Pre-Evolution Evolution....

Pre-Evolution Evolution.I have been thinking recently on what kind of mechanism was up and running before evolution was around. What system was there that caused the ratcheting of complexity in pre ”life’ structures? What mechanism paved the way for evolution as we know it?We know that for evolution to work it needs a supply of variation to work with and a system to weed out the desirable variation from the less so. We also know it needs a way to pass the chosen information onwards.It makes sense that evolution works its “magic” through small imperceptible changes - to casual observation - over many, many generations, crawling inch by inch up the slopes of mount improbable. Yet, for many, the question of how this process got started in the first place seems to invoke a miraculous leap up the shear face of the aforementioned mountain. This surely is not what we have come to expect from nature.If we were to propose what we would actually expect to find, we would have to propose a gradual increase in complexity from inorganic to organic, finally culminating in a critical mass that more by accident topples over into life. Life, not as we would know it, but at least as we could define as such. To propose a system that works in the same gradual way of evolution slowly increasing the complexity bit by bit.But how does it get there? How, without the acknowledged mechanisms of evolution (variation, selection & hereditary), does pre-life stumble up the lowest pre-evolution slopes to become life? How does it stop itself slipping back down to nothing at each attempt if success is not preserved and failures discarded? Is it a race of individuals to get to the magic line called life in a single bound, or is there a system for preserving each advance, each beneficial increase in complexity as the building blocks for the next push up the slope?I don’t claim to have the answers to this. I’m not a molecular biologist. However a thought did occur to me: Is there a system - or one that could be envisioned - where the processes of inaccurate replication & selection could be happening to the molecule, protein, or proto-cell externally? Are external reactions recording and passing on successes to the next ”generation’ of these chemical constructs? Did the environment, back then, provide these services for these pre-cursors of life, allowing them to pass any success on? It was only later when proto-life discovered the trick of internalising this process did evolution as we know it take off leading the way to us and beyond.Are there simple molecules - i.e. simple enough to readily form spontaneously - that will duplicate other molecules around them? Do they do this selectively or simply duplicate anything within their grasp? If they exist do they duplicate inaccurately? If they don’t exist today do we know of a hypothetical molecule that could have done the job?Anyway that’s enough from me for now, but I would be interested in hearing what the real micro biologists out there think of this crazy notion.Ohnhai.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

First we need a good definintion of "life" before we can talk of "pre-life structures" ...From dictionary.com we get one of the usual ones ...Life: Then we need to look at what is likely the last thing(s) added to that list to get an idea of what "pre-life structure" were capable of.Let's take them in order ...metabolism (ibid): (Strike the circular definitions eh?)Let's simplify this to the process that breaks down substances for energy ... although we could also posit systems that aquires energy from another source (heat, light, radiation), provided they have a way to use it ....Let's say {energy aquisition}.growth (ibid): Adding atoms to a molecule or combining molecules into new and larger molecules would be a kind of growth.reproduction (ibid): Copy, replication, reproduction.The first replicators would have {metabolism\energy aquisition} and {growth} and {reproduction}.response to stimuliThis gets a little vague imh(ysa)o -- in response to {light\heat\energy} a molecule starts replicating?Given that the first life forms were likely relatively imobile cell-like structures, stimuli would be from natural sources - {light\heat\energy} or {waves\currents} or {volcanic\tectonic} activity or the like, rather than a finger reaching out and touching it ....See LUCA for some additional thoughts:
http://www.actionbioscience.org/...ontiers/poolearticle.html or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.via mutation and natural selection? Isn't this essentially describing evolution? Again this seems a little circular to me.I think that the real threshold is replication, and that once replication occurs that mutation and natural selection will operate on the process to add features that either improve the replication process or protect it from damage, and that once this happens further complexity will occur.So, now are we talking about "pre ”life’ structures" being replicators or before replicators?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I also agree that replication is the key to evolution driven life. As you say with replication comes variation and with variation comes the material for selection to work with. And if you have variation with selection you have evolution. The problem is if the structure cannot self-replicate how does it slowly increase in complexity to the point where it can self-replicate and thus kick off the whole evolution thing?So I guess the safest definition of pre-life is “non self-replicator”Expecting self-replicators to appear in a single bound is not how we know the natural world to work. What we expect is lost of small improvements over a long period of time, but how can that happen if the things we expect to see an improvement in can’t themselves replicate (with error)? If they cant duplicate them selves how do they preserve any incremental change?It has to be a gradual increase in complexity, because if not we are into scaling mount improbable in a single bound, and that is not how we know nature to work. So how does it work?Also, if the build up to self-replication and thus ”life’ & evolution, is a slow gradual process that culminates in the internalisation of the replication process, then in all honesty the line that we describe as the beginning of evolution and by inference ”life’ is almost totally arbitrary. Indeed if ”life’ is an arbitrary line in the slow and gradual process that goes all the way from the initial pool of ingredients through the emergence of the first self-replicators to us and all the other species then it would be virtually impossible to pin the exact point between life and non-life, and thus the difference between evolution and evolution like processes.

At the other end, we know that (some) amino acids were plentiful⁽¹⁾ and that chemical reactions do occur under the right circumstances.We can assume a stew more than a broth, of available molecules, that chemical reactions would occur, that some remnants of those reactions would be preserved in pools of resources.It may just come down to a slow accumulation of molecular constructions, some lasting better than others, some more useful than others, and then that just the right combination happens sooner or later.The only counter selective force may be in the lifespan of certain molecules, their ability to 'survive' in a reductionary (acidic) environment subjected to {heat\light\energy} and {volcanic\tectonic} forces and washed by various liquids (including water).The only productive selective force may be in the ability of molecules to combine into new combinations. Yes, just another example of human egotism eh? We are special. Or everthing is special. When you look at the fact that everything is in motion, even rocks, when you get down to the atomic level (and below) - and that it is hard to distinquish 'life' from 'non-life' at that level - you wonder just how arbitrary the line is.After all, some people have rock gardens ... ⁽¹⁾ - see Building Blocks of Life, my column article (click)

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Ok RAZD, you've put a lot more into this area than I have. What about stars? Obviously they have a "life-cycle", but I have always been fond of seriously regarding them as the first life. Their reproduction may be phoenix-like but is it close enough to be actual reproduction? Response to stimuli is difficult when they are not many stimuli in free space, but think of a close binary system, say giant and white dwarf with the dwarf acreting gas from the giant, and the subsequent changes to its evolution.Thoughts?

This shows how the definition of life is flawed\problematical eh? Particularly when we get off the earth. Do a google on "definition of life" and you will find a lively discussion of it.Joseph Morales - Psychozoan: The Definition of Life - is one I have looked at before.Others try to define it by listing everthing common to all known life forms:
9(a) Origin and Definition of Life
But that doesn't help in the search for extraterrestrial life (even if they are extraterrestrial bodies), which is where I think the main interest in the definition lies -- how do we identify life that we are not familiar with?Then there is this site
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio99/bio99171.htm
which adds motion to the list given above:That would rule out stars ... unless the reason for large galactic anomalies ....... .But does a plant 'move under it's own power'? It grows towards food sources, but this is growth not movement eh?Personally I wonder if there is not some other level of existence possible than biological life as we know it: thought is electrical, memory is patterns, and these can obviously exist in a silicon based form (eg computers). Can large electrical fields also accomplish the same?This kind of leaves stars in the fuzzy "pre-life structures" category, although they would qualify as replicators. Of course the first one of all was the original ball of plasma before it broke up into descrete elements. Perhaps it forsaw all that would happen.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I would say yes, it does - or at least some plants do. Consider heliotropism, in which some plants orient their leaves to follow the daily course of the sun, through differences in turgor pressure.I agree that many plants would probably fail the test of movement, unless internal movement (such as the active translocation of materials in response to environmental conditions) could be considered.

I submit that the interconnected values of stock prices in the market are highly integrated and self-referential, perhaps like neurons in the brain, and that therefore the stock market itself might be considered alive. Or, if it isn't, perhaps a hypothetical stock market of exponentially greater complexity could be considered alive. (Imagine the stock market of an interstellar civilization, such as Iain Banks' Culture universe.)

Nice example. Wouldn't it be exciting if an extremely complex economy wasn't only alive but also conscious? I wonder what the personality of such a system would be like. What would it like to talk about? Poetry? Philosophy? Would it loath certain subjects? Subjects like the current state of affairs in world economy, perhaps?I'm reminded of Douglas Hofstadter's book "Gdel, Escher, Bach", in which a fantasy dialogue with an ant colony is mentioned. Although the example is of course too farfetched, it suggests that an ant colony is more than just a lot of ants. The individual animals of such a collective (ants, termites, bees, Borg drones, et cetera) may seem to be stupid automatons, but the collective is capable of achieving amazing feats, such as creating a kind of air-conditioned environment, as in the case of termites.Fascinating stuff.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 02-Jan-2006 07:44 AM

---

Perhaps it is. How could you tell?Changes in the economy take place at a very slow rate compared to human speeds, so it might not be apparent to us whether there is such a consciousness.

---

Impeach Bush

You would first have to find out what combination of oil price, dollar exchange rate and what-not would create a certain sensation in this supposed consciousness, so that you could devise a message of sorts by manipulating those quantities. Then you'd pass on to future generations the warning to be on the lookout for certain telltale signals that the economy was trying to reply. Quite simple, really.(Has brent crude ever been exactly $42 a barrel?)

Wonderful point. I keep meaning to open a thread on the speed of consciousness.Also, at what level would consciousness reveal itself? I assume we cannot detect human consciousness by simply looking at the interactions of a brain's neurons. We have no ability to selectively fire our own neurons, other than by outcome (move left index finger).Lasy year the internet apparently exceeded the number of interconnections in the human brain (nervous system?). When the internet becomes self-aware, how will we tell?

Ethics?Imagine if it refused to {post\evaluate} stocks for companies that it deemed unethical?

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

When it starts to provide free access to more computers so it can grow?The question is, though: how would it reproduce?