
A new theory sheds light on the emergence of life’s complexity - dnetesn
http://nautil.us/issue/50/emergence/how-do-you-say-life-in-physics-rp
======
j_m_b
This theory reminds me a lot of the folding funnel. It used to be thought of
as a paradox that a protein could fold in mere minutes if it needed to explore
each possible configuration before arranging into its "correct" configuration.
This paradox was solved with the theory of the folding funnel
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folding_funnel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folding_funnel))
which states that the potential energy surface is not flat, but rather it is 3
dimensional funnel with points where it is practically impossible to go
backwards. The nascent protein does not explore the entire potential energy
surface, instead it just folds into relatively few transition states before
assuming its final form.

~~~
vanderZwan
The wiki page still calls it a hypothesis, but also doesn't seem to have had
substantial updates in a decade (where I define "substantial" as "an expert
updated the information" \- not a critique of the other types of edition that
have happened). Is there any more recent material on this? An animated
visualisation, perhaps?

~~~
tstactplsignore
I did my undergrad in biophysics and this is basically a simplified version of
the currently accepted view. We now also know that some proteins fold in
units, and can have multiple stable fold stopping points along the folding
paths, and a good deal of proteins never really have a single stable fold at
all. Basically google scholar "protein folding energy landscape" for more
details.
[http://m.pnas.org/content/113/12/3159.short](http://m.pnas.org/content/113/12/3159.short)

Here's a nice visualization:

[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Manajit_Hayer-
Hartl/pub...](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Manajit_Hayer-
Hartl/publication/26262477/figure/fig3/AS:272608570638341@1442006356158/Figure-1-Energy-
landscape-scheme-of-protein-folding-and-aggregationThe-purple-surface.png)

------
Myrth
The next step will be the realization that asymmetry of direction towards self
organization on all levels, coded as energy consumption/dissipation
efficiency, is a built in property of our reality, and life and counsciousness
as we understand then are not random accidents.

Quarks -> protons/neutrons, nucleus+electrons -> atoms, atoms -> molecules,
molecules -> proteins, proteins -> cells, cells -> organisms, organisms ->
ecosystems, stars -> galaxies, galaxies -> clusters, etc.

~~~
pnut
There seems to be more of a bell curve of complexity as you move through the
powers of ten... Galaxies have some general organizational properties at the
very large scale, as do atoms etc at the very small end, but directly in the
middle of those extremes lie us, the alchemical pinnacle of self organisation
until proven otherwise.

------
medymed
Not new.

Seems like a repost. Also: "This article was originally published in our
“Adaptation” issue in March, 2016." Someone is really pushing this guy's
scientific (or literary) branding.

~~~
boromi
Yep. Some of the headlines are particularly egregious.
[https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=%22jeremy+england%22&qs=n...](https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=%22jeremy+england%22&qs=n&form=QBNT&sp=-1&pq=%22jeremy+england%22&sc=8-16&sk=&cvid=8252C82E770E48B68A879962307562BC)

I suspect he is up for tenure review :P His proposals are not knew just spun
differently. You can find critics from other physics/chemist regarding their
suspicions as well.

~~~
woodandsteel
> His proposals are not knew just spun differently. You can find critics from
> other physics/chemist regarding their suspicions as well.

I have a rule that people shouldn't post negative comments without including
specific arguments and/or links. You just violated that rule.

------
axhue
Very interesting! I wonder that if they are expecting to use dissipative
mechanisms in small system how would they be able to control thermal noise and
reproducibility of the calculations?

------
hprotagonist
>“Red,” for instance, is a translation of the phrase “620-750 nanometer
wavelength.”

only sometimes.

~~~
kamac
Do you mean only sometimes, as in only when talking about electromagnetic
waves? Or something else?

~~~
munificent
It can also mean a sum of wavelengths outside of that range whose average is
in the range.

------
EGreg
Heard this before.

What do y'all think of this twist on "atheism vs intelligent design" debate? A
wild swing from "life is improbable" to "life is almost certain".

I think there's some major flaw in this reasoning. Otherwise, how do you
explain Drake's equation? How come every planet we have seen so far doesn't
have any form of complex life on it so far as we know?

Here's what I think the flaw is: the more a planet heats up, the more it can
radiate into space as infrared radiation. Obviously an equilibrium can be
achieved without a constant increase in complexity.

~~~
JoBrad
I don't think we have enough data to be sceptical about the presence of
certainty of life on other planets. We've only found ~3,700 planets other than
Earth - and only ~20 of those are near the size of Earth[0]. We couldn't even
see those planets directly until very recently, so it doesn't seem certain (to
me, a layman) that we could even identify Earth as having life, at the same
resolutions. That's assuming that we would recognize life, if we saw it. (Side
note: Children of Men is a book I recently read that touches on this topic. )
I'll admit that I am very optimistic about the presence of advanced life on
planets other than Earth, so this is definitely influencing my outlook.

[0]
[https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/science/2016/05...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/science/2016/05/number-
of-potentially-habitable-planets-in-our-galaxy-tens-of-billions/%3Famp%3D1)

~~~
chiefalchemist
But, what does life have to do with an earth like planet? And when you study
the history of the earth you come to realize that life as we know it today is
the result of countless events, some of them catastrophic.

As I understand it, if you simply shifted the location of Antarctica, that
would change ocean currents, this effect weather, and so one. Life as we know
it today might not exist if it weren't for Antarctica.

And the fact is, we'd be toast, literally, without a magnetic field. That's
more important that planet size. How many planets have we found with a
magnetic field like ours? What are THOSE odds?

So it seems to me, an earth like planet (in size) is a cute exercise but in
the end close to irrelevant.

~~~
rpedela
Our life planet data set is an N=1 so we are searching what we know. It is
certainly possible life is found on non-Earth-like planets and isn't carbon-
based, however we don't have any examples so we don't know what to look for.
The initial search is focusing on Earth-like planets because we know the signs
of life in that case.

As for Antarctica, that may true but there would still be life, maybe not
humans, on Earth. The fossil record shows there was life before Antarctica
existed.

~~~
roywiggins
Literally billions of years older, in fact...

------
Odenwaelder
Here's a better article without the theological nonsense:
[https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-
theory-o...](https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-theory-of-
the-origin-of-life-20140122/)

~~~
FlashGit
Never ceases to amaze me how some scientists can embrace a bunch of 2000+ year
old nonsense.

