How could misprint of original replicator replicate?

[ericv00]

Please help me out with this dilemma:
1) In order to replicate, the Replicator must have available building blocks to do so.
2) The rate of replication is therefore directly related to the concentration of such building blocks.
3) If the building blocks are concentrated by some means, it follows that they are then isolated from the rest of the world.
4) The Replicator can't move, since it has no legs, and is also isolated.

It must follow that replication would decrease as building blocks are used up.

Yup. You're exactly right. There are two solutions to this apparent dilemma.

1. Raw materials are being produced all the time by the interaction of nitrogen, carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, etc., and energy sources in the atmosphere, such as lightening, UV light, thermal vents, etc. So, there's no reason to believe the supply of raw materials would ever truly run out.

However, if the concentration of replicators were very high, the competition for raw materials might be stiff. Hence...

2. The next logical step would be a replicator that had the ability to not only make use of available building blocks, but break down other replicators into their component parts and use them. This would be the evolution of predation at the molecular level.

Thank you OHSU. I was reading the thread and wondering why there were so many replies before someone said this.

[rainbow]

You'd have to change the laws of Chemistry.

So what's your conclusion?

You lose, Chemistry wins.

[natselrox]

You'd have to change the laws of Chemistry.

So what's your conclusion?

You lose, Chemistry wins.

Proud to lose to chemistry. But I don't know what I said that violates chemistry!

[rainbow]

You'd have to change the laws of Chemistry.

So what's your conclusion?

You lose, Chemistry wins.

Proud to lose to chemistry. But I don't know what I said that violates chemistry!

...if the building blocks are too dilute, the Replicator will die before it can replicate.
Concentration is key.

Do you now agree with this statement?
Please make up your mind!

[natselrox]

You'd have to change the laws of Chemistry.

So what's your conclusion?

You lose, Chemistry wins.

Proud to lose to chemistry. But I don't know what I said that violates chemistry!

...if the building blocks are too dilute, the Replicator will die before it can replicate.
Concentration is key.

Do you now agree with this statement?
Please make up your mind!

Dilution of building blocks to the point where the replicator dies before it acquires enough material to replicate is an extreme case. We can have concentrations where the replicator manages to survive. And only in those water-bodies would life have originated.

[rainbow]

Please help me out with this dilemma:
1) In order to replicate, the Replicator must have available building blocks to do so.
2) The rate of replication is therefore directly related to the concentration of such building blocks.
3) If the building blocks are concentrated by some means, it follows that they are then isolated from the rest of the world.
4) The Replicator can't move, since it has no legs, and is also isolated.

It must follow that replication would decrease as building blocks are used up.

Yup. You're exactly right. There are two solutions to this apparent dilemma.

1. Raw materials are being produced all the time by the interaction of nitrogen, carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, etc., and energy sources in the atmosphere, such as lightening, UV light, thermal vents, etc. So, there's no reason to believe the supply of raw materials would ever truly run out.

However, if the concentration of replicators were very high, the competition for raw materials might be stiff. Hence...

That still doesn't solve the problem of how these 'building blocks' get concentrated up and then get to the isolated replicator/s.

2. The next logical step would be a replicator that had the ability to not only make use of available building blocks, but break down other replicators into their component parts and use them. This would be the evolution of predation at the molecular level.

This doesn't help as the total number of building blocks remain the same. All it does is postpone the inevitable.

[Dragonrider]

...if the building blocks are too dilute, the Replicator will die before it can replicate.
Concentration is key.

Do you now agree with this statement?
Please make up your mind!

If they're too dilute then it will die. In areas where it is not too dilute, they will not die. This is natural selection. Life will not flourish where the materials are not plentiful enough.

[Dragonrider]

Please help me out with this dilemma:
1) In order to replicate, the Replicator must have available building blocks to do so.
2) The rate of replication is therefore directly related to the concentration of such building blocks.
3) If the building blocks are concentrated by some means, it follows that they are then isolated from the rest of the world.
4) The Replicator can't move, since it has no legs, and is also isolated.

It must follow that replication would decrease as building blocks are used up.

Yup. You're exactly right. There are two solutions to this apparent dilemma.

1. Raw materials are being produced all the time by the interaction of nitrogen, carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, etc., and energy sources in the atmosphere, such as lightening, UV light, thermal vents, etc. So, there's no reason to believe the supply of raw materials would ever truly run out.

However, if the concentration of replicators were very high, the competition for raw materials might be stiff. Hence...

That still doesn't solve the problem of how these 'building blocks' get concentrated up and then get to the isolated replicator/s.

2. The next logical step would be a replicator that had the ability to not only make use of available building blocks, but break down other replicators into their component parts and use them. This would be the evolution of predation at the molecular level.

This doesn't help as the total number of building blocks remain the same. All it does is postpone the inevitable.

Good grief, your last question was answered by your first quote! The building blocks are naturally produced through chemical reactions outside of life. There is a continual supply raining down like mannah from heaven. Life may not have arose until there was already plentiful materials, solving your concentration problem.

[allanm]

It must follow that replication would decrease as building blocks are used up.

Yup. You're exactly right. There are two solutions to this apparent dilemma.

1. Raw materials are being produced all the time by the interaction of nitrogen, carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, etc., and energy sources in the atmosphere, such as lightening, UV light, thermal vents, etc. So, there's no reason to believe the supply of raw materials would ever truly run out.

However, if the concentration of replicators were very high, the competition for raw materials might be stiff. Hence...

2. The next logical step would be a replicator that had the ability to not only make use of available building blocks, but break down other replicators into their component parts and use them. This would be the evolution of predation at the molecular level.

Thank you OHSU. I was reading the thread and wondering why there were so many replies before someone said this.

OK, I'm a small, small man in many ways. But let the record show that on Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:19 am (5 whole hours earlier!) I'd said

A mutated replicator that can 'steal' building blocks from other replicators would be the smart-money bet for further increase - a molecular predator.

OK, I didn't make the point about resynthesis of raw materials. But - uh - I thought it!

[ericv00]

Please help me out with this dilemma:
1) In order to replicate, the Replicator must have available building blocks to do so.
2) The rate of replication is therefore directly related to the concentration of such building blocks.
3) If the building blocks are concentrated by some means, it follows that they are then isolated from the rest of the world.
4) The Replicator can't move, since it has no legs, and is also isolated.

It must follow that replication would decrease as building blocks are used up.

Yup. You're exactly right. There are two solutions to this apparent dilemma.

1. Raw materials are being produced all the time by the interaction of nitrogen, carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, etc., and energy sources in the atmosphere, such as lightening, UV light, thermal vents, etc. So, there's no reason to believe the supply of raw materials would ever truly run out.

However, if the concentration of replicators were very high, the competition for raw materials might be stiff. Hence...

That still doesn't solve the problem of how these 'building blocks' get concentrated up and then get to the isolated replicator/s.

Yes it does. Production. In fact, that word is the only word needed to solve your dilemma. Production.

The only relevant replicators would be the ones in areas of production of 'building blocks'. How would they even arise outside of these areas?

2. The next logical step would be a replicator that had the ability to not only make use of available building blocks, but break down other replicators into their component parts and use them. This would be the evolution of predation at the molecular level.

This doesn't help as the total number of building blocks remain the same. All it does is postpone the inevitable.

No it doesn't, because of a little word called 'production'. Number of 'building blocks' would not be static (and would likely spread from a source forming a gradient, promoting levels of competition), so your dilemma doesn't exist. Sorry.

[ericv00]

It must follow that replication would decrease as building blocks are used up.

Yup. You're exactly right. There are two solutions to this apparent dilemma.

1. Raw materials are being produced all the time by the interaction of nitrogen, carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, etc., and energy sources in the atmosphere, such as lightening, UV light, thermal vents, etc. So, there's no reason to believe the supply of raw materials would ever truly run out.

However, if the concentration of replicators were very high, the competition for raw materials might be stiff. Hence...

2. The next logical step would be a replicator that had the ability to not only make use of available building blocks, but break down other replicators into their component parts and use them. This would be the evolution of predation at the molecular level.

Thank you OHSU. I was reading the thread and wondering why there were so many replies before someone said this.

OK, I'm a small, small man in many ways. But let the record show that on Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:19 am (5 whole hours earlier!) I'd said

A mutated replicator that can 'steal' building blocks from other replicators would be the smart-money bet for further increase - a molecular predator.

OK, I didn't make the point about resynthesis of raw materials. But - uh - I thought it!

Heh, I was commenting of the production of materials, specifically. Worry not, its not like I think OHSU is the only valuable contributor in the thread.

[Paul Almond]

I don't see any reason to think that there ever was an "original replicator" or a specific moment at which replication started. Instead, there could have been many generations of "weak replicators", capable only of slightly influencing the environment to make something which has some kind of resemblance to them - and even this resemblance may not have been anything like a one to one mapping - it could have been much more abstract, so that A gives rise to B and B has no obvious resemblance at all to A - however A and B share some kind of abstractly described property in common. Evolution would still work with very weak replicators, but it would proceed much more slowly, because most of its work is being undone every time the weak replication occurs. However, as better replicators evolve, evolution becomes faster which in turn causes better replicators to evolve faster. Eventually, a reliable replicators which also worked with one to one mapping would result.

[rainbow]

Please help me out with this dilemma:
1) In order to replicate, the Replicator must have available building blocks to do so.
2) The rate of replication is therefore directly related to the concentration of such building blocks.
3) If the building blocks are concentrated by some means, it follows that they are then isolated from the rest of the world.
4) The Replicator can't move, since it has no legs, and is also isolated.

It must follow that replication would decrease as building blocks are used up.

Yup. You're exactly right. There are two solutions to this apparent dilemma.

1. Raw materials are being produced all the time by the interaction of nitrogen, carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, etc., and energy sources in the atmosphere, such as lightening, UV light, thermal vents, etc. So, there's no reason to believe the supply of raw materials would ever truly run out.

However, if the concentration of replicators were very high, the competition for raw materials might be stiff. Hence...

That still doesn't solve the problem of how these 'building blocks' get concentrated up and then get to the isolated replicator/s.

Yes it does. Production. In fact, that word is the only word needed to solve your dilemma. Production.

The only relevant replicators would be the ones in areas of production of 'building blocks'. How would they even arise outside of these areas?

OK, then we have the assumption that the Replicator/s were in the area of production. This cannot be in the atmosphere as this is worldwide and non-specific. That cuts out Miller-Urey as a source of building blocks.
Volcanic vents are not too good an option as the conditions are fine for making up stable building blocks, but are rather too violent for a Replicator consisting of RNA.
Any other ideas?

[Dragonrider]

OK, then we have the assumption that the Replicator/s were in the area of production. This cannot be in the atmosphere as this is worldwide and non-specific. That cuts out Miller-Urey as a source of building blocks.
Volcanic vents are not too good an option as the conditions are fine for making up stable building blocks, but are rather too violent for a Replicator consisting of RNA.
Any other ideas?

Who says that the Miller-Urey source would stay atmospheric? I already said that they could have rained down like mannah from heaven. They could have ORIGINATED in the atmosphere, but I think it's generally accepted that they would fall to, and accumulate in, the oceans. And they could have built up from several different sources, and spread to many different locations. You seem to think that there's a "production zone" of building blocks, and they would remain localized, which I find extremely unlikely. Given time to accumulate, the materials would spread to a wide area. And you are ignoring several points that have already been brought up. What if life had begun AFTER the materials had become widespread and extremely common?

[PhiloKGB]

OK, then we have the assumption that the Replicator/s were in the area of production. This cannot be in the atmosphere as this is worldwide and non-specific. That cuts out Miller-Urey as a source of building blocks.
Volcanic vents are not too good an option as the conditions are fine for making up stable building blocks, but are rather too violent for a Replicator consisting of RNA.
Any other ideas?

No. You have clearly exhausted every possible candidate environment for the emergence of self-replication on the entire primordial Earth. Therefore, God.

A break. I can has?

[Nautyskin]

Volcanic vents are not too good an option as the conditions are fine for making up stable building blocks, but are rather too violent for a Replicator consisting of RNA.

Volcanic vents come in many shapes and sizes, and could definitely provide the stream of resources which you asked about. A burst to break the crust, a settling of material post-burst which limits the amount of venting taking place. Why would this not be a possible model for that which you're asking? The vent doesn't have to even directly apply, the material could even be a constant 'ooze' from a branch of the main vent, or even a settling of material at a distance which would provide a slow, steady source of material.

There's a couple of options which would meet your criteria right there.

[rainbow]

OK, then we have the assumption that the Replicator/s were in the area of production. This cannot be in the atmosphere as this is worldwide and non-specific. That cuts out Miller-Urey as a source of building blocks.
Volcanic vents are not too good an option as the conditions are fine for making up stable building blocks, but are rather too violent for a Replicator consisting of RNA.
Any other ideas?

Who says that the Miller-Urey source would stay atmospheric? I already said that they could have rained down like mannah from heaven. They could have ORIGINATED in the atmosphere, but I think it's generally accepted that they would fall to, and accumulate in, the oceans. And they could have built up from several different sources, and spread to many different locations. You seem to think that there's a "production zone" of building blocks, and they would remain localized, which I find extremely unlikely. Given time to accumulate, the materials would spread to a wide area. And you are ignoring several points that have already been brought up. What if life had begun AFTER the materials had become widespread and extremely common?

Well, we have two possibilities:
1) The building blocks were formed over a wide area and dissolved into a wide area, but the concentrations would be too low for any known, or postulated pre-biotic reactions.
2) The building blocks were formed in an isolated area, where the concentrations would have been high enough for the possible pre-biotic reactions, but the temperatures would have been too high for a Replicator to survive.

Which do you favour, or do you have a workable THIRD scenario?

[campermon]

Well, we have two possibilities:
1) The building blocks were formed over a wide area and dissolved into a wide area, but the concentrations would be too low for any known, or postulated pre-biotic reactions.
2) The building blocks were formed in an isolated area, where the concentrations would have been high enough for the possible pre-biotic reactions, but the temperatures would have been too high for a Replicator to survive.

Which do you favour, or do you have a workable THIRD scenario?

Do you not consider that in reality there would be a continuum of such conditions, where the possibilities you suggest represent the extremes?

if so, why not?

[natselrox]

Well, we have two possibilities:
1) The building blocks were formed over a wide area and dissolved into a wide area, but the concentrations would be too low for any known, or postulated pre-biotic reactions.
2) The building blocks were formed in an isolated area, where the concentrations would have been high enough for the possible pre-biotic reactions, but the temperatures would have been too high for a Replicator to survive.

Which do you favour, or do you have a workable THIRD scenario?

Do you not consider that in reality there would be a continuum of such conditions, where the possibilities you suggest represent the extremes?

if so, why not?

[rainbow]

Well, we have two possibilities:
1) The building blocks were formed over a wide area and dissolved into a wide area, but the concentrations would be too low for any known, or postulated pre-biotic reactions.
2) The building blocks were formed in an isolated area, where the concentrations would have been high enough for the possible pre-biotic reactions, but the temperatures would have been too high for a Replicator to survive.

Which do you favour, or do you have a workable THIRD scenario?

Do you not consider that in reality there would be a continuum of such conditions, where the possibilities you suggest represent the extremes?

if so, why not?

The possibilities I suggest are those presented by Scientists working on Pre-Biotic conditions.
If they've got it wrong and you've got a better idea, please present it here.
Don't be vague, give us your workable scenario.
Thanking you in advance.

[campermon]

The possibilities I suggest are those presented by Scientists working on Pre-Biotic conditions.
If they've got it wrong and you've got a better idea, please present it here.
Don't be vague, give us your workable scenario.
Thanking you in advance.

Are you seriously suggesting that 'Scientists working on Pre-Biotic conditions' do not consider T gradients and matter transport in their models?

My cat is laughing at you rainbow!

[rainbow]

The possibilities I suggest are those presented by Scientists working on Pre-Biotic conditions.
If they've got it wrong and you've got a better idea, please present it here.
Don't be vague, give us your workable scenario.
Thanking you in advance.

Are you seriously suggesting that 'Scientists working on Pre-Biotic conditions' do not consider T gradients and matter transport in their models?

Not at all. Please show how T gradients and matter transport models resulted in the required concentrations of building blocks.

In your own words. Please don't forget to give references to the relevant peer-reviewed papers.

[campermon]

The possibilities I suggest are those presented by Scientists working on Pre-Biotic conditions.
If they've got it wrong and you've got a better idea, please present it here.
Don't be vague, give us your workable scenario.
Thanking you in advance.

Are you seriously suggesting that 'Scientists working on Pre-Biotic conditions' do not consider T gradients and matter transport in their models?

Not at all. Please show how T gradients and matter transport models resulted in the required concentrations of building blocks.

In your own words. Please don't forget to give references to the relevant peer-reviewed papers.

Remember;

I asked you to justify your assertion that only discrete sets of conditions can apply in a fluid situation.

In your own words now.

[rainbow]

The possibilities I suggest are those presented by Scientists working on Pre-Biotic conditions.
If they've got it wrong and you've got a better idea, please present it here.
Don't be vague, give us your workable scenario.
Thanking you in advance.

Are you seriously suggesting that 'Scientists working on Pre-Biotic conditions' do not consider T gradients and matter transport in their models?

Not at all. Please show how T gradients and matter transport models resulted in the required concentrations of building blocks.

In your own words. Please don't forget to give references to the relevant peer-reviewed papers.

Remember;

I asked you to justify your assertion that only discrete sets of conditions can apply in a fluid situation.

In your own words now.

Rubbish. That was never my assertion. Now please answer the question.

[campermon]

Rubbish. That was never my assertion. Now please answer the question.

"rainbow wrote:Well, we have two possibilities:
1) The building blocks were formed over a wide area and dissolved into a wide area, but the concentrations would be too low for any known, or postulated pre-biotic reactions.
2) The building blocks were formed in an isolated area, where the concentrations would have been high enough for the possible pre-biotic reactions, but the temperatures would have been too high for a Replicator to survive."



The way you framed those conditions reminds me of the good old cretinist arguments re the 2nd law!! (based on the misunderstanding of an open system and a closed system).

I asked you to explain these situations with respect to fluid mechanics, to show me how such discrete situations could arise.