Perhaps there
is no clear dividing line between life and nonlife. Nevertheless, the emergence
of what many of us intuitively understand to be life marked a major milestone
in the evolution of complexity in our world. Here are some definitions of life:
But what is
life? Like time, life is obvious to discern yet elusive to define. Although
most biologists generally skirt the issue, we suggest that our very essence can
be defined as follows: Life is an open, coherent, spacetime structure
maintained far from thermodynamic equilibrium by a flow of energy through it –
a carbon-based system operating in a water-based medium, with higher forms
metabolizing oxygen (Eric Chaisson 2001).
Life does not
exist in a vacuum but dwells in the very real difference between 5800 Kelvin
incoming solar radiation and 2.7 Kelvin temperature of outer space. It is the
gradient upon which life’s complexity feeds (Margulis & Sagan 2002).
A living organism is an organized unit, which can carry out
metabolic reactions, defend itself against injury, respond to stimuli, and has
the capacity to be at least a partner in reproduction (Daniel Koshland).
Life depends
on the availability of free energy. Without an input of free energy or 'negative
entropy' (see below), all processes would tend to take a system towards a state
of entropic death. Intake of food keeps an organism alive by providing negative
entropy. The complex molecules constituting food are full of free energy or
negative entropy, which is derived ultimately from the Sun.
In 1943-1944
Schrödinger wrote a little book What is Life. This is how
Roger Penrose described this book (in 1991):
… which, as I now realize, must surely rank among the most influential of scientific writings in this century. It represents a powerful attempt to comprehend some of the genuine mysteries of life, made by a physicist whose own deep insights had done so much to change the way in which we understand what the world is made of. … Indeed, many scientists who have made fundamental contributions in biology, such as J. B. S. Haldane and Francis Crick, have admitted to being strongly influenced by (although not always in complete agreement with) the broad-ranging ideas put forward here by this highly original and profoundly thoughtful physicist.
It is
important to realize that when Schrödinger wrote the book, the atomic structure
of DNA was not known (it was determined later by Watson and Crick). I quote
Freeman Dyson (1985):
Schrödinger’s book was seminal because he knew how to ask the right questions. The basic questions which Schrödinger asked were the following: What is the physical structure of the molecules which are duplicated when chromosomes divide? How is the process of duplication to be understood? How do these molecules retain their individuality from generation to generation? How do they succeed in controlling the metabolism of cells? How do they create the organization that is visible in the structure and function of higher organisms? He did not answer these questions, but by asking them he set biology moving along the path which led to the epoch-making discoveries of the subsequent forty years: to the discovery of the double helix and the triplet code, to the precise analysis and wholesale synthesis of genes, and to the quantitative measurement of the evolutionary divergence of species.
How did
Schrödinger define life? He avoided giving a direct definition, but highlighted an important property of life by
invoking the idea of NEGATIVE ENTROPY. He characterized living matter as that
which stays alive (‘evades the decay to equilibrium’) by feeding on negative
entropy or negentropy.
How can
entropy be negative? How does living matter feed on negentropy, and what is the
source of this negentropy?
The answer to the
latter question is that the Sun has been bombarding our ecosphere with low-entropy
or ‘high-grade’ energy. Why ‘low-entropy’? Recall that differential entropy is
defined as dS = dQ/T (cf. Part 6), and the
average value of temperature T for
the Sun is huge compared to that of the Earth. On entering our ecosphere, the
energy of the photons coming from the Sun gets degraded to a large extent
through the processes of ‘thermalization,’ namely dissipation into a state of
much lower average temperature (and therefore a correspondingly high value for
the entropy).
A small fraction
of this energy, however, gets trapped as free energy. It is stored in our
ecosphere in the form of simple or complex molecules. Some of the energy-rich
simple molecules in which the free energy from the Sun gets stored are: H2S,
FeS, H2, phosphate esters, HCN, pyrophosphates, and thioesters.
When food is
consumed by a living organism, its processing by the organism builds up a high information content (negative entropy) for
the organism. Boltzmann-Gibbs entropy S is the same as missing
information I. This means that –S (negentropy) is the same as
available information (cf. Part 22).
Until 1944
most scientists were of the view that genetic information was carried by the
proteins of the chromosome. Schrödinger’s book, apart from invoking negative
entropy for the sustenance of life, introduced new concepts for the genetic
code. It inspired Watson and Crick to investigate the gene, which led to their
discovery of the double-helix structure of DNA. In their 1953 paper they wrote:
‘It has not escaped our notice that the
specific pairing [of the two strands of DNA] we have postulated suggests a
possible copying mechanism for genetic material.’ This sudden blaze of
understanding laid bare the inside story of heredity, and of present-day life
itself.
What is even
more important, Schrödinger argued that life is not a mysterious or
inexplicable phenomenon, as some people believe, but a scientifically
comprehensible process like any other, ultimately explainable by the laws of
physics and chemistry.
Sir, you have quoted Roger Penrose ; What do you think about his work on 'Orch-OR'? Would you cover it in a subsequent blog?
ReplyDeleteThank You for making my day with this one. :-))
Thank you.
DeleteRoger Penrose has a brilliant intellect, but some of his statements have been making him the darling of people like Deepak Chopra, and I am not amused by that. Scientists should be extra careful to ensure that their statements are not exploited by charlatans.
My favourite is Stephen Hawking. Hawking and Penrose did some work together. Whereas Hawking is a household name, Penrose is not. Some of Penrose's statements are attention-grabbers for sure.
Coming to Orch-OR, it is a theory which makes a number of falsifiable predictions, none of which have been confirmed by experiment. And many of these predictions have in fact been falsified. More information is available at the following URLs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orch-OR
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/3049/
Shrodinger did a great job. The follow up to what is life with the same title "What is life" by sagan and margulis is a great read as well. it talks about entropic boundaries and symbiogensis is a beautiful way.
ReplyDeleteYes indeed. I have written about symbiogenesis in Part 51 of this series at http://vinodwadhawan.blogspot.in/2012/10/51-biological-symbiosis-and-evolution_27.html
Delete