*Particles to biological cells?*

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter p.p
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Biological Cells
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the relationship between fundamental particles, such as quarks and leptons, and the emergence of biological life. Participants examine the transition from particles to atoms, molecules, and ultimately to cellular organisms, questioning the role of physics and evolutionary processes in this progression.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant inquires about the connection between quarks, atoms, molecules, and the evolution of biological organisms, seeking information on the relevant area of physics.
  • Another participant suggests that while introductory physics texts cover the path from quarks to molecules, the transition to life involves concepts beyond physics, implying skepticism towards claims that link physics directly to biological evolution.
  • Concerns are raised about the classification of viruses, with one participant arguing that they are more than just large molecules and questioning their status in the context of life.
  • A participant speculates on the need for a connection between quarks and biological life, suggesting that a process must initiate Darwinian selection from these fundamental particles.
  • Another participant challenges the notion of quarks being relevant to life, stating that they merely provide the atoms and that there is no Darwinian evolution at the particle level.
  • One participant posits that if life is an emergent property, it must be connected to its foundational components, questioning the dismissal of quarks' relevance.
  • A question is raised about the possibility of predicting atomic behavior in cells and its relation to evolutionary changes, specifically regarding the evolution of vision and the interaction between photons and opsin proteins.
  • A response asserts that such calculations are currently impossible and denies the notion of photons evolving or living in symbiosis.
  • A participant queries whether the properties of quarks and photons have remained unchanged since the Big Bang, seeking clarification on their constancy.
  • A later reply confirms that no evidence suggests otherwise regarding the properties of quarks and photons.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relevance of fundamental particles to biological life and the applicability of physics to evolutionary processes. There is no consensus on the connections between these domains, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of defining life and the challenges in linking fundamental physics to biological evolution. There are unresolved questions regarding the emergence of life and the role of various components in this process.

p.p
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Does anyone know where I can get information on how particles such and quarks/lepton that form atoms, atoms to molecules and molecules to cellular life.?

What area of physics is based on the area of study and can evolution of biological organism be traced?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Any intro physics book with 1000 pages will give you the path from quarks to molecules, if you don't care about the math. From molecules to life you stop doing physics, and people who claim otherwise are selling snake oil.

Atoms don't evolve in the Darwinian sense. Molecules are already more problematic since some viruses are not much more then very large molecules.

There is a lot of theoretical work done in non equilibrium thermodynamics, but people who take this work as serious models for biological systems need to have their head examined.
 
0xDEADBEEF said:
Molecules are already more problematic since some viruses are not much more then very large molecules.
Virus range from four proteins (themselves 'large' molecules) (10^6 Dalton) to more than a hundred proteins (10^8 Dalton). That they are arguably alive, even the smallest, makes them very much more than merely large molecules.

I note that phage T4 has a 1/300 DNA copy error rate(!) apropos a discussion elsewhere here.
 
ok... I am thinking that there has to be a connection from quarks to molecules that forms biological life and from this initial step has to kick start the process of Darwinian selection.! Are you saying that since the big bang, that this was the process de novo?
 
I am not sure if I know what you mean by "the process de novo".

Quarks have little to do with life. The universe of today is frozen into atoms if we would heat everything to temperatures and pressures of the big bang we would have the same quark soup again. We could go back and forth as we like. There is no Darwinian evolution in it.

There is no consensus on how life starts, or how to define it without pointing at things on Earth that are alive. But quarks have nothing to do with it. They just supply the atoms.
 
0xDEADBEEF said:
But quarks have nothing to do with it. They just supply the atoms.

Maybe nothing obviously or intuitively or practically calculable, but if life is an emergent property, how can it have nothing at all to do with what it emerges from?
 
To be more specific, can we observe and possibly calculate in any way how atoms behave in cell and make some predictions how they will change with an evolving organism? eg, The evolution of vision is the compound and compacting of light sensitive patch(opsin proteins). With this, Photons and the opsin protein symbiotically lived to form an eye? Can we connect the relationship between atoms that make up for example the opsin protein and the photon and observe the behaviour that results in Darwinian evolution?
 
No, this cannot be calculated and won't be possible for a very very long time.
No, photons don't evolve or live in symbiosis.

There is no real physics path into evolutionary development. Please ask your questions in the Biology forum.
 
So quarks are quarks, photons are photons and they have never changed their properties since the time of the big bang?
 
  • #10
Yes, no one has found evidence for the opposite.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K