note: the following train of thought is part of an ongoing scribble that is spread across that last page of a few of my notebooks. chances are i was supposed to be studying, but instead my mind started to wander in more 'philosophical' directions. proving once again that i've become such a science dork that i can't even daydream properly. please bear in mind that the following ideas are incomplete and certainly require more serious reflection.
ever since smart people started to investigate the world around them (probably the greeks), people were certain that there had to be a fundamental difference between those things that are alive and those that are not. rocks, hills, and trees (to them at least) just had to be missing something that humans, and animals to a lesser extent, possess. i'm sure they concocted some interesting explanations based upon their observations. but today, our molecular understanding of life indicates that all functions of biology are purely at the mercy of 'blind' chemistry. (more fundamentally we could say physics because that is what drives chemistry, but i'm a biochemist/molecular biologist, not a physicist.)
everything that has been learned about cellular life in the last hundred years; enzymes catalyzing reactions, gene regulation, environmental perception, everything is carried out by simple, favorable chemical reactions. as microbiologists we often speak of a bacterial cell 'sensing' the most readily metabolizable energy source and producing the corresponding enzyme pathways. after all 'response to external stimuli is one of the basic criteria for defining life.' in our abstract language we imply that a single bacterium is controlled by a conscious decision maker in a small membrane-bound cockpit manipulating the controls. but a living cell is fundamentally nothing more than an enclosed aggregate of molecules, very complex and specialized molecules by any measure, but molecules no the less.
this bears with it great complications. what makes these interacting molecules so special to set them apart from acid/base chemistry in a bubbling stream, ozone formation in the upper atmosphere, and dissolution of salt ions in water? nothing! it's all the same simple chemistry. there is basically nothing fancy about biological chemistry; charges interact, hydrophobic regions associate together by van der waals forces, electrons are passed around, and covalent bonds are formed and broken. what then bridged the great gap between chemistry of the non-living and chemistry of the living? how did unavoidable, spontaneous, and random chemical reactions become so concerted and organized to point of autonomy capable of precise self-replication? likewise, how could the continuation of these reactions result in undirected improvement and selection through evolution?
to be honest, the molecules responsible for life are far more complex than those which you associate with the non-living. you'll be hard pressed to look in your backyard and find a interesting molecule that is not the result of 'living' chemical reactions. interestingly, the element at the heart of many such molecules is carbon. everything in a cell; it's lipid membrane envelope, the protein machines, the dna blueprints, and even the 'food' it consumes are all based around carbon chemistry. (organic chemistry is inescapable) but lest we forget, other carbon containing compounds, thou less complex and far less exciting, exist in nature with the help of life. popular examples of these molecules include methane, carbon dioxide, and bicarbonate; so we can't really rely on carbon as 'the stuff of life' even though it plays a critical role.
now the wandering mind (well, my wandering mind) takes things a step further and on to bigger questions; scarier questions. how do we make the next jump, from single-celled life up to a rational, reflective organism like a human? right now we may not be able to explain consciousness, thought, language, and emotion in terms of chemistry. so we are back with the greeks, and appeal to an understanding not rooted in chemistry. such a view can certainly change, as scary as it sounds. and what about God? does our idea of a creator or supreme being fall under attack if we now adopt a 'chemical' perception of the world and it's organization into life? maybe God would have to exist outside of this world of interacting molecules if our understanding of Him is to hold true. there are some obvious implications that this possess to creationism and evolution camps alike. none of which i am prepared to consider just yet.
what about life on other plants? how does this all effect our definition of 'life?' it seems that if our complex and diverse mixture of life here on earth functions successfully by spontaneous, favorable chemical interactions (and may have arisen from such interactions) there must, unequivocally be life (at some level) elsewhere in the vastness of the universe.
it doesn't take long to see the danger inherent in some of these ideas. i'll admit, it's scary stuff that can shake your foundation. but it begs a lot of questions that thinkers great (or at least more educated) that i aren't always willing to touch. like i said, more development is required. fortunately i'm never at a loss for homework i'd rather not be doing.
ever since smart people started to investigate the world around them (probably the greeks), people were certain that there had to be a fundamental difference between those things that are alive and those that are not. rocks, hills, and trees (to them at least) just had to be missing something that humans, and animals to a lesser extent, possess. i'm sure they concocted some interesting explanations based upon their observations. but today, our molecular understanding of life indicates that all functions of biology are purely at the mercy of 'blind' chemistry. (more fundamentally we could say physics because that is what drives chemistry, but i'm a biochemist/molecular biologist, not a physicist.)
everything that has been learned about cellular life in the last hundred years; enzymes catalyzing reactions, gene regulation, environmental perception, everything is carried out by simple, favorable chemical reactions. as microbiologists we often speak of a bacterial cell 'sensing' the most readily metabolizable energy source and producing the corresponding enzyme pathways. after all 'response to external stimuli is one of the basic criteria for defining life.' in our abstract language we imply that a single bacterium is controlled by a conscious decision maker in a small membrane-bound cockpit manipulating the controls. but a living cell is fundamentally nothing more than an enclosed aggregate of molecules, very complex and specialized molecules by any measure, but molecules no the less.
this bears with it great complications. what makes these interacting molecules so special to set them apart from acid/base chemistry in a bubbling stream, ozone formation in the upper atmosphere, and dissolution of salt ions in water? nothing! it's all the same simple chemistry. there is basically nothing fancy about biological chemistry; charges interact, hydrophobic regions associate together by van der waals forces, electrons are passed around, and covalent bonds are formed and broken. what then bridged the great gap between chemistry of the non-living and chemistry of the living? how did unavoidable, spontaneous, and random chemical reactions become so concerted and organized to point of autonomy capable of precise self-replication? likewise, how could the continuation of these reactions result in undirected improvement and selection through evolution?
to be honest, the molecules responsible for life are far more complex than those which you associate with the non-living. you'll be hard pressed to look in your backyard and find a interesting molecule that is not the result of 'living' chemical reactions. interestingly, the element at the heart of many such molecules is carbon. everything in a cell; it's lipid membrane envelope, the protein machines, the dna blueprints, and even the 'food' it consumes are all based around carbon chemistry. (organic chemistry is inescapable) but lest we forget, other carbon containing compounds, thou less complex and far less exciting, exist in nature with the help of life. popular examples of these molecules include methane, carbon dioxide, and bicarbonate; so we can't really rely on carbon as 'the stuff of life' even though it plays a critical role.
now the wandering mind (well, my wandering mind) takes things a step further and on to bigger questions; scarier questions. how do we make the next jump, from single-celled life up to a rational, reflective organism like a human? right now we may not be able to explain consciousness, thought, language, and emotion in terms of chemistry. so we are back with the greeks, and appeal to an understanding not rooted in chemistry. such a view can certainly change, as scary as it sounds. and what about God? does our idea of a creator or supreme being fall under attack if we now adopt a 'chemical' perception of the world and it's organization into life? maybe God would have to exist outside of this world of interacting molecules if our understanding of Him is to hold true. there are some obvious implications that this possess to creationism and evolution camps alike. none of which i am prepared to consider just yet.
what about life on other plants? how does this all effect our definition of 'life?' it seems that if our complex and diverse mixture of life here on earth functions successfully by spontaneous, favorable chemical interactions (and may have arisen from such interactions) there must, unequivocally be life (at some level) elsewhere in the vastness of the universe.
it doesn't take long to see the danger inherent in some of these ideas. i'll admit, it's scary stuff that can shake your foundation. but it begs a lot of questions that thinkers great (or at least more educated) that i aren't always willing to touch. like i said, more development is required. fortunately i'm never at a loss for homework i'd rather not be doing.
No comments:
Post a Comment