News flash! Neither DNA nor RNA required for evolution.

User avatar
Rum
Absent Minded Processor
Posts: 37285
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:25 pm
Location: South of the border..though not down Mexico way..
Contact:

Re: News flash! Neither DNA nor RNA required for evolution.

Post by Rum » Sat Jan 02, 2010 9:13 am

I suspect the question of replication and evolution is separate from whether something is 'alive' which may have more to do with our own prejudices about (maybe) consciousness, the possession of a nervous system? One can hypothesise circumstances where self replicating complex molecular structures adapted to their environment and 'evolved' to quite high levels of complexity without being alive in the sense we tend to mean it.

As ever, in ignorance in this area.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74132
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: News flash! Neither DNA nor RNA required for evolution.

Post by JimC » Sat Jan 02, 2010 9:24 am

Rum wrote:I suspect the question of replication and evolution is separate from whether something is 'alive' which may have more to do with our own prejudices about (maybe) consciousness, the possession of a nervous system? One can hypothesise circumstances where self replicating complex molecular structures adapted to their environment and 'evolved' to quite high levels of complexity without being alive in the sense we tend to mean it.

As ever, in ignorance in this area.
Well, viruses are widely accepted as being alive, without the slightest bit of consciousness or nervous system.
...self replicating complex molecular structures adapted to their environment...
They would be life, Rum, even if it's not as we know it... ;)

Self replicating, and with a complex internal structure which clearly is an adaptation to environmental pressures brought about by some form of natural selection, with the usually component of random chance thrown in, and we have life, whether it looks anything like life on earth...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Rum
Absent Minded Processor
Posts: 37285
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:25 pm
Location: South of the border..though not down Mexico way..
Contact:

Re: News flash! Neither DNA nor RNA required for evolution.

Post by Rum » Sat Jan 02, 2010 9:33 am

JimC wrote:
Rum wrote:I suspect the question of replication and evolution is separate from whether something is 'alive' which may have more to do with our own prejudices about (maybe) consciousness, the possession of a nervous system? One can hypothesise circumstances where self replicating complex molecular structures adapted to their environment and 'evolved' to quite high levels of complexity without being alive in the sense we tend to mean it.

As ever, in ignorance in this area.
Well, viruses are widely accepted as being alive, without the slightest bit of consciousness or nervous system.
...self replicating complex molecular structures adapted to their environment...
They would be life, Rum, even if it's not as we know it... ;)

Self replicating, and with a complex internal structure which clearly is an adaptation to environmental pressures brought about by some form of natural selection, with the usually component of random chance thrown in, and we have life, whether it looks anything like life on earth...
Well I refer you to earlier posts which suggest that defining what 'life' is exactly is not easy. I have read (I am not *totally* ignorant on this) that viruses can be classed as both - given that they achieve what you might call 'life status' when they invade an organic cell.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74132
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: News flash! Neither DNA nor RNA required for evolution.

Post by JimC » Sat Jan 02, 2010 9:31 pm

Rum wrote:

Well I refer you to earlier posts which suggest that defining what 'life' is exactly is not easy. I have read (I am not *totally* ignorant on this) that viruses can be classed as both - given that they achieve what you might call 'life status' when they invade an organic cell
It's certainly true that when viruses are "between cells" they are totally inactive, and have many properties that could be described as crystalline. Also, most other life forms have a complex internal metabolism utilizing energy and materials from outside, which viruses lack. However, the broad concensus in modern biology would be that the ability to replicate (with potential for variation) is the key feature of life, allowing viruses to fit within this "broad church" definition of life.

In many ways, prions are a better example of an entity which challenges such definitions of life. When a prion triggers a cascade of aberrant protein folding in its own "image", is it truly replicating... :dono:
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Xamonas Chegwé
Bouncer
Bouncer
Posts: 50939
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:23 pm
About me: I have prehensile eyebrows.
I speak 9 languages fluently, one of which other people can also speak.
When backed into a corner, I fit perfectly - having a right-angled arse.
Location: Nottingham UK
Contact:

Re: News flash! Neither DNA nor RNA required for evolution.

Post by Xamonas Chegwé » Sun Jan 03, 2010 1:43 am

Life is a semantic fiction. It is a convenient way of grouping together certain structures that self-replicate and appear to have some kind of motivation in doing so. The fact that a phage virus has no more motivation in replicating itself via the cell structure of a convenient bacteria than Phenolphthalein has any motivation of locating H+ ions in solution in order to lose its pink colour is conveniently ignored.

We, ourselves, are nothing more than huge and rather inefficient (although relatively successful) machines for replicating human DNA. That we are able to write that fact down is a mere byproduct!
A book is a version of the world. If you do not like it, ignore it; or offer your own version in return.
Salman Rushdie
You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic.
House MD
Who needs a meaning anyway, I'd settle anyday for a very fine view.
Sandy Denny
This is the wrong forum for bluffing :nono:
Paco
Yes, yes. But first I need to show you this venomous fish!
Calilasseia
I think we should do whatever Pawiz wants.
Twoflower
Bella squats momentarily then waddles on still peeing, like a horse
Millefleur

User avatar
trubble76
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:41 pm
About me: Some people call me the Space Cowboy, some call me the Gangster Of Love.
Location: Essex Boy!!
Contact:

Re: News flash! Neither DNA nor RNA required for evolution.

Post by trubble76 » Thu Feb 25, 2010 1:24 pm

It seems to me that the definition of life bares a resemblance to the definition of temperature, insofar as on the macro scale it is a vitaly important measurement, however when seen on a micro scale becomes irrelevant.

At these micro scales, it seems that life/not-life becomes irrelevant. "Micro-creatures" whether they be human cells, or prions simply follow the rules of chemistry. I think discussions on the definition of life is a purely philosophical pursuit.

As it is philosophical in nature (i assume you all agree with me :biggrin: ), i think the interest lies in those that believe that all life is sacred. Does the "killing" of viruses/prions/bacteria/etc count as the taking of life? Any Buddhists out there that actively attempt to spare the life of these critters? :ask:
Feets, don't fail me now.

User avatar
FBM
Ratz' first Gritizen.
Posts: 45327
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach"
Contact:

Re: News flash! Neither DNA nor RNA required for evolution.

Post by FBM » Thu Feb 25, 2010 1:37 pm

trubble76 wrote:It seems to me that the definition of life bares a resemblance to the definition of temperature, insofar as on the macro scale it is a vitaly important measurement, however when seen on a micro scale becomes irrelevant.

At these micro scales, it seems that life/not-life becomes irrelevant. "Micro-creatures" whether they be human cells, or prions simply follow the rules of chemistry. I think discussions on the definition of life is a purely philosophical pursuit.
There's no clear place to draw the line, is there? Yes, it's philosophical, I suppose. Even biologists who try to answer the question are most likely doing it out of curiosity, rather than for any practical concerns.
As it is philosophical in nature (i assume you all agree with me :biggrin: ), i think the interest lies in those that believe that all life is sacred. Does the "killing" of viruses/prions/bacteria/etc count as the taking of life? Any Buddhists out there that actively attempt to spare the life of these critters? :ask:
Eh...that's not a Buddhist ideal. :pardon:
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

User avatar
trubble76
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:41 pm
About me: Some people call me the Space Cowboy, some call me the Gangster Of Love.
Location: Essex Boy!!
Contact:

Re: News flash! Neither DNA nor RNA required for evolution.

Post by trubble76 » Thu Feb 25, 2010 2:06 pm

FBM wrote:
As it is philosophical in nature (i assume you all agree with me :biggrin: ), i think the interest lies in those that believe that all life is sacred. Does the "killing" of viruses/prions/bacteria/etc count as the taking of life? Any Buddhists out there that actively attempt to spare the life of these critters? :ask:
Eh...that's not a Buddhist ideal. :pardon:
Apologies then, i had it explained to me by some Buddhists in Malaysia that Buddhists are encouraged to actively avoid the taking of any life. I suppose i shouldn't have believed them. Meh.
Feets, don't fail me now.

User avatar
FBM
Ratz' first Gritizen.
Posts: 45327
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach"
Contact:

Re: News flash! Neither DNA nor RNA required for evolution.

Post by FBM » Thu Feb 25, 2010 2:08 pm

trubble76 wrote:
FBM wrote:
As it is philosophical in nature (i assume you all agree with me :biggrin: ), i think the interest lies in those that believe that all life is sacred. Does the "killing" of viruses/prions/bacteria/etc count as the taking of life? Any Buddhists out there that actively attempt to spare the life of these critters? :ask:
Eh...that's not a Buddhist ideal. :pardon:
Apologies then, i had it explained to me by some Buddhists in Malaysia that Buddhists are encouraged to actively avoid the taking of any life. I suppose i shouldn't have believed them. Meh.
No, that much is true, but it's not because life is sacred; it's a training method to cultivate compassion. There's nothing truly sacred in Buddhism.
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

User avatar
trubble76
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:41 pm
About me: Some people call me the Space Cowboy, some call me the Gangster Of Love.
Location: Essex Boy!!
Contact:

Re: News flash! Neither DNA nor RNA required for evolution.

Post by trubble76 » Thu Feb 25, 2010 2:12 pm

trubble76 wrote:
FBM wrote:
As it is philosophical in nature (i assume you all agree with me :biggrin: ), i think the interest lies in those that believe that all life is sacred. Does the "killing" of viruses/prions/bacteria/etc count as the taking of life? Any Buddhists out there that actively attempt to spare the life of these critters? :ask:
Eh...that's not a Buddhist ideal. :pardon:
Apologies then, i had it explained to me by some Buddhists in Malaysia that Buddhists are encouraged to actively avoid the taking of any life. I suppose i shouldn't have believed them. Meh.
Right, ok then, substitute "sacred" for "important" and carry on as if nothing happened. :whistle:
Feets, don't fail me now.

User avatar
FBM
Ratz' first Gritizen.
Posts: 45327
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach"
Contact:

Re: News flash! Neither DNA nor RNA required for evolution.

Post by FBM » Thu Feb 25, 2010 2:13 pm

trubble76 wrote:Right, ok then, substitute "sacred" for "important" and carry on as if nothing happened. :whistle:
:whistle: What? Did something happen?
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74132
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: News flash! Neither DNA nor RNA required for evolution.

Post by JimC » Thu Feb 25, 2010 11:32 pm

FBM wrote:
trubble76 wrote:Right, ok then, substitute "sacred" for "important" and carry on as if nothing happened. :whistle:
:whistle: What? Did something happen?
Happening is an illusion... :levi:

(though quite a useful one for hominids in a dangerous world...)
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Random Mutant
Posts: 125
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:34 pm
Location: Auckland, NZ
Contact:

Re: News flash! Neither DNA nor RNA required for evolution.

Post by Random Mutant » Fri Feb 26, 2010 2:38 am

Rum wrote:I suspect the question of replication and evolution is separate from whether something is 'alive' which may have more to do with our own prejudices about (maybe) consciousness, the possession of a nervous system? One can hypothesise circumstances where self replicating complex molecular structures adapted to their environment and 'evolved' to quite high levels of complexity without being alive in the sense we tend to mean it.

As ever, in ignorance in this area.
I profess similar ignorance, although I did biology in high school. I remember MRS GREN was the accepted schoolboy definition of what was alive:

M: Movement
R: Respiration
S: Sensitivity
G: Growth
R: Respiration
E: Excretion
N: Nutrition

I realise the world has moved on since the 80's but it works as a rule of thumb. I don't think prions were even on anybody's shopping list, mad cow disease was still being invented then...
I reject your reality and substitute my own!

-Adam Savage, Mythbuster

User avatar
Chinaski
Mazel tov cocktail
Posts: 3043
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:33 am
About me: Barfly
Location: Aberdeen
Contact:

Re: News flash! Neither DNA nor RNA required for evolution.

Post by Chinaski » Fri Feb 26, 2010 5:23 pm

A biologist from another forum I visit said this:
"No, it does not make abiogenesis an inevitability. This study demonstrates that a protein can evolve independently of nucleic acids, but the current model for early life is still an 'RNA world', which posits that RNA came before enzymatically active proteins."
Is there for honest poverty
That hangs his heid and a' that
The coward slave, we pass him by
We dare be puir for a' that.

Imagehttp://imagegen.last.fm/iTunesFIXED/rec ... mphony.gif[/img2]

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests