New formula for the origin of life, breaking, breaking

_{Denyse O'Leary

October 19, 2014

News, Origin Of Life}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Or maybe not.

An MIT physicist has proposed the provocative idea that life exists because the law of increasing entropy drives matter to acquire lifelike physical properties.

The formula, based on established physics, indicates that 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.

No?

Philosopher Laszlo Bencze says,

Wow! This explains everything! I have lost all interest in intelligent design now that I have the long lost key to creating life. I am giving up photography and becoming a scientist. I’m pretty sure I can get my hands on a group of atoms. I imagine the Edmonds Company, if it is still in business, will sell me some. The heat bath will be no problem as I can rig one on the stove. Finally, I will put some of my photography lights to work shining on the random clump of atoms in the stew pot. I imagine there will be a plant in there within a few days; but I’m willing to stick it out for several weeks because I’ve read in books that scientists have to be patient. Now that I’m a fellow scientist, I hope some of you will help set me up with a few grants so I can live in the style to which I am accustomed while my cutting edge research proceeds. By the way, I’m happy to speak about my experiment at seminars, symposia, and bar mitzvahs for the most modest of fees in the low five figures

See the Science Fictions series at your fingertips (origin of life) For the skinny on how they are really doing.

See especially: Can all the numbers for life’s origin just happen to fall into place?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Methinks the MIT physicist forgot a few problems,,, Suzan Mazur: Origin of life shifting to “nonmaterial events”? - December 15, 2013 Excerpt: The first paradox is the tendency of organic matter to devolve and to give tar. If you can avoid that, you can start to try to assemble things that are not tarry, but then you encounter the water problem, which is related to the fact that every interesting bond that you want to make is unstable, thermodynamically, with respect to water. If you can solve that problem, you have the problem of entropy, that any of the building blocks are going to be present in a low concentration; therefore, to assemble a large number of those building blocks, you get a gene-like RNA — 100 nucleotides long — that fights entropy. And the fourth problem is that even if you can solve the entropy problem, you have a paradox that RNA enzymes, which are maybe catalytically active, are more likely to be active in the sense that destroys RNA rather than creates RNA. https://uncommondescent.com/origin-of-life/origin-of-life-shifting-to-nonmaterial-events/ RNA world: Chemists Propose a Seemingly Unlikely Environment for the Origin of Life - February 27, 2013 Excerpt: Benner and his colleagues consider three major problems with the RNA-world model: *The "asphalt problem": Organic reactions often produce unreactive byproducts. These byproducts are a mixture of pieces of the product or polymerization of the product, but are chemically insignificant and otherwise unpromising. Hence the metaphor of "asphalt." Typically, avoiding the production of such byproducts requires very specific and controlled conditions, or post-reaction purification steps. *The "water problem": Many of the bonds in RNA will undergo hydrolysis. This occurs when water reacts with the bond, causing it to break apart. In a lab, the problem is easily addressed by using a different solvent. However, the environment of the early Earth could not draw on the resource of various organic solvents. *The "impossible bond problem": The authors refer here to the difficulty in forming certain bonds in RNA. Usually this follows from thermodynamic issues that prohibit bonds from spontaneously forming. Conspicuously missing from the authors' list of critiques are the "chirality problem" and the "information problem." Later in the paper, however, they concede that their model does not solve the enigma of chirality, and they allude to a potential "fatal flaw" in their proposition, namely that the kinds of RNA molecules that catalyze the destruction of RNA are more likely to emerge than RNA molecules that catalyze the synthesis of RNA. - http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/02/death_valley_da068661.html Abiogenesis: The Faith and the Facts - Dr. Edward Peltzer - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xj4UH0RwcM Dr. Edward Peltzer explores the possibilities that 1. Life is the result of unguided chemical reactions and random processes 2. Life is the result of purposeful physical laws and initial conditions 3. The laws of nature and fine-tuning of the initial conditions are sufficient to account for the origin of life 4. natural processes alone prohibit the origin of life After reviewing the evidence for each option Dr. Peltzer comes to the conclusion that chemical cross-reactions, including the Maillard reaction, would have prevented a purely naturalistic origin of life. His research thus supports the Law of Biogenesis, that life proceeds only from pre-existing life. etc.. etc... Verse,,, John 1:4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.bornagain77_{October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT}

Axel, from the first paragraph; "Popular hypotheses credit a primordial soup, a bolt of lightning and a colossal stroke of luck. But if a provocative new theory is correct, luck may have little to do with it. Instead, according to the physicist proposing the idea, the origin and subsequent evolution of life follow from the fundamental laws of nature and “should be as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill.” Sounds inexorable to me;) This theory will catch flak from the "Appearance of Design" crowd. This ain't no appearance. It's hard core deep Science. Guy is going to catch flak.ppolish_{October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

Laws qua fine-tuning may be propitious, even essential for life, but surely, that is not to say that they lead inexorably to life, does it?Axel_{October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

Laws lead to life. Incredibly fine tuned Laws. Mega-Commandments if you must. Darwin was a math spazz when compared to MIT physicists. Physicists are much better equipped to uncover the Design. Let There be Light & Go Forth and Multiply hardwired into an incredibly fine tuned Universe. With equations. Awesomeness over our heads.ppolish_{October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

Actually, that's an interesting proposal. One of the more plausible types of explanation for complex structures in nature.Splatter_{October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply