6 ms·

The problem is that once you start to appreciate the immense complexity in a single, most basic cell, you realize how far away we are from understanding how lif

The problem is that once you start to appreciate the immense complexity in a single, most basic cell, you realize how far away we are from understanding how life got started. This article would be comparable to some future generation trying to figure out how our computers were made and then stumbling upon factory that could make the cases. The case is important, but relatively trivial part of the machinery. Similarly, the cell membrane is critical (not just important), but very simple compared the molecular machines (and more) involved in all cells. Personally, I think if someone researches the physics/chemistry/biology deeply enough, he'll get to the conclusion that abiogenesis not possible naturally with the physical laws we have now. I believe this is an opening for a proof that this world is really a simulation. Anyone else feel like that?

neuronic 7y ago
> The problem is that once you start to appreciate the immense complexity in a single, most basic cell, you realize how far away we are from understanding how life got started. And we have massive issues with simulating single molecule interactions or protein folding. We are nowhere near simulating a single cell without all its external interactions. Not even remotely close. The field of molecular simulation is holistically based on shortcuts and abstractions to make something out of that research funding. Supercomputers are crunching away at massively simplified models. And even if we had single cells working a whole new world of complexity opens up next. Interactions with other cells and even worse, the environment where everything from pH over temperature to pressure and light has to be considered.
keithwhor 7y ago
Not really, no: semi-permeable membranes have the ability to spontaneously generate strong energy / concentration gradients and remove external interference from chemical signals. That's a necessity for life as we know it -- nearly all cellular chemical reactions are driven by concentration gradients across membranes. The "RNA World" hypothesis [0] and the flexibility of RNA as both a self-replicating and catalytic molecule gives us a pretty convincing conceptual pathway to the development of the central dogma of molecular biology we understand today (DNA -> RNA -> Protein) -- especially considering DNA translation mechanisms are nearly entirely powered by ribozymes. Understanding how semipermeable membranes may spontaneously form to "protect" other molecular species like RNA is a pretty foundational step in trying to understand the recipe for the formation of early life. The simulation hypothesis is fun and all, but I don't think it's a reasonable stand-in for abiogenesis. You're basically invoking God or a Godlike entity at that point, when we have pretty reasonable pathways to conceptualizing the development of early life. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world
- yehosef 7y ago
  > pretty convincing conceptual pathway These phrases come up very often when discussing Origin of Life, but it's basically handwaving. It's like saying "we built a plane, which gives us a convincing conceptual pathway on how to get to the moon." The differences in complexities are sooo vast, there is really no comparison. I can state it more clearly - We couldn't create a functioning cell from scratch (atoms) if we wanted to. I'm not talking about injecting/replacing DNA in an existing cell as Craig Venter et al do (which is impressive. You'll see many articles talk about "we built the first cell" or even add the words "from scratch" but this is what they did.) I mean build all the functioning pieces - all the molecular machines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_machine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_machine) and other components. I don't even think we yet understand all the pieces. You can read some of my questions about abiogenesis at https://biology.stackexchange.com/users/13238/yehosef https://biology.stackexchange.com/users/13238/yehosef - some of the questions and answers may highlight the complexity.
  - keithwhor 7y ago
    We've never created a dinosaur in the lab like they did in Jurassic Park, does that mean no dinosaurs were ever spontaneously born? You're right, biology is a complex field that, mechanistically, we don't understand all of the intricacies of from first (physical) principles. But invoking the simulation hypothesis as a reasonable substitute for what you, personally, believe is the unlikelihood of abiogenesis is functionally equivalent to suggesting Satan planted dinosaur bones underground to misguide our faith. I don't understand how you think, "could this be evidence of a simulation" is any less hand-wavy than, "RNA has catalytic properties that suggest lifeforms may have begun as RNA-based. In fact, there are viruses that self-replicate by hijacking cellular machinery that are entirely RNA. It's not unreasonable to believe that, given long enough timeframes, similar constructs may have spontaneously self-replicated, even if inefficiently." The difference between biology and computation is that the mechanics of large-scale molecular systems are, in most cases, too chaotic with too large of a surface area of potential interactions to explain every step as a direct, in vitro replicable chemical reaction - we must approximate where possible. We have to rely on the properties of large stochastic systems, nearly unfathomable timeframes, and extremely rare events to explain most of the world we see around us today. Yes, every element of the biological world is entirely unlikely. That's kind of the whole reason the field is so beautiful. It only works because there's just so dang much organic material, a constant and consistent heat lamp, and it's all been shaking around violently in a water bath for 3.8 billion years.
ibraa 7y ago
I find it funny that people would rather believe in the matrix/simulation rather than God
- yters 7y ago
  I'm not sure how the simulation theory even solves anything. It just pushes the problem to the simulator. I guess the assumption is maybe the simulator is much less complex, so makes the problem disappeared through our ignorance about the simulator, which is just the 'god of the gaps' fallacy in techno speak.
  - ibraa 7y ago
    The simulator is not less complex, the difference is that the simulator is not subjected to the same limitations/rules/laws of our universe. You either choose the universe itself to be infinite (always have and always will exist) which contradicts all our observations about it, or you assume a higher entity (outside the universe) that is infinite (always have and always will exist). The third option (nothing infinite) means we wouldn't exist at all, because if there's no "start" then you go into an infinite loop trying to find a start and nothing happens. But since we are actually here, then third option is out, and only the second option (higher entity) makes logical sense.
- ars 7y ago
  The difference is that God wants you to behave a certain way, but a simulation doesn't. People don't like to be told what to do, so they'd rather the simulation. On a "what created the universe" level, they are both identical.
  - rowanG077 7y ago
    That's not true. God doesn't imply he wants you to behave a certain way. Most religions work that way but a God which simply created the universe and doesn't care what humanity is doing is a possibility.
- bediger4000 7y ago
AtlasBarfed 7y ago
I think a fallacy, and this is not aimed at your comment, of intelligent design people is that because humans can't really comprehend the complexity of cells, biodiversity, and life chemistry, that it couldn't have arisen from somewhat basic preconditions and "bioalgorithms". It's really a condescending bias in disguise. Because I, who consider myself awesome and smart, cannot decipher how this could have come into being, then it clearly must be the work of a deity. To me, once you have mass scale evolution, such that you have ?quadrillions? of individual organisms doing their own survival calculations and experimentation over billions of years, then the amazing powers of the forms of life don't seem impossible. It remains to be seen with all the habitable-zone worlds being discovered what is out there.
- ibraa 7y ago
  The problem is not with failing to comprehend the complexity of cells though, it's that stuff can't just come to existence given enough time. First of all, the time is not enough, given the complexity of a single cell, the number of conditions/variables needed for something like that to just blindly happen is absurd, a couple billion years is nothing. Secondly, even if we assume enough time just for the sake of argument, time is not the only factor, you can't just throw "given enough time" and fix everything, things don't just make itself given enough time, a plane would not just come to existence given a billion years. It's very easy to just oversimplify and throw "billions of years" "mass scale evolution", but once you check the details, it's just not that simple.
- yehosef 7y ago
  >I think a fallacy, and this is not aimed at your comment, of intelligent design people is that because humans can't really comprehend the complexity of cells, biodiversity, and life chemistry, that it couldn't have arisen from somewhat basic preconditions and "bioalgorithms". You're definitely correct that we often apply our mindset onto the world and interpret events according to the model we've made for ourselves. It's hard to be brutally objective and accept the facts, even if it means throwing everything I know out the window. (note, I'm saying this about the meta discussion, not this specific one.)
quadcore 7y ago
I believe this is an opening for a proof that this world is really a simulation. Or that we are missing some physical laws. I wonder if it's not kind of all the same ultimately. What difference do you make between a simulation and a physics system knowing that there is logical reasons why my screen lights up the way it does when I'm playing a video game for example. There is a logical explanation on how my avatar has spawned, it's because some code is executed. What is a simulation exactly? Something where things appears out of.. what? out of nothing logical? Why not I guess.

neuronic 7y ago

> The problem is that once you start to appreciate the immense complexity in a single, most basic cell, you realize how far away we are from understanding how life got started. And we have massive issues with simulating single molecule interactions or protein folding. We are nowhere near simulating a single cell without all its external interactions. Not even remotely close. The field of molecular simulation is holistically based on shortcuts and abstractions to make something out of that research funding. Supercomputers are crunching away at massively simplified models. And even if we had single cells working a whole new world of complexity opens up next. Interactions with other cells and even worse, the environment where everything from pH over temperature to pressure and light has to be considered.

keithwhor 7y ago

Not really, no: semi-permeable membranes have the ability to spontaneously generate strong energy / concentration gradients and remove external interference from chemical signals. That's a necessity for life as we know it -- nearly all cellular chemical reactions are driven by concentration gradients across membranes. The "RNA World" hypothesis [0] and the flexibility of RNA as both a self-replicating and catalytic molecule gives us a pretty convincing conceptual pathway to the development of the central dogma of molecular biology we understand today (DNA -> RNA -> Protein) -- especially considering DNA translation mechanisms are nearly entirely powered by ribozymes. Understanding how semipermeable membranes may spontaneously form to "protect" other molecular species like RNA is a pretty foundational step in trying to understand the recipe for the formation of early life. The simulation hypothesis is fun and all, but I don't think it's a reasonable stand-in for abiogenesis. You're basically invoking God or a Godlike entity at that point, when we have pretty reasonable pathways to conceptualizing the development of early life. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world

yehosef 7y ago
> pretty convincing conceptual pathway These phrases come up very often when discussing Origin of Life, but it's basically handwaving. It's like saying "we built a plane, which gives us a convincing conceptual pathway on how to get to the moon." The differences in complexities are sooo vast, there is really no comparison. I can state it more clearly - We couldn't create a functioning cell from scratch (atoms) if we wanted to. I'm not talking about injecting/replacing DNA in an existing cell as Craig Venter et al do (which is impressive. You'll see many articles talk about "we built the first cell" or even add the words "from scratch" but this is what they did.) I mean build all the functioning pieces - all the molecular machines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_machine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_machine) and other components. I don't even think we yet understand all the pieces. You can read some of my questions about abiogenesis at https://biology.stackexchange.com/users/13238/yehosef https://biology.stackexchange.com/users/13238/yehosef - some of the questions and answers may highlight the complexity.
- keithwhor 7y ago
  We've never created a dinosaur in the lab like they did in Jurassic Park, does that mean no dinosaurs were ever spontaneously born? You're right, biology is a complex field that, mechanistically, we don't understand all of the intricacies of from first (physical) principles. But invoking the simulation hypothesis as a reasonable substitute for what you, personally, believe is the unlikelihood of abiogenesis is functionally equivalent to suggesting Satan planted dinosaur bones underground to misguide our faith. I don't understand how you think, "could this be evidence of a simulation" is any less hand-wavy than, "RNA has catalytic properties that suggest lifeforms may have begun as RNA-based. In fact, there are viruses that self-replicate by hijacking cellular machinery that are entirely RNA. It's not unreasonable to believe that, given long enough timeframes, similar constructs may have spontaneously self-replicated, even if inefficiently." The difference between biology and computation is that the mechanics of large-scale molecular systems are, in most cases, too chaotic with too large of a surface area of potential interactions to explain every step as a direct, in vitro replicable chemical reaction - we must approximate where possible. We have to rely on the properties of large stochastic systems, nearly unfathomable timeframes, and extremely rare events to explain most of the world we see around us today. Yes, every element of the biological world is entirely unlikely. That's kind of the whole reason the field is so beautiful. It only works because there's just so dang much organic material, a constant and consistent heat lamp, and it's all been shaking around violently in a water bath for 3.8 billion years.

ibraa 7y ago

I find it funny that people would rather believe in the matrix/simulation rather than God

yters 7y ago
I'm not sure how the simulation theory even solves anything. It just pushes the problem to the simulator. I guess the assumption is maybe the simulator is much less complex, so makes the problem disappeared through our ignorance about the simulator, which is just the 'god of the gaps' fallacy in techno speak.
- ibraa 7y ago
  The simulator is not less complex, the difference is that the simulator is not subjected to the same limitations/rules/laws of our universe. You either choose the universe itself to be infinite (always have and always will exist) which contradicts all our observations about it, or you assume a higher entity (outside the universe) that is infinite (always have and always will exist). The third option (nothing infinite) means we wouldn't exist at all, because if there's no "start" then you go into an infinite loop trying to find a start and nothing happens. But since we are actually here, then third option is out, and only the second option (higher entity) makes logical sense.
ars 7y ago
The difference is that God wants you to behave a certain way, but a simulation doesn't. People don't like to be told what to do, so they'd rather the simulation. On a "what created the universe" level, they are both identical.
- rowanG077 7y ago
  That's not true. God doesn't imply he wants you to behave a certain way. Most religions work that way but a God which simply created the universe and doesn't care what humanity is doing is a possibility.
bediger4000 7y ago

AtlasBarfed 7y ago

I think a fallacy, and this is not aimed at your comment, of intelligent design people is that because humans can't really comprehend the complexity of cells, biodiversity, and life chemistry, that it couldn't have arisen from somewhat basic preconditions and "bioalgorithms". It's really a condescending bias in disguise. Because I, who consider myself awesome and smart, cannot decipher how this could have come into being, then it clearly must be the work of a deity. To me, once you have mass scale evolution, such that you have ?quadrillions? of individual organisms doing their own survival calculations and experimentation over billions of years, then the amazing powers of the forms of life don't seem impossible. It remains to be seen with all the habitable-zone worlds being discovered what is out there.

ibraa 7y ago
The problem is not with failing to comprehend the complexity of cells though, it's that stuff can't just come to existence given enough time. First of all, the time is not enough, given the complexity of a single cell, the number of conditions/variables needed for something like that to just blindly happen is absurd, a couple billion years is nothing. Secondly, even if we assume enough time just for the sake of argument, time is not the only factor, you can't just throw "given enough time" and fix everything, things don't just make itself given enough time, a plane would not just come to existence given a billion years. It's very easy to just oversimplify and throw "billions of years" "mass scale evolution", but once you check the details, it's just not that simple.
yehosef 7y ago
>I think a fallacy, and this is not aimed at your comment, of intelligent design people is that because humans can't really comprehend the complexity of cells, biodiversity, and life chemistry, that it couldn't have arisen from somewhat basic preconditions and "bioalgorithms". You're definitely correct that we often apply our mindset onto the world and interpret events according to the model we've made for ourselves. It's hard to be brutally objective and accept the facts, even if it means throwing everything I know out the window. (note, I'm saying this about the meta discussion, not this specific one.)

quadcore 7y ago

I believe this is an opening for a proof that this world is really a simulation. Or that we are missing some physical laws. I wonder if it's not kind of all the same ultimately. What difference do you make between a simulation and a physics system knowing that there is logical reasons why my screen lights up the way it does when I'm playing a video game for example. There is a logical explanation on how my avatar has spawned, it's because some code is executed. What is a simulation exactly? Something where things appears out of.. what? out of nothing logical? Why not I guess.