Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science

Did Protocells Serve As Software 'Code' In Early Evolutionary Biology? (sciencedaily.com) 163

Posted by EditorDavid from the origins-of-species dept.
Software developer nickwinlund77 writes: A new study following Nick Lane, et al.'s protocell study mentioned on Slashdot offers an explanation for how ''protocells'' could have emerged on early Earth, eventually leading to the cells we know today.

The work suggests that molecules called cyclophospholipids may have been the ingredient necessary for protocells to form important internal structures called vesicles, which likely kicked off the evolutionary process.

Are protocells basically a form of preliminary software-like 'code' in evolutionary biology?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Did Protocells Serve As Software 'Code' In Early Evolutionary Biology? More

Did Protocells Serve As Software 'Code' In Early Evolutionary Biology?

Comments Filter:

  • Why would you ask if the hardware is software? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Immerman ( 2627577 ) on Sunday December 01, 2019 @10:40AM (#59473216)

    If DNA or RNA was the early "software" i.e. the information carrier, then the early protocells (which may well have come later) would be moire akin to hardware, would they not?

    • Re:Why would you ask if the hardware is software? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Sunday December 01, 2019 @10:52AM (#59473244)

      If DNA or RNA was the early "software" i.e. the information carrier, then the early protocells (which may well have come later) would be moire akin to hardware, would they not?

      Definitely. Phospholipids are basically fat or oil cells that are more or less attracted to themselves, so they tend to form tiny spheres, inside of which other life forming chemicals can be sequestered.

      This is low level chemistry, quite promising as a hypothesis, and fascinating in it's simplicity. RNA and DNA fit the software concept, not lipid cell formation.

      • A lot of things can form little spheres, that's not entirely a complex setup. Getting the DNA going is really where it's at.

  • No. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Sunday December 01, 2019 @10:43AM (#59473222) Homepage Journal

    They're hardware, or 'wetware' if you like, but they are not software.

    I guess if it weren't a bad analogy, it wouldn't belong on Slashdot.

    • Yeah, it's more like a car where DNA is the engine and the RNA is the transmission.

    • "Are protocells basically a form of preliminary software-like 'code' in evolutionary biology?"

      So it isn't wetware, it is wetware? Do you not know the definition of wetware?

      • Do you not know the definition of wetware?

        The wetware is the hardware, but made out of biological components. It's you that doesn't know the definition of wetware. As usual, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Why do you even try?

    • They're hardware, or 'wetware' if you like, but they are not software.

      Early life may have been both. It's own structure, or a large part of it, may have served as a kind of proto-DNA. The separation of DNA (or RNA) from functional areas may have been a later refinement.

      Remember, the first life had no significant competition, and could be very simple, slow, and clunky by today's standards. (Insert a government job or Comcast joke here.)

  • DNA doesn't gain information, it loses information.

    Organisms "devolve" to alternate states, from a sufficiently complete -originally existing- data state.

    So, on this one I'll accept a "troll" moderation. It's about the only thing on this topic that will lead to interesting discussion.

    • So, like, basically Adam was made complete and from then on it was all downhill?

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Empiric ( 675968 )

        I think that sort of direct conceptual leap would be imprudent.

        It is, however, a remarkably religious-sounding notion that life has common ancestry back to -precisely one- organism. I don't see any scientific reason to conclude that.

        More likely, there are multiple original "proto-organisms" originating multiple biological trees. It's essentially a question of how far "back" you assert the original one or ones developed.

        Do I think it's possible the original human was created ex nihilo and complete? Yes, b

        • "Do I think it's possible the original human was created ex nihilo and complete? Yes"
           
          Ah, I am glad I made fun of you then.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Empiric ( 675968 )

            Fair enough.

            I'll console myself with the knowledge that only one of us can survive evolution, and that's me, even according to you.

            Don't underestimate what an entity with infinitely advanced technology could do, though.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dryeo ( 100693 )

          It is, however, a remarkably religious-sounding notion that life has common ancestry back to -precisely one- organism. I don't see any scientific reason to conclude that.

          The evidence is that all life discovered so far strongly seems to be related. They all use the same proteins, have the same handiness when it comes to things like sugars and various other chemical processes that are shared. Being related implies one common ancestor who survived. Whether there were other types of life that died out is close to unknowable.

      • "So, like, basically Adam was made complete and from then on it was all downhill?"

        Sure, he took a rib from Adam to clone Eve and then they absolutely had to mate, even though they were clone twins and got 2 inbreds to match, who invented murder.
        Nice try.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Empiric ( 675968 )

          So little do you understand.

          Meanwhile, Slashdot will be going insane over asking when they can buy Japanese and/or Chinese sex clones.

          As for murder, I have to wonder how you think you came into existence in an evolutionary history free of "murder".

          Perhaps you just "poofed" into existence from nowhere, eh?

    • DNA doesn't gain information, it loses information.

      Wrong. There's plenty of proof that information gets added to DNA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Empiric ( 675968 )
        Nice section on cancer. Are you considering cancer to be "adding information" for the purposes of discussion, beyond a wall of text?

        • Yes, any base pair that gets added to DNA is increasing the amount of information, for any reasonable definition of the word "information". If you disagree, then please explain what definition you're using, or find a different word to use.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Empiric ( 675968 )

            Well, being in IT, I don't consider "purposeless information" to be "information" in a strict sense. I consider it "noise".

            However, feel free to describe "purpose" as it validly relates to your notion of evolution, and I'll be more specific.

            It tends to be a challenge, though, as even the most ardent atheist can't seem to write two paragraphs about evolution without "slipping" into using concepts implying teleology.

            • I don't consider "purposeless information" to be "information" in a strict sense. I consider it "noise".

              There is no purpose, just random changes. Some changes happen to be good and beneficial, some are bad, most are neutral. The bad changes don't survive, so the good and neutral ones stay, and increases information that appears to be purposeful.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Empiric ( 675968 )

                And they only way they can "stay" is if each step is not overtly harmful, as basically everything unfinished or broken is, and the sequence of organisms survives for the next mutation and the next and the next on the open-ended stack of mutations required to produce a functional system.

                You are absurdly oversimplifying drawing equivalence to a single mutation, unless you think, say, the immune system can be produced with a single set of mutations in a single generation. At that point the improbability is so

    • Incorrect. Any mutation, by definition, is new information. Simply because you do not understand how things work, doesn't mean you are justified in inserting spurious claims as a result. You should, instead, start with "I don't know" and then do the work necessary to understand. One can do this by taking classes in biology, or by using the internet to find credible sources of information to help you understand better. This, of course, requires you are sufficiently equipped to understand what is credible a

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Empiric ( 675968 )

        It may be "information" in the sense that random numbers are "information", but it is not useful, constructive, specified information.

        Perhaps I should have been more specific. As for "understanding", I have quite cogent information from a Professor of Biochemistry, which I won't name, pending the standard pointless political smear. I'll simply leave that unstated, and have you present what you feel is the science on this, through objective means.

        • Drug dealers are not Professors of Biochemistry.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Empiric ( 675968 )

            You've made enough particularly stupid trolls already for this thread, haven't you?

            I'm done with them, and will just wait and let evolution eliminate you for me. Enjoy.

        • It may be "information" in the sense that random numbers are "information", but it is not useful, constructive, specified information.

          The new organism, born with that piece of "information" will try their chance to survive in nature. If the information is useful and constructive, they will be more likely to succeed, and pass that information on to their children. If the information was harmful, it will be more likely to die out.

    • "DNA doesn't gain information, it loses information."

      Of course it does. It's called a mutation. By your argument evolution isn't a thing and DNA is no more complex now than it was before humans existed.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by HiThere ( 15173 )

      It's a weird way of looking at it, but it's almost always true. That's where the "selection" part of evolution comes in. Most changes to hereditary are bad. Many of them are instantly fatal. It's only the rare one that's good enough to survive as well as the parent. And of those it's only a rare one that's differently well enough.

      Statistically, almost all mutations are bad. But filter those out for long enough, and variants that are at least equally good show up.

      OTOH, "devolve" is an invalid concept.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Empiric ( 675968 )

        but those surface reasons suffice

        Ah, no they don't. We're talking about science.

    • DNA doesn't gain information, it loses information.

      False.

      Organisms "devolve" to alternate states, from a sufficiently complete -originally existing- data stat

      False.

      This is so laughably ignorant, that I'm not going to spend any more time responding to it. Anybody can check a child's science textbook to learn that this is completely wrong.

  • Interesting! (Score:3)

    by Applehu Akbar ( 2968043 ) on Sunday December 01, 2019 @11:36AM (#59473354)

    This hypothesis would explain the platypus as a species coded in Perl. Cancer would be a bug in a C++ implementation.

  • Uhhh don't use 'code'! (Score:3)

    by nsxdavid ( 254126 ) <dw&play,net> on Sunday December 01, 2019 @11:37AM (#59473360) Homepage

    Whenever the word 'code' is used in biology, such as in describing DNA, it throws needless confusion into the mix. Chemical processes are not code. Code is written by, and with purpose, by a coder... or a creator. And that is not what this is. The waters just get muddied for anyone clinging to nonsensical religious machinations about the origin of life.

    • Whenever the word 'code' is used in biology, such as in describing DNA, it throws needless confusion into the mix. Chemical processes are not code. Code is written by, and with purpose, by a coder... or a creator. And that is not what this is. The waters just get muddied for anyone clinging to nonsensical religious machinations about the origin of life.

      I understand your point and disagree. If a computer is built 100% with ASICs, its still running code, even if that code is hardware created. Same applies to computer made by the likes of turning. It's OS was hardware. Its still code.

    • Since DNA is provably a code you just both argued for and against creationism.

    • Just like the comment from MikeDataLink, "I understand your point and disagree."
      DNA is a code. The information of how to make a new organism is all recorded there. Each sentence in the code is an explicit set of commands or instructions to produce a given peptide or protein. As you stated, "code", as you imply it, is written by someone or some entity. The information is abstract. It is recorded as letters on paper, or cuneiform on clay tablets, or holes on a punch card, or magnetic orientations of iron

  • They also do not serve as "banana for scale" or any other shallow stupid jornoanalogy

  • The lead off comment stated "Betteridges Law of Headlines applies here". True. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. As stated, "Did Protocells Serve As Software 'Code' In Early Evolutionary Biology?". The answer is no. The problem is the Slashdot headline itself, which introduces "software code" into reports that had no such references.

    This Slashdot article refers to a reporting piece from Science Daily:
    "Scientists identify molecule that could have helped cells thrive on early Earth" https://www.scienceda [sciencedaily.com]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by lenski ( 96498 )

      There is another major transition that was needed in evolution, the move from non-protein protocells to protein dependent protocells. Life as we understand it in real karyotes depends on transmissible information, meaning nucleic acids (the memory) which in turn implies protein based chemistry.

      Admitted: Software developer here, not biologist

      Not to quibble with your interesting comment, but I wonder whether "transmissible information" strictly requires nucleic acids. It seems to me that a "stable protocell" instance whose membranes protect their internal structures could on occasion experience a pinching-off due to some environmental effect. The result would be something reminiscent of "replication" without requiring coded inheritance where a single instance transitions to more than one. Instances

      • Yes, exactly. Those vesicles become a place where DNA is stored, but it could be anything - or nothing, as you posit. You understood that second to last paragraph exactly. The ability to replicate could be inherent in the self-assembly of the structure involved, as long as there is more substrate or "monomer" available that can assemble or crystallize on the remnant or fragment of the original. (That concept then becomes more certain if the existing structure can catalyze more monomer from the surroundi

Slashdot Top Deals

2.4 statute miles of surgical tubing at Yale U. = 1 I.V.League

Close