Discussion:
Autocatalytic sets: less worse than RNA World?
(too old to reply)
MarkE
2025-01-12 08:36:28 UTC
Permalink
Yes/no/maybe? Or possibly as a precursor or complementary mechanism to
the RNA world?

"Autocatalytic sets have been an attractive alternative to the
“information-polymer-first” hypothesis since their introduction by
Kauffman. It offers a solution to the improbability of the formation of
self-replicating RNA. Simply put, forming many short cross-catalytic
molecules is statistically more likely than forming one highly efficient
self-replicator."
- Sergey Semenov

"It is consensual that life’s emergence necessitates an early appearance
of a self-copying chemical system. One scenario for that is “RNA-first,”
whereby life was seeded by a single polymeric self-replicating molecule.
Another scheme, conceived by Stuart Kauffman, contends that life was set
up by a supramolecular network that occasionally reaches catalytic
closure, leading to self-reproduction of an entire “collectively
autocatalytic set” (CAS)."
- Doron Lancet

"Autocatalysis is a particularly remarkable concept in that it allows us
to inspect the self-referential paradox in physical-chemical phenomena.
Cellular life is the epitome of material self-reference. Several authors
(including Kauffman, Dyson, Eigen, Schuster, Rosen, Ganti, Prigogine,
Maturana, and Varela) posited some form of collective autocatalysis or
chemical closure as central in the origins of life (OoL)."
- Joana Xavier

"It is true that some major researchers in the origin of life field have
given up in despair. I was stunned to learn this. The field is badly
fragmented. There is no overarching view around which many of us
disparate workers can think to organize work...If as a field, some
number of us could coordinate around creating such small molecule
collectively autocatalytic sets de novo, seeing how these might
co-evolve to include lipids, peptides, and RNA, then seeing how these
richer systems might co-evolve to template replication and coding, we
might find a pathway many of us could work on."
- Stuart Kauffman

Quotes above from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666386423004022

_________


Regardless, there appear to be several compelling reasons why
autocatalytic sets won't work for OoL:

The concept of autocatalytic sets has been widely discussed as a
potential mechanism for the origin of life, particularly in the context
of abiogenesis. These sets consist of networks of molecules in which
each molecule is catalyzed by others in the set, allowing
self-sustaining chemical processes. While the concept has theoretical
appeal, it has also faced significant criticisms and challenges. Below
are some of the key criticisms:

1. Lack of Experimental Evidence
Criticism: Despite theoretical models, there is limited experimental
evidence demonstrating that autocatalytic sets can arise spontaneously
in prebiotic conditions and maintain stable, self-sustaining behavior.
- Implications: Without experimental validation, the plausibility of
autocatalytic sets as a pathway to life remains speculative.

2. Fragility of Autocatalytic Networks
Criticism: Autocatalytic sets are often considered fragile. If one or
more critical components are lost or degraded, the entire network may
collapse, raising doubts about their robustness in fluctuating prebiotic
environments.
- Implications: Early Earth conditions were dynamic and potentially
hostile, with UV radiation, hydrolysis, and other destructive forces,
making the stability of such networks questionable.

3. Complexity and Probability
Criticism: The formation of an autocatalytic network capable of
self-sustaining replication and evolution requires a sufficiently
diverse and complex set of molecules. The likelihood of such complexity
arising spontaneously is debated.
- Implications: Critics argue that even with favorable conditions, the
emergence of complex networks through random chemical interactions may
be implausibly rare.

4. Lack of Information Encoding
Criticism: Autocatalytic sets, as described in many models, do not
inherently encode information in a manner analogous to nucleic acids
like DNA or RNA.
- Implications: Without a mechanism for hereditary information transfer,
it is unclear how such sets could undergo Darwinian evolution and give
rise to life.

5. Transition to Modern Biochemistry
Criticism: Autocatalytic sets may explain early chemical
self-organization, but it remains unclear how such systems could
transition into modern biochemistry, which relies on templated
replication (e.g., RNA, DNA) and complex metabolic pathways.
- Implications: This "gap" between autocatalytic chemistry and the
RNA/protein world challenges their role as a comprehensive solution to
abiogenesis.

6. Energy Constraints
Criticism: Autocatalytic sets require energy to drive chemical
reactions. The source, concentration, and consistency of energy in
prebiotic environments remain speculative.
- Implications: Without a clear energy source or mechanism for energy
coupling, it is difficult to see how autocatalytic networks could
sustain themselves over time.

7. Dependence on Specific Conditions
Criticism: Some models of autocatalytic sets depend on idealized
conditions, such as specific concentrations of reactants, catalysts, or
environmental factors.
- Implications: Critics argue that these requirements may be too
restrictive or unlikely to have been consistently met on the early Earth.

8. Circular Logic
Criticism: The concept of autocatalytic sets assumes that catalysis and
molecular diversity already exist, but it does not fully explain how
these features arise in the first place.
- Implications: This creates a circular argument, where the existence of
an autocatalytic network presupposes the conditions needed to form it.

9. Compartmentalization Challenge
Criticism: For autocatalytic sets to evolve, they need to be physically
isolated to prevent the dilution of components and maintain localized
reactions (e.g., in vesicles or compartments). However, how such
compartmentalization occurred prebiotically is not well understood.
- Implications: Without compartmentalization, maintaining coherence and
identity in an autocatalytic set seems unlikely.

10. Lack of Specificity in Catalysis
Criticism: Most models assume generalized catalytic properties for
molecules in the set, but real-life catalytic activity often depends on
precise molecular structures and environmental conditions.
- Implications: The assumption of broad catalytic activity may
oversimplify the challenges of forming and maintaining autocatalytic
networks.
MarkE
2025-01-12 11:19:21 UTC
Permalink
On 12/01/2025 7:36 pm, MarkE wrote:

<snip>


Jack Szostak thinks not...

Suzan Mazur: When we met at the Simons Foundation in April, you told me
you “don’t believe” in autocatalytic sets. Why is that? Haven’t the
Europeans integrated autocatalytic subsystems into their systems science?

Jack Szostak: Autocatalytic sets is one of those concepts where the
people who came up with the original idea, like Stuart Kauffman, rather
than admit being wrong, kept changing their story until it was basically
the same concept everybody was already working on.

The original idea was that there would be large numbers of compounds
where one would help another to replicate, and that one would help some
other one to replicate, and that somehow, out of this huge population of
interacting molecules, autocatalytic replication would emerge.

In my opinion, that was never chemically realistic. Now you see people
talking about non-enzymatic RNA replication and calling that
“autocatalytic sets.” If that’s what you want to call it, that’s fine.
But it seems like the concept has lost all meaning.”

Mazur, Suzan. The Origin of Life Circus: A How To Make Life Extravaganza
(pp. 57-58). Kindle Edition.


Or...

Nick Hud: I also have a problem with autocatalytic cycles -- with the
chemistry, the utility and the wide range of what people are talking
about. There is a long history of people proposing autocatalytic cycles
and thinking that such cycles are central to starting life, but then not
getting much to work in the lab.

I am a great fan of the idea of cycles, but I mostly think of cycles
that are driven externally, such as day-night cycles that are driving
chemicals between different states. To me, that seems a lot more
reasonable as the type of cycle that could get life started.

When it comes to an autocatalytic cycle where you just put the molecules
into a solution and they replicate, they have to be very specialized
molecules. Only certain ones will do, and a lot of engineering goes into
making these.

Whereas, we have already demonstrated that you can take some very simple
molecules and subject them to wet-dry cycles, and you can make polymers.
These polymers break apart and they reform. Those are the type of
reactions that I think you need to get life going. You can call that a
cycle -- a cycle of making and breaking bonds. But you don’t need very
special molecules, aside from the fact that they’re stable and they have
certain reactive groups that react together at mild enough temperatures.

Mazur, Suzan. The Origin of Life Circus: A How To Make Life Extravaganza
(pp. 89-90). Kindle Edition.


One more...

Suzan Mazur: Is autocatalytic sets a somewhat marginalized approach at
this point in protocell development?

Matt Powner: I don’t think the idea of autocatalytic sets has been
marginalized, but I don’t know if it’s necessary. My understanding of
the concept is that autocatalytic sets can in essence themselves evolve
purely through change in chemical composition. I’m not sure that’s been
demonstrated in a relevant system that doesn’t rapidly degenerate, and
I’m not sure that’s the essential step to building what we know as a
modern cell. However, if we actually found that autocatalytic

Mazur, Suzan. The Origin of Life Circus: A How To Make Life Extravaganza
(p. 242). Kindle Edition.
MarkE
2025-01-12 11:29:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by MarkE
Matt Powner: I don’t think the idea of autocatalytic sets has been
marginalized, but I don’t know if it’s necessary. My understanding of
the concept is that autocatalytic sets can in essence themselves evolve
purely through change in chemical composition. I’m not sure that’s been
demonstrated in a relevant system that doesn’t rapidly degenerate, and
I’m not sure that’s the essential step to building what we know as a
modern cell. However, if we actually found that autocatalytic
...sets work, this could be a lynchpin to understanding origin of life.

(Correction of an accidental but significant copy-paste truncation)
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2025-01-12 11:35:08 UTC
Permalink
On 2025-01-12 08:36:28 +0000, MarkE said:

[ … ]
Several authors (including Kauffman, Dyson, Eigen, Schuster, Rosen,
Ganti, Prigogine,
Maturana, and Varela) posited some form of collective autocatalysis or
chemical closure as central in the origins of life (OoL)."
- Joana Xavier
[ … ]
The field is badly fragmented. ...
- Stuart Kauffman
Yes, but why? These people came from very different backgrounds: Dyson,
physicist; Eigen, physical chemist; Rosen, mathematical biologist;
Gánti, engineer; Maturana and Varela, neuroscientists; etc. There is
little evidence that any of them knew one another (other, of course,
than ones who worked together, Eigen & Schuster; Maturana & Varela) or
interacted with one another (Rosen and Varela were introduced to one
another once at a meeting by someone who thought that they would have
lots to say to one another; they didn't find anything to discuss).
There are almost no cross-references in the publications of any of
these groups. That's a pity, but that's how it was. It's a bit late
now, as I think Kauffman and Schuster are the only ones who are still
alive.

My colleagues María Luz Cárdenas and Juan-Carlos Letelier and I are
almost the _only_ people who have made any attempt to make a synthesis
of the ideas of the giants that you have mentioned (see BioSystems 188
(2020) 104063). If you're not just quote-mining from work that you
don't understand, maybe you could try yourself, but don't imagine it
will be easy.
_________
Regardless, there appear to be several compelling reasons why
The concept of autocatalytic sets has been widely discussed as a
potential mechanism for the origin of life, particularly in the context
of abiogenesis. These sets consist of networks of molecules in which
each molecule is catalyzed by others in the set, allowing
self-sustaining chemical processes. While the concept has theoretical
appeal, it has also faced significant criticisms and challenges. Below
All presented without citations, or even mention of the names of the
people (scientists? journalists? creationists?) who make these
"criticisms". If you want to be taken seriously you need to include
some basic information.

[ … ]
--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016
MarkE
2025-01-12 12:12:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
[ … ]
Several authors (including Kauffman, Dyson, Eigen, Schuster, Rosen,
Ganti, Prigogine,
 Maturana, and Varela) posited some form of collective autocatalysis
or chemical closure as central in the origins of life (OoL)."
- Joana Xavier
[ … ]
The field is badly fragmented. ...
- Stuart Kauffman
Yes, but why? These people came from very different backgrounds: Dyson,
physicist; Eigen, physical chemist; Rosen, mathematical biologist;
Gánti, engineer; Maturana and Varela, neuroscientists; etc. There is
little evidence that any of them knew one another (other, of course,
than ones who worked together, Eigen & Schuster; Maturana & Varela) or
interacted with one another (Rosen and Varela were introduced to one
another once at a meeting by someone who thought that they would have
lots to say to one another; they didn't find anything to discuss). There
are almost no cross-references in the publications of any of these
groups.  That's a pity, but that's how it was. It's a bit late now, as I
think Kauffman and Schuster are the only ones who are still alive.
My colleagues María Luz Cárdenas and Juan-Carlos Letelier and I are
almost the _only_ people who have made any attempt to make a synthesis
of the ideas of the giants that you have mentioned (see BioSystems 188
(2020) 104063). If you're not just quote-mining from work that you don't
understand, maybe you could try yourself, but don't imagine it will be
easy.
Interesting first-hand background, thanks. OoL is by nature a diverse
and interdisciplinary field, which would partially explain the
fragmentation.

Is Kauffman's claim legitimate? "It is true that some major researchers
in the origin of life field have given up in despair."
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
_________
Regardless, there appear to be several compelling reasons why
The concept of autocatalytic sets has been widely discussed as a
potential mechanism for the origin of life, particularly in the
context of abiogenesis. These sets consist of networks of molecules in
which each molecule is catalyzed by others in the set, allowing self-
sustaining chemical processes. While the concept has theoretical
appeal, it has also faced significant criticisms and challenges. Below
All presented without citations, or even mention of the names of the
people (scientists? journalists? creationists?) who make these
"criticisms". If you want to be taken seriously you need to include some
basic information.
[ … ]
RonO
2025-01-12 15:04:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by MarkE
Yes/no/maybe? Or possibly as a precursor or complementary mechanism to
the RNA world?
"Autocatalytic sets have been an attractive alternative to the
“information-polymer-first” hypothesis since their introduction by
Kauffman. It offers a solution to the improbability of the formation of
self-replicating RNA. Simply put, forming many short cross-catalytic
molecules is statistically more likely than forming one highly efficient
self-replicator."
- Sergey Semenov
"It is consensual that life’s emergence necessitates an early appearance
of a self-copying chemical system. One scenario for that is “RNA-first,”
whereby life was seeded by a single polymeric self-replicating molecule.
Another scheme, conceived by Stuart Kauffman, contends that life was set
up by a supramolecular network that occasionally reaches catalytic
closure, leading to self-reproduction of an entire “collectively
autocatalytic set” (CAS)."
- Doron Lancet
"Autocatalysis is a particularly remarkable concept in that it allows us
to inspect the self-referential paradox in physical-chemical phenomena.
Cellular life is the epitome of material self-reference. Several authors
(including Kauffman, Dyson, Eigen, Schuster, Rosen, Ganti, Prigogine,
Maturana, and Varela) posited some form of collective autocatalysis or
chemical closure as central in the origins of life (OoL)."
- Joana Xavier
"It is true that some major researchers in the origin of life field have
given up in despair. I was stunned to learn this. The field is badly
fragmented. There is no overarching view around which many of us
disparate workers can think to organize work...If as a field, some
number of us could coordinate around creating such small molecule
collectively autocatalytic sets de novo, seeing how these might co-
evolve to include lipids, peptides, and RNA, then seeing how these
richer systems might co-evolve to template replication and coding, we
might find a pathway many of us could work on."
- Stuart Kauffman
Quotes above from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S2666386423004022
_________
Regardless, there appear to be several compelling reasons why
The concept of autocatalytic sets has been widely discussed as a
potential mechanism for the origin of life, particularly in the context
of abiogenesis. These sets consist of networks of molecules in which
each molecule is catalyzed by others in the set, allowing self-
sustaining chemical processes. While the concept has theoretical appeal,
it has also faced significant criticisms and challenges. Below are some
1. Lack of Experimental Evidence
Criticism: Despite theoretical models, there is limited experimental
evidence demonstrating that autocatalytic sets can arise spontaneously
in prebiotic conditions and maintain stable, self-sustaining behavior.
- Implications: Without experimental validation, the plausibility of
autocatalytic sets as a pathway to life remains speculative.
2. Fragility of Autocatalytic Networks
Criticism: Autocatalytic sets are often considered fragile. If one or
more critical components are lost or degraded, the entire network may
collapse, raising doubts about their robustness in fluctuating prebiotic
environments.
- Implications: Early Earth conditions were dynamic and potentially
hostile, with UV radiation, hydrolysis, and other destructive forces,
making the stability of such networks questionable.
3. Complexity and Probability
Criticism: The formation of an autocatalytic network capable of self-
sustaining replication and evolution requires a sufficiently diverse and
complex set of molecules. The likelihood of such complexity arising
spontaneously is debated.
- Implications: Critics argue that even with favorable conditions, the
emergence of complex networks through random chemical interactions may
be implausibly rare.
4. Lack of Information Encoding
Criticism: Autocatalytic sets, as described in many models, do not
inherently encode information in a manner analogous to nucleic acids
like DNA or RNA.
- Implications: Without a mechanism for hereditary information transfer,
it is unclear how such sets could undergo Darwinian evolution and give
rise to life.
5. Transition to Modern Biochemistry
Criticism: Autocatalytic sets may explain early chemical self-
organization, but it remains unclear how such systems could transition
into modern biochemistry, which relies on templated replication (e.g.,
RNA, DNA) and complex metabolic pathways.
- Implications: This "gap" between autocatalytic chemistry and the RNA/
protein world challenges their role as a comprehensive solution to
abiogenesis.
6. Energy Constraints
Criticism: Autocatalytic sets require energy to drive chemical
reactions. The source, concentration, and consistency of energy in
prebiotic environments remain speculative.
- Implications: Without a clear energy source or mechanism for energy
coupling, it is difficult to see how autocatalytic networks could
sustain themselves over time.
7. Dependence on Specific Conditions
Criticism: Some models of autocatalytic sets depend on idealized
conditions, such as specific concentrations of reactants, catalysts, or
environmental factors.
- Implications: Critics argue that these requirements may be too
restrictive or unlikely to have been consistently met on the early Earth.
8. Circular Logic
Criticism: The concept of autocatalytic sets assumes that catalysis and
molecular diversity already exist, but it does not fully explain how
these features arise in the first place.
- Implications: This creates a circular argument, where the existence of
an autocatalytic network presupposes the conditions needed to form it.
9. Compartmentalization Challenge
Criticism: For autocatalytic sets to evolve, they need to be physically
isolated to prevent the dilution of components and maintain localized
reactions (e.g., in vesicles or compartments). However, how such
compartmentalization occurred prebiotically is not well understood.
- Implications: Without compartmentalization, maintaining coherence and
identity in an autocatalytic set seems unlikely.
10. Lack of Specificity in Catalysis
Criticism: Most models assume generalized catalytic properties for
molecules in the set, but real-life catalytic activity often depends on
precise molecular structures and environmental conditions.
- Implications: The assumption of broad catalytic activity may
oversimplify the challenges of forming and maintaining autocatalytic
networks.
None of this should matter to you. The origin of life (#3 of the ID
perp's Top Six best evidences for the ID creationist scam) is not
Biblical. It does not support your religious beliefs. Even if some god
is responsible for the origin of life on earth it would not be the god
that you want to worship. In order to make #3 support your religious
beliefs you have to acknowledge that the Bible is just plain wrong about
nature, and that you have no idea of how life arose on this planet.
Biblical creationists like Denton have acknowledged that fact, and
Denton acknowledges that life could have arisen by natural processes,
but that everything needed was all set up by his god before it happened.
His god created this universe so that life could arise within it.

There is absolutely no reason for you to continue to wallow in the denial.

The god responsible for the origin of life would be the false god that
creationist posters like Ray would worry about existing. For guys like
Ray other creationists that accepted things like biological evolution
and how life arose on this planet were atheists. They did not believe
in the god of his Bible. The Top Six killed the ID scam on TO because
they were given to the rubes in their order simply reflecting the order
in which they must have occurred in this universe, and how they had
occurred in this universe and their order was not Biblical. Any ID
science that demonstrated designer involvement in the Top Six is just
more science that they would need to deny.

Ron Okimoto

Loading...