
 
  • #8
russ_watters said:
This sounds overmathed to me,
What does "overmathed" mean?
based on two dubious starting assumptions.
Which are?
To put a finer point on it: humans are terribly inefficient users of energy -
Wouldn't that fact support the theory?
and so what?
"So what?' that humans are terribly inefficient users of energy, or "so what?" to the whole theory?[/QUOTE]
 
  • #9
russ_watters said:
To put a finer point on it: humans are terribly inefficient users of energy - and so what?
Isn't that the point behind the article?

You say "users of energy", but that concentrates on the useful portion - as in: getting something done. If life turns potential chemical energy into waste heat, yet accomplishes very little in the process, that's actually a pretty good entropy generator, is it not?
 
  • Like
Likes collinsmark and zoobyshoe
  • #10
DaveC426913 said:
Isn't that the point behind the article?

You say "users of energy", but that concentrates on the useful portion - as in: getting something done. If life turns potential chemical energy into waste heat, yet accomplishes very little in the process, that's actually a pretty good entropy generator, is it not?
Yes, that's the way I read the article as well.
 
  • #11
zoobyshoe said:
What does "overmathed" mean?
You can use math to say anything, but that doesn't mean the math is meaningful. I think this person did a lot of math that led to a conclusion that doesn't have anything to do with reality because it was never based in reality to begin with.
Which are?
The two points that came next:
Wouldn't that fact support the theory?
No: the premise was that life seeks efficiency. Humans are highly evolved and terribly inefficient, nearly the opposite of his assumption.
"So what?' that humans are terribly inefficient users of energy, or "so what?" to the whole theory?
"So what?" as in why does he think that efficient use of energy has anything to do with anything. He seems to be pulling both of those premises out of thin air and they appear completely unconnected with reality to me.
 
  • #12
Look at a hypothetical 30,000 foot scenario of human action.

A young, molten Earth cools until its surface crusts over, and its internal heat and volatile gasses leech out somewhat slowly after that. Humans show up and crack the surface, churning up the underbelly, exposing heat and gasses to the surface where they can be lost much more rapidly than any non-living process.
 
  • #13
russ_watters said:
why does he think that efficient use of energy has anything to do with anything.
Does he mean efficient use of energy, or efficient dissipation of energy?
 
  • #14
DaveC426913 said:
Isn't that the point behind the article?

You say "users of energy", but that concentrates on the useful portion - as in: getting something done. If life turns potential chemical energy into waste heat, yet accomplishes very little in the process, that's actually a pretty good entropy generator, is it not?
[separate post]
Does he mean efficient use of energy, or efficient dissipation of energy?
I found the wording of the article confusing and maybe that's part of the issue here, but the way I see it, it doesn't work either way. Life is neither an efficient way to use energy or an efficient way to dissipate (waste) energy. [edit] And I see no reason why life should be driven by either.
 
  • #15
russ_watters said:
You can use math to say anything, but that doesn't mean the math is meaningful. I think this person did a lot of math that led to a conclusion that doesn't have anything to do with reality because it was never based in reality to begin with.
OK. I agree that's perfectly possible.

The two points that came next:

No: the premise was that life seeks efficiency. Humans are highly evolved and terribly inefficient, nearly the opposite of his assumption.

"So what?" as in why does he think that efficient use of energy has anything to do with anything. He seems to be pulling both of those premises out of thin air and they appear completely unconnected with reality to me.
I think you concentrated on "efficiency" too much and missed the point about life being efficient at wasting energy, that is: at not using it efficiently. In other words, he's proposing that things adopt particular arrangements in order to be less efficient.
 
  • #16
russ_watters said:
I found the wording of the article confusing and maybe that's part of the issue here
Agreed. Which forces us to try to read between the lines.

russ_watters said:
Life is neither an efficient way to use energy or an efficient way to dissipate (waste) energy. [edit]
Well, as opposed to what? Is non-life better at either of those things? Kind of hard to say, and the article is not a lot of help there.
russ_watters said:
And I see no reason why life should be driven by either.
Agreed. Not sure how he links it to an evolutionary driver.
 
  • #17
This might be a case of the article poorly representing the proposal. The scientist might not have skipped over quite so many steps in the logic.
 
  • #18
zoobyshoe said:
I think you concentrated on "efficiency" too much and missed the point about life being efficient at wasting energy, that is: at not using it efficiently. In other words, he's proposing that things adopt particular arrangements in order to be less efficient.
Dave said:
Well, as opposed to what? Is non-life better at either of those things?
Life is not effective at either. From the (news) article.
...when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that, under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life.

“You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,” England said.
So, a plant's "key physical attribute" is turning sunlight into waste heat -- and it is good at that? You know what's better at it? A rock.
 
  • Like
Likes mfb
  • #19
russ_watters said:
Life is not effective at either. From the (news) article.

So, a plant's "key physical attribute" is turning sunlight into waste heat -- and it is good at that? You know what's better at it? A rock.
Yeah. I'd like him to spell that out a little better.
 
  • #20
russ_watters said:
Life is not effective at either. From the (news) article.

So, a plant's "key physical attribute" is turning sunlight into waste heat -- and it is good at that? You know what's better at it? A rock.
His contention is that physics says it isn't:
From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat.
 
  • #21
zoobyshoe said:
His contention is that physics says it isn't:
He's flat out wrong. Energy turning into waste heat is something that happens on its own. Thermodynamics is the science/engineering of getting in the way of that.
 
  • #22
"...much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat..."
This quote makes a lot more sense if you consider stored chemical energy.
 
  • #23
DaveC426913 said:
This quote makes a lot more sense if you consider stored chemical energy.
What stored chemical energy? The energy stored by plants from sunlight? He specifically cited the sun as such a primary energy source. Another would be a waterfall. These things instantly turn all of the energy they provide into lower grade waste heat. A plant stores the solar energy as chemical energy, thereby not turning it into waste heat. It does exactly the opposite of what he says it should be doing. A hydroelectric dam captures the energy of the waterfall and allows us to use it for other things before it finally gets released as waste heat (unless we also store it as another form of energy).
 
  • #24
zoobyshoe said:
What does "overmathed" mean?
I've invented another new term for this: philosomath.
 
  • #25
zoobyshoe said:
His contention is that physics says it isn't:
russ_watters said:
What stored chemical energy? The energy stored by plants from sunlight? He specifically cited the sun as such a primary energy source. Another would be a waterfall. These things instantly turn all of the energy they provide into lower grade waste heat. A plant stores the solar energy as chemical energy, thereby not turning it into waste heat. It does exactly the opposite of what he says it should be doing. A hydroelectric dam captures the energy of the waterfall and allows us to use it for other things before it finally gets released as waste heat (unless we also store it as another form of energy).
No. I mean using solar energy to drive the engine that extracts useful chemical potential energy from the environment and turns it into such things as CO2.

(OK well, nevermind the fact that plants also produce oxygen, which is used in lots of other ways, but still...)
 
  • #26
DaveC426913 said:
No. I mean using solar energy to drive the engine that extracts useful chemical potential energy from the environment and turns it into such things as CO2.
I'm not following -- as far as I know, plants extract solar energy from the environment and only use chemicals as raw materials for storing that energy. I don't see how that connects to what you quoted.
 
  • #27
russ_watters said:
A plant stores the solar energy as chemical energy, thereby not turning it into waste heat. It does exactly the opposite of what he says it should be doing.
I think, though I'm not sure, that his answer to your objection would be that the amount of energy that gets stored in the plant is very much less than the amount that has been received and shed by it in the process of storing what it stores. Consider your body temperature at this moment: how much energy have you expended to maintain that temperature (you're constantly shedding heat, after all)? Some very small part of the work the environment has done on you is stored in your mass, but most of it has been shed by you in the various ways people dissipate energy.

His contention is that your body does that better than a rock: it absorbs more and sheds more. I have no idea if that's true, but, since rocks don't have to eat, or do anything in particular to remain rocks, it wouldn't surprise me that animate things use more energy than inanimate ones.
 
  • #28
Perhaps what we should consider is a thought experiment:

Consider two terrariums. Each terrarium is square with a side of 10 km, and some arbitrary height. Both terrariums are isolated from their respective surroundings, however: Both are allowed equal amounts of sunlight energy per day. And both are allowed equal amounts of heat energy per day to escape.

One terrarium is filled with soil, water, air, bacteria, trees, daisies, bees, wombats and llamas (including some dead trees, dead bees, dead wombats, etc). The other terrarium is filled with only rocks, air and water.

Over the course of 2000 years (long enough time period to account for trees' longevity, rotting time, etc., over several generations) which terrarium is warmer?

[Edit: I didn't specify whether light energy (such as escaping, reflected sunlight) was the same thing as heat energy. I suspect the distinction is paramount to the correct answer. Suppose we say that reflected, escaping sunlight counts as escaping heat energy. What's the answer in that case? And if reflected sunlight does not count toward escaping heat energy, what's the answer then?]

[Second edit: And as a corollary, which terrarium is better at converting the sunlight's relatively high frequency photons -- peak intensity around the green part of the visible spectrum -- to lower frequency photons such as infrared and below? (You may consider reflected light when answering.)]
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Silicon Waffle
  • #29
As a followup to my last post, it may be useful to consider that from a quantum perspective, a set of ten 5000 nm photons is associated with more entropy than a set of one 500 nm photon, even though both sets have the same energy.

Ignoring reflections, when a rock absorbs and radiates energy it does so in a pretty predicable fashion. In the morning, when a rocks are exposed to sunlight, a black rock will absorb more sunlight and heat up quicker than a grey rock. But after dusk, that black rock will emit electromagnetic radiation more quickly than the grey rock and thus cool down more quickly. (Black bodies not only absorb energy at a higher rate, but they also emit energy at a higher rate).

But can we say the same about the ficus tree? It's not quite so simple. It's more complicated for the ficus tree because in the daytime, some of that sunlight changes the tree's chemistry rather than heating it up, and in the nighttime the tree might emit energy from continued chemical reactions instead of simply cooling down. Ficus trees don't fully apply to black body radiation models.

So going back to our thought experiment, consider the energy exiting each terrarium system. Even if the total energy exiting each system is identical on average, is there a difference in the average photon wavelengths? Does that play a part in all of this*?

*Specifically, how that relates to entropy leaving each system.
 
  • #30
So, you have two bank accounts. Every day the same amount is deposited in each, and every day the same amount is withdrawn from each. Assuming the withdrawals equal the deposits, both accounts end up with whatever they had when you started. So, whichever was warmer when you started will be the warmer when you end.

England, though, is saying one system could change to both receive and pay out more than the other. In other words: a proper gedanken can't limit what the "bio" area takes in and puts out, because that pre-emptively prevents the very thing he claims will happen: greater intake and exhaust. One of his contentions is that living things replicate so that yet more energy can be taken in and shed. So, you also couldn't contain the "bio" area, because that would prevent the inhabitants from replicating beyond a certain point. The gedanken has to be designed so that both terrariums are allowed to take in and exhaust as much energy as they "want" and to expand their area if they need to. I think the 2000 year result is obvious.
 
  • #31
zoobyshoe said:
So, you have two bank accounts. Every day the same amount is deposited in each, and every day the same amount is withdrawn from each. Assuming the withdrawals equal the deposits, both accounts end up with whatever they had when you started. So, whichever was warmer when you started will be the warmer when you end.

England, though, is saying one system could change to both receive and pay out more than the other. In other words: a proper gedanken can't limit what the "bio" area takes in and puts out, because that pre-emptively prevents the very thing he claims will happen: greater intake and exhaust. One of his contentions is that living things replicate so that yet more energy can be taken in and shed. So, you also couldn't contain the "bio" area, because that would prevent the inhabitants from replicating beyond a certain point. The gedanken has to be designed so that both terrariums are allowed to take in and exhaust as much energy as they "want" and to expand their area if they need to. I think the 2000 year result is obvious.
I agree with your point.

What I left to the reader in my first post, I'll answer here. In the specific case where each terrarium receives the same total energy (from sunlight) per day, and each terrarium also emits the same total energy per day (whether that be by reflected sunlight, or by heat, or by any other means), the temperature of two terrariums will remain equal. The first law of thermodynamics guarantees that. So we're both in agreement there.

But what I alluded to in my first post and prodded a bit more in my second post is the difference between classical and quantum versions of entropy. We need to consider not only the energy leaving each system, but the entropy leaving each system. Let's use the bank account analogy.

I like your bank account analogy, by the way! :smile:

In classical thermodynamics, there is no differentiation when it comes to subdivisions of energy. Two half divisions of energy is the same as one whole division of energy as far as entropy goes. In classical thermodynamics, energy never comes in discrete chunks so it's all the same. Quantum entropy takes each chunk into account. That said, let's go back to the bank account.

Suppose I have two bank accounts (and for the sake of argument, suppose the bank accounts are from different banks). Every day I deposit a $1000 American dollar bill in each bank account. Also every day I withdraw $1000 dollars from each bank account, but in different denominations:
Bank account A: I withdraw ten, $100 bills per day.
Bank account B: I withdraw one hundred, $10 bills per day.​

It's obvious that both bank accounts are maintaining the same balance. But which bank is producing the most entropy?

(Classical thermodynamics cannot distinguish between the two. But quantum versions of entropy [accepting the limitations of the analogy] might.)
 
Last edited:
  • #32
collinsmark said:
But which bank is producing the most entropy?
The one dishing out more notes of smaller denomination?
 
  • #33
zoobyshoe said:
The one dishing out more notes of smaller denomination?
I believe so.
 
  • #34
I have to confess I like England's idea for purely emotional, non-scientific reasons. If life could be irrefutably demonstrated to arise this way, it would pretty much shut creationism down and stop a lot of useless debating. So, I'm prone to approach it with a confirmation bias and try to pry things that might support it out of anything around.

That being the case, it's probably good Russ has cast some sobering aspersions on it. I watched some parts of his lecture and it seems the link between the physical systems he's studying and anything that's alive is extremely tenuous. I suspect he's being over-encouraged by people with the same biases as mine.
 
  • Like
Likes collinsmark
  • #35
zoobyshoe said:
I have to confess I like England's idea for purely emotional, non-scientific reasons. If life could be irrefutably demonstrated to arise this way, it would pretty much shut creationism down and stop a lot of useless debating. So, I'm prone to approach it with a confirmation bias and try to pry things that might support it out of anything around.

Perhaps I might have a confirmation bias myself.

For quite some time now I've argued that self replicating patterns spontaneously emerging from chaotic systems, whether they be snowflakes, vorticies in eddy currents, etc., not only do not violate the second law of thermodynamics, they demand it! If you change the system to remove the greater entropy production, such as shutting off the flow of energy, the patterns themselves cease to form (and may even cease to exist). If one removes all temperature/energy density differentials, one doesn't get the snowflakes or vorticies (or humans* ultimately, in a more generalized sense).

So what England is claiming, to me, seems quite reasonable. Am I biased? Maybe. But the ideas in England's paper do not come as a surprise to me.

*[Edit: it may help to think of a human, not as being a fixed collection of matter, but rather as a pattern that maintains itself as matter and energy flow through it -- if you remove the flow of energy through the human, its "pattern" (itself) loses the ability to maintain itself.]
 
Last edited:
<h2>1. What is your novel idea on the origin of life?</h2><p>My novel idea on the origin of life is that it originated from a combination of both chemical and biological processes. This theory, known as the "Chemical Evolution and Biological Inheritance" theory, suggests that the first living cells were formed from self-replicating molecules that were able to evolve and adapt over time.</p><h2>2. How does your idea differ from existing theories on the origin of life?</h2><p>My idea differs from existing theories in that it combines both chemical and biological processes, whereas other theories focus solely on one or the other. This allows for a more comprehensive understanding of how life may have originated.</p><h2>3. What evidence supports your novel idea?</h2><p>There is evidence from various fields of study, such as biochemistry, genetics, and paleontology, that support the idea of chemical evolution and biological inheritance. For example, studies have shown that simple molecules can spontaneously form in the conditions of early Earth, and that these molecules can combine to form more complex structures.</p><h2>4. Can your idea be tested or proven?</h2><p>While it is difficult to prove any theory on the origin of life definitively, my idea can be tested through experiments and simulations that recreate the conditions of early Earth. These tests can help to determine the plausibility of chemical evolution and biological inheritance as a possible explanation for the origin of life.</p><h2>5. How does your idea impact our understanding of life and its origins?</h2><p>If my idea is proven to be true, it would greatly impact our understanding of life and its origins. It would suggest that life is not a singular event, but rather a natural outcome of the chemical and physical processes on early Earth. It would also provide insight into how life may have evolved and adapted over time, leading to the diverse forms of life we see today.</p>

1. What is your novel idea on the origin of life?

My novel idea on the origin of life is that it originated from a combination of both chemical and biological processes. This theory, known as the "Chemical Evolution and Biological Inheritance" theory, suggests that the first living cells were formed from self-replicating molecules that were able to evolve and adapt over time.

2. How does your idea differ from existing theories on the origin of life?

My idea differs from existing theories in that it combines both chemical and biological processes, whereas other theories focus solely on one or the other. This allows for a more comprehensive understanding of how life may have originated.

3. What evidence supports your novel idea?

There is evidence from various fields of study, such as biochemistry, genetics, and paleontology, that support the idea of chemical evolution and biological inheritance. For example, studies have shown that simple molecules can spontaneously form in the conditions of early Earth, and that these molecules can combine to form more complex structures.

4. Can your idea be tested or proven?

While it is difficult to prove any theory on the origin of life definitively, my idea can be tested through experiments and simulations that recreate the conditions of early Earth. These tests can help to determine the plausibility of chemical evolution and biological inheritance as a possible explanation for the origin of life.

5. How does your idea impact our understanding of life and its origins?

If my idea is proven to be true, it would greatly impact our understanding of life and its origins. It would suggest that life is not a singular event, but rather a natural outcome of the chemical and physical processes on early Earth. It would also provide insight into how life may have evolved and adapted over time, leading to the diverse forms of life we see today.

Similar threads

  • Biology and Medical
Replies
1
Views
837
Replies
1
Views
745
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
31
Views
5K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
26
Views
6K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
25
Views
4K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
2
Views
3K
Back
Top