• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Non-Living Replicators: Let's just list as many as we can!

Wowbagger

The Infinitely Prolonged
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
15,660
Location
Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Alright, everyone,
Let's see how many different examples of non-living self-replication systems we can list!! By "non-living", I mean things that are clearly not life forms (obviously, this excludes plants, animals, fungi, etc. And, more specifically, excludes their genes).

I know there is a fair share of gray-area in this matter: (Do viruses and bacteria count as life forms?) However, this thread is not intended to resolve such issues. (If it does, anyway, I guess that wouldn't hurt, though.)

The more obscure, the better. And, obviously the further degrees of separation from life forms, the better.
Memes and computer viruses would have been relatively good examples.
However, replication in a physical medium is preferred. (And, if it does not possess organic chemicals, what-so-ever, that would be even better!)

The replicator is not required to possess anything equivalent to genes. All it has to be is something that tends to copy itself, or its shape, or pattern, or whatever.
It could be man made or naturally occurring.

I am doing this, partly for my own fascination. And, partly in response to the end of this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68904
Specifically, to expand on this post, in that thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2124238#post2124238

Some Examples, to start us off, though I doubt these are very good ones:

* Very simple replication of physical patterns in diamond crystals and soap bubbles.

* Nanotech molecular assemblers that assemble other assemblers like themselves

* "clanking replicators", which have yet to be invented, as far as I know. But, the idea is of a macro-sized machine capable of making copies of itself, (usually by being given pieces to work with), and those copies, of course, are turned on to make other copies of themselves.

* Other stuff that could be considered "close to being a living thing", depending on how you define such things: polypeptides, prions, viroids, etc.

* I also seem to recall some vague notion of another good example: It involved two chemicals, one used in photography, I think. And, I forget what the other was. But, if you placed an oddly shaped "impurity" into the mixture, it would start a chain reaction of whatever shape that impurity was, growing bigger, and breaking off into similar shaped bits. I do not remember the details, and I forget where I heard this from. But, if anyone does recognize what I am getting at, please contribute the source. (In the meantime, I will try to find it again, either on the Internet or in my rather large book collection. I have been too lazy to look it up, earlier.)

As a reminder, Richard Dawkins has a good chapter on this subject, early on, in his first book The Selfish Gene. I recommend reading the Second Edition or later, which has some important end notes added.

So, now let the listing begin!
I am sure there are some of you could could deliver much better examples than what I provided, so far!
 
I don't think there is such a thing except for viruses. They are not really a gray area, they don't fulfil any of the criteria for life except self-replication, and this is not actually performed by the viruses themselves (they don't 'perform' anything at all except floating around, really!).

Bacteria on the other hand are also no gray area, they are clearly life forms, same as our body cells. Well, some are much simpler, but still very much resemblant and clearly fulfilling the accepted criteria for life.
 
Hmm.. assuming a very wide understanding of 'self-replication', we might include something like certain fractals. Though they are a mathematical concept and we're not talking about any physical self-replication here.
 
I don't think there is such a thing except for viruses. They are not really a gray area, they don't fulfil any of the criteria for life except self-replication, and this is not actually performed by the viruses themselves (they don't 'perform' anything at all except floating around, really!).

Bacteria on the other hand are also no gray area, they are clearly life forms, same as our body cells. Well, some are much simpler, but still very much resemblant and clearly fulfilling the accepted criteria for life.

I said "gray areas" because it depends on your definition of life. I suppose you would be right, on most definitions. But, sometimes, a useful definition of life would require something more simple, such as a hint of organic chemicals, or merely the abiliy to reproduce in a physical form.

And, I know viruses do not perform replication by themselves, however, their structure is such that they easily enduce their enviornment to replicate them.
And that, for the purposes of this list, sort of counts as a non-living replicator.

ETA: Fractals are a relatively good example, in some respects, though as you point out, they do not preproduce in a physical sense.
 
Well, sometimes they do, in the form of snowflakes for example. The structure will start in a certain way due to random chance, and then replicate according to a fractal pattern.
 
Fat micelles, obviously. Bilipid layers can grow and split up with changes in environmental conditions.

Athon
 
In regards to fractals:
Well, sometimes they do, in the form of snowflakes for example. The structure will start in a certain way due to random chance, and then replicate according to a fractal pattern.
True enough!


Fat micelles, obviously. Bilipid layers can grow and split up with changes in environmental conditions.
Very good.

what about fire, rust and left socks?
Fire might count. Rust as well, to a certain extent. I'm skeptical about the left socks, though.
 
* I also seem to recall some vague notion of another good example: It involved two chemicals, one used in photography, I think. And, I forget what the other was. But, if you placed an oddly shaped "impurity" into the mixture, it would start a chain reaction of whatever shape that impurity was, growing bigger, and breaking off into similar shaped bits. I do not remember the details, and I forget where I heard this from. But, if anyone does recognize what I am getting at, please contribute the source. (In the meantime, I will try to find it again, either on the Internet or in my rather large book collection. I have been too lazy to look it up, earlier.)

As a reminder, Richard Dawkins has a good chapter on this subject, early on, in his first book The Selfish Gene. I recommend reading the Second Edition or later, which has some important end notes added.


Just pulled my recently read copy of 'The Blind Watchmaker'

Dawkins talks of a supersaturated solution of 'hypo' fixer (no, I don't know what it is either, but it's something to do with photography) into which you drop 'hypo' crystal, which grows more crystal, breaks up and continues until the solution is too weak to sustain the process. (I seem to recall doing something similar as a kid with a chemistry set or maybe a shop bought kit, but memory is clouded)

Dawkins quotes from Cairs-Smith's 'Seven Clues to the Origin of life'

It's all on page 150/151 of my copy (2006)


I don't have time to type it all up now, but hope this helps.
 
not to hijack, but IS rust some sort of living creature? Like an algae or something?

No, rust is just iron oxide... iron that reacts with the oxygen in the atmosphere and turns into rust. So the rust isn´t actually replicating, it just sits there, and new rusts is created independently from the prior existence of other rust.



On the other hand, I am quite sure that bureaucratic paperwork is self-replicating, and I have my suspicions about tax laws, as wel...
 
On the other hand, I am quite sure that bureaucratic paperwork is self-replicating, and I have my suspicions about tax laws, as wel...

bureaucratic paperwork is not self replicating, some of us work very hard to increase the amount of bureaucratic paperwork, if only it where self replicating. ;)
 
perhaps waves?
I'm not so sure that qualifies. Unless you can come up with an example, I don't think waves replicate: they move around a lot, but are "generated" by something else, not themselves.

maybe the universe is.....:D
That is a hypothesis, and as previous post partly points out, perhaps the big-bang of one universe is the baby universe born in a black hole.
But, at the moment, it is speculation. I do not think anyone has conclusive evidence for this, yet.

Just pulled my recently read copy of 'The Blind Watchmaker'

Dawkins talks of a supersaturated solution of 'hypo' fixer (no, I don't know what it is either, but it's something to do with photography) into which you drop 'hypo' crystal, which grows more crystal, breaks up and continues until the solution is too weak to sustain the process. (I seem to recall doing something similar as a kid with a chemistry set or maybe a shop bought kit, but memory is clouded)

Dawkins quotes from Cairs-Smith's 'Seven Clues to the Origin of life'

It's all on page 150/151 of my copy (2006)


I don't have time to type it all up now, but hope this helps.
Ah yes! That is what I might have been thinking about! Thanks!
 
I'm not so sure that qualifies. Unless you can come up with an example, I don't think waves replicate: they move around a lot, but are "generated" by something else, not themselves.

I'm not sure they qualify either :p

but to advocate for their inclusion, one could say that all self-replicators are "generated" by something else, generally an external energy source, and some environmental structures or forces that facilitate their self-replication. By that logic, waves may qualify too.
 
That is a hypothesis, and as previous post partly points out, perhaps the big-bang of one universe is the baby universe born in a black hole.
But, at the moment, it is speculation. I do not think anyone has conclusive evidence for this, yet.


indeed - that's why i said maybe :)
 

Back
Top Bottom