Compositional Information
Tom Hendricks
While reading a paper about OOL, I noticed the term 'compositional
information'.
But what information is being replicated at the start of life?
I contend that most writers seem to think chemicals want to reproduce,
make protein, and get to us. I think all that is a type of life
anthropomorphism. It's like saying my salt wants to eat, and my pepper
wants to replicate.
I think the only compositional information during the OOL, is that
which allowed stability. Chemicals without stability were lost.
Chemicals with stability were kept in existence a little longer.
These stable chemicals in their environment were more likely to keep
existing with these configurations. They weren'r there to pass info in
anyway. The were there to exist, and keep existing, or they were not
there.
The only compositional information was this , what configuration of
chemicals kept that configuration of chemicals in existence. After
billions of years we have found the answer - those chemicals that
mimic life processes. But always their 'compositional information' is
the same - what leads to existence now, and stability in this
environment. When that information does not lead to stability and
existence, it is not stable or in existence.
Biologists have, IMO missed the obvious on what 'compositional
information' is.
Comment?
Guy A Hoelzer
I agree entirely with your first paragraph, but I have a different point of
view regarding stability. In my view it is not the stability of particular
chemical species that led to life. Instead, I see life as a
far-from-equilibrium phenomenon based on dynamic chemical processes. In
this view, it is the instability of chemical species allowing for metabolic
energy processing that provides the foundation for life. It seems likely to
me that the stability of DNA as a substrate for "memory storage" came later
as a supplemental feature.
Cheers,
Guy
in article hi52n1$6pf$1...@darwin.ediacara.org, Tom Hendricks at
tom-he...@att.net wrote on 1/7/10 8:38 AM:
Tom Hendricks
> Hi Tom,
>
> I agree entirely with your first paragraph, but I have a different point of
> view regarding stability. �In my view it is not the stability of particular
> chemical species that led to life. �Instead, I see life as a
> far-from-equilibrium phenomenon based on dynamic chemical processes. �In
> this view, it is the instability of chemical species allowing for metabolic
> energy processing that provides the foundation for life. �It seems likely to
> me that the stability of DNA as a substrate for "memory storage" came later
> as a supplemental feature.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Guy
>
> tom-hendri...@att.net wrote on 1/7/10 8:38 AM:
I would suggest that that instability is more flexibility in staying
stable,
or staying in existence. Thus changing to better adapt to the
environment, is the best way to stay stable.
Though really it's pretty close to the same thing.
William Morse
> Hi Tom,
>
> I agree entirely with your first paragraph, but I have a different point of
> view regarding stability. In my view it is not the stability of particular
> chemical species that led to life. Instead, I see life as a
> far-from-equilibrium phenomenon based on dynamic chemical processes. In
> this view, it is the instability of chemical species allowing for metabolic
> energy processing that provides the foundation for life. It seems likely to
> me that the stability of DNA as a substrate for "memory storage" came later
> as a supplemental feature.
Jefferson Airplane sang "life is change - how it differs from the rocks"
And even with DNA providing a stable base for information storage,
stasis is incompatible with life. When life ceases to be a dynamic
process, life ceases to be.
Now I do think information storage is key to understanding evolution,
although it may not be crucial for life. I know way too little about
information theory.
Yours,
Bill
Lorentz
> (Break from the discussion on Catabolic/anabolic)
>
> While reading a paper about OOL, I noticed the term 'compositional
> information'.
example does that paper give of compositional information?
> But what information is being replicated at the start of life?
> I contend that most writers seem to think chemicals want to reproduce,
> make protein, and get to us.
That is not true. Most science writers do not imply that.
>I think all that is a type of life
> anthropomorphism. It's like saying my salt wants to eat, and my pepper
> wants to replicate.
Great. You accuse science writers of anthrocentrism, and now you
are making up a metaphor to represent your misrepresentation of
science writers.
>
> I think the only compositional information during the OOL, is that
> which allowed stability.
The same for minerals. Minerals are not alive. Very circular
reasoning, for living things or minerals.However, the most stable of
them somehow last.
Chemicals without stability were lost.
> Chemicals with stability were kept in existence a little longer.
> These stable chemicals in their environment were more likely to keep
> existing with these configurations. They weren'r there to pass info in
> anyway. The were there to exist, and keep existing, or they were not
> there.
This is the basis of geology, not biology. Stable minerals
exist. So what?
>
> The only compositional information was this , what configuration of
> chemicals kept that configuration of chemicals in existence. After
> billions of years we have found the answer - those chemicals that
> mimic life processes.
Plus a lot of minerals that don't mimic lifes processes.
>But always their 'compositional information' is
> the same - what leads to existence now, and stability in this
> environment. When that information does not lead to stability and
> existence, it is not stable or in existence.
Word salad. You just lost me here.
>
> Biologists have, IMO missed the obvious �on what 'compositional
> information' is.
If your article defined compositional information as poorly as
you have, then I would throw away that article.
> �Comment?
I have been taking you seriously. However, I just reached the
point where I find your posts tiresome. I think a change of topic
would do both of us some good.
Try talking about something you have real expertise in. I suspect
it is music. How do you think musical ability evolved in our hominid
ancestors?
Read up on primate biology before you answer.
Tom Hendricks
> On Jan 7, 11:38�am, Tom Hendricks <tom-hendri...@att.net> wrote:> (Break from the discussion on Catabolic/anabolic)
>
> > I think the only compositional information during the OOL, is that
> > which allowed stability.
>
> � � � � �The same for minerals. Minerals are not alive. Very circular
> reasoning, for living things or minerals.
That is not true. Excluding bits of zircons the earth has few minerals
as old as life. Plate techtonics have gotten rid of most of the crust
from the time when life probably began.
Let's go further, the atmosphere is now different from the OOL.
The ocean seas have been sterilized in ocean vents.
Therefore life is for the most part more stable than the earth, air,
and the water.
Guy A Hoelzer
I think you are comparing apples and oranges in this thread. The geological
processes producing mineral deposits have continued without interruption,
just like the processes comprising life have continued uninterrupted for
billions of years. There may not be many of the original bits of geological
material still around, because geological dynamics have continued to process
and recycle this material. The same is true of the material bits of life.
Guy
in article hiuebs$6kq$1...@darwin.ediacara.org, Tom Hendricks at
tom-he...@att.net wrote on 1/16/10 11:31 PM: