3 ms·

> We haven't found that, and apparently aren't even close. We do have ideas! Specifically, within the RNA world hypothesis, the transition period is called the

by Cogito 6y ago

> We haven't found that, and apparently aren't even close. We do have ideas! Specifically, within the RNA world hypothesis, the transition period is called the virus world [0] > given all the incredibly, insanely, unbelievably rare DNA sequences that exist in the world today, We have a good understanding of where diversity comes from, I'm not sure what point you're making here. > why is such a fundamental process not abundant as fuck already. Where'd it go? Why is this even a mystery? I don't think anyone thinks this process need be 'fundemental', though it definitely is pivotal. It only really needed to happen once, and then DNA was off reproducing and spreading by itself. That said, it looks like viruses converting RNA to DNA could still be happening today. In general, we don't expect novel self-reproducing molecules to arise today, because they are out-competed by existing self-replicating molecules. In a world where nothing is replicating the first replicator is king. In today's world a brand new replicator is food for something else. > Maybe it's possible that your romantic view of how this all happens (pseudo-Darwinian circa 2020) isn't telling the whole story? I don't think I, or anyone else really, is claiming to tell the whole story - just that we have good reason to believe this came about through physical processes, and no evidence to believe... well I'm not sure what else there could be. What are you proposing? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world#Evolution_of_DNA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world#Evolution_of_DNA

ricksharp 6y ago
Interesting discussion. I’d like to ask a sincere question: Wouldn’t a system A that is capable of encoding another complex system B, need to be as complex in order to encode all the information in the result? It’s like a compression algorithm, you can encode the information, but the complexity level of that information is still there (also the difficulty in compressing the information increases very fast - exponentially or maybe even factorially). So if the most basic protein sequence requires so many bits of information, wouldn’t anything capable of producing that (in a non-random manner) also require at least that level of information (if not more). It doesn’t matter what process we call systems A and B. So it seems if randomness doesn’t solve the problem (because math), then the only conclusion is that there is a fundamental requirement for intentionality.
- Cogito 6y ago
  It's possible for a simple thing to encode something more complex, deterministically. The prime example is The Game of Life - simple rules from which complex behaviour emerges. This idea of information is one we're putting onto the system, not some inherent attribute. Yes, the encoding of a protein needs to have enough information to produce that protein (or a family of proteins), but that says nothing about the process that created the encoding. For example, a strand of RNA can be spliced in many different ways to create many different proteins [0] and this process can go weird in many ways. New sequences will arise from this process, even though they weren't 'intended' to. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_splicing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_splicing
  - erichocean 6y ago
    Yes, and useful proteins are basically the equivalent of "oscillators" or "spaceships" in the game of life. But must runs of the game of life are not oscillators or spaceships, just like most proteins are useless. That's why the "initial condition" is so important, and why DNA is so important: without a good "start state", you get useless results—just like in the game of life. What we are trying to find is not Conway's rules for the game of life, but this: how do we produce useful starting states (DNA) with a physical system? And more importantly, how do we create those starting states preferentially (i.e. non-randomly)? We still need a model for how useful DNA (which corresponds to the "initial state" in the game of life) gets created. And we have no model for that right now, other than assuming unique random initial states are continually occurring and letting the law of large numbers eventually "find" winners.
    - c1ccccc1 6y ago
      Minor side note, but most runs of the game of life actually will produce spaceships and/or oscillators, even starting from a random configuration. (Initialize a 100 x 100 box of cells randomly, and you're virtually guaranteed to get several gliders flying off of the resulting mess.)
    - Cogito 6y ago

by Cogito 6y ago

ricksharp 6y ago

Interesting discussion. I’d like to ask a sincere question: Wouldn’t a system A that is capable of encoding another complex system B, need to be as complex in order to encode all the information in the result? It’s like a compression algorithm, you can encode the information, but the complexity level of that information is still there (also the difficulty in compressing the information increases very fast - exponentially or maybe even factorially). So if the most basic protein sequence requires so many bits of information, wouldn’t anything capable of producing that (in a non-random manner) also require at least that level of information (if not more). It doesn’t matter what process we call systems A and B. So it seems if randomness doesn’t solve the problem (because math), then the only conclusion is that there is a fundamental requirement for intentionality.

Cogito 6y ago
It's possible for a simple thing to encode something more complex, deterministically. The prime example is The Game of Life - simple rules from which complex behaviour emerges. This idea of information is one we're putting onto the system, not some inherent attribute. Yes, the encoding of a protein needs to have enough information to produce that protein (or a family of proteins), but that says nothing about the process that created the encoding. For example, a strand of RNA can be spliced in many different ways to create many different proteins [0] and this process can go weird in many ways. New sequences will arise from this process, even though they weren't 'intended' to. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_splicing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_splicing
- erichocean 6y ago
  Yes, and useful proteins are basically the equivalent of "oscillators" or "spaceships" in the game of life. But must runs of the game of life are not oscillators or spaceships, just like most proteins are useless. That's why the "initial condition" is so important, and why DNA is so important: without a good "start state", you get useless results—just like in the game of life. What we are trying to find is not Conway's rules for the game of life, but this: how do we produce useful starting states (DNA) with a physical system? And more importantly, how do we create those starting states preferentially (i.e. non-randomly)? We still need a model for how useful DNA (which corresponds to the "initial state" in the game of life) gets created. And we have no model for that right now, other than assuming unique random initial states are continually occurring and letting the law of large numbers eventually "find" winners.
  - c1ccccc1 6y ago
    Minor side note, but most runs of the game of life actually will produce spaceships and/or oscillators, even starting from a random configuration. (Initialize a 100 x 100 box of cells randomly, and you're virtually guaranteed to get several gliders flying off of the resulting mess.)
  - Cogito 6y ago