Darwinism Origin Of Life

Refreshing realism on the origin of life

Spread the love

Abstract: The process by which chemistry can give rise to biology remains one of the biggest mysteries in contemporary science. The de novo synthesis and origin of life both require the functional integration of three key characteristics — replication, metabolism and compartmentalization — into a system that is maintained out of equilibrium and is capable of open-ended Darwinian evolution. This Review takes systems of self-replicating molecules as starting points and describes the steps necessary to integrate additional characteristics of life. We analyse how far experimental self-replicators have come in terms of Darwinian evolution. We also cover models of replicator communities that attempt to solve Eigen’s paradox, whereby accurate replication needs complex machinery yet obtaining such complex self-replicators through evolution requires accurate replication. Successful models rely on a collective metabolism and a way of (transient) compartmentalization, suggesting that the invention and integration of these two characteristics is driven by evolution. Despite our growing knowledge, there remain numerous key challenges that may be addressed by a combined theoretical and experimental approach. – Paul Adamski, Marcel Eleveld, Ankush Sood, Ádám Kun, András Szilágyi, Tamás Czárán, Eörs Szathmáry & Sijbren Otto, From self-replication to replicator systems en route to de novo life, Nature Reviews Chemistry (2020)

Note: “Despite our growing knowledge, there remain numerous key challenges that may be addressed by a combined theoretical and experimental approach.” We’ve been hearing that for decades. We’re missing something.

Paper. (open access)

Hat tip: Pos-darwinista

Eigen’s paradox?: This from Wikipedia: “In evolutionary biology and population genetics, the error threshold is a limit on the number of base pairs a self-replicating molecule may have before mutation will destroy the information in subsequent generations of the molecule. The error threshold is crucial to understanding “Eigen’s paradox””

4 Replies to “Refreshing realism on the origin of life

  1. 1
    Nonlin.org says:

    Entropy forbids Abiogenesis & Evolution : http://nonlin.org/entropy/
    1. A spontaneous process cannot revert spontaneously.
    2. 2nd law forbids perpetual motion. Mixtures will never ever spontaneously separate per second law. This simply and elegantly disproves Maxwell’s demon.
    3. Decreasing entropy is not the reverse process of entropy increasing.
    4. A “primordial soup” cannot spontaneously generate life because second law forbids perpetual motion machines.
    5. A “primordial soup” cannot generate life even if energy is applied due to dynamic equilibrium.
    6. If natural processes were capable of generating life, the environment would be full of intermediate bio-compounds.
    7. Apart from life itself, the complex molecules of life are nowhere to be found in the universe.
    8. Abiogenesis experiments belong to the Reverse Engineering category of processes.
    9. Miller–Urey style abiogenesis experiments are ill conceived, hence doomed from the beginning.
    10. Abiogenesis unique event conflicts with the “no miracles” clause of materialism.
    11. Even if entropy allowed abiogenesis, the laws of life do not follow from any priors (physics, chemistry, mathematics).
    12. “Evolution” corollary number 1 – no abiogenesis, no “evolution”.
    13. “Evolution” corollary number 2 – no “evolution” in the inert and “life just chemistry”, then no “evolution” in the living.
    14. “Evolution” corollary number 3 – no intermediate “evolving” entities, no “evolution”.
    15. Being a decay process running backwards, abiogenesis is as impossible as a broken egg being reconstituted by the “proper sequence of forces”. “Evolution” is also nothing more than imagination run wild.

  2. 2
    jawa says:

    The authors of the cited paper could have consulted Dr Cronin and Dr Szostak on hints to get the OOL thing going.
    Actually the authors of this Nature paper might qualify as candidates for the Evo2.0 OOL $10M prize.

  3. 3
    jawa says:

    Dr Cronin and Dr Szostak better watch out: other scientists might grab the Evo2.0 OOL $10M prize before them. 🙂

    The OOL field seems heating up: there are more papers on OOL this year:

    Emergence of light-driven protometabolism on recruitment of a photocatalytic cofactor by a self-replicator
    Jul 2020
    Kai Liu, Wesley R. Browne, Guillermo Monreal Santiago, Sijbren Otto

    Chance emergence of catalytic activity and promiscuity in a self-replicator
    Jun 2020
    Andreas S. Hussain, Clemens Mayer, Jim Ottelé, Sijbren Otto

    Spontaneous Emergence of Self-Replicating Molecules Containing Nucleobases and Amino Acids
    Feb 2020. J AM CHEM SOC
    Bin Liu, Charalampos G. Pappas, Jim Ottelé, Sijbren Otto

    Dynamics and stability in prebiotic information integration: an RNA World model from first principles
    Dec 2020
    Balázs Könny?, András Szilágyi, Tamas Czaran

    The social coevolution hypothesis for the origin of enzymatic cooperation
    Jan 2020 Nat. Ecol. Evol.
    Samuel R. Levin, Sylvain Gandon, Stuart West

  4. 4
    ET says:

    Unfortunately they cannot get nature to produce biologically relevant molecular replicators. Perhaps they should focus on that. Once they get that then they can focus on Spiegelman’s Monster

Leave a Reply