Sara I. Walker, Cole Mathis, Stuart Marshall, Leroy Cronin
{"title":"Experimental Measurement of Assembly Indices are Required to Determine The Threshold for Life","authors":"Sara I. Walker, Cole Mathis, Stuart Marshall, Leroy Cronin","doi":"arxiv-2406.06826","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Assembly Theory (AT) was developed to help distinguish living from non-living\nsystems. The theory is simple as it posits that the amount of selection or\nAssembly is a function of the number of complex objects where their complexity\ncan be objectively determined using assembly indices. The assembly index of a\ngiven object relates to the number of recursive joining operations required to\nbuild that object and can be not only rigorously defined mathematically but can\nbe experimentally measured. In pervious work we outlined the theoretical basis,\nbut also extensive experimental measurements that demonstrated the predictive\npower of AT. These measurements showed that is a threshold in assembly indices\nfor organic molecules whereby abiotic chemical systems could not randomly\nproduce molecules with an assembly index greater or equal than 15. In a recent\npaper by Hazen et al [1] the authors not only confused the concept of AT with\nthe algorithms used to calculate assembly indices, but also attempted to\nfalsify AT by calculating theoretical assembly indices for objects made from\ninorganic building blocks. A fundamental misunderstanding made by the authors\nis that the threshold is a requirement of the theory, rather than experimental\nobservation. This means that exploration of inorganic assembly indices\nsimilarly requires an experimental observation, correlated with the theoretical\ncalculations. Then and only then can the exploration of complex inorganic\nmolecules be done using AT and the threshold for living systems, as expressed\nwith such building blocks, be determined. Since Hazen et al.[1] present no\nexperimental measurements of assembly theory, their analysis is not\nfalsifiable.","PeriodicalId":501219,"journal":{"name":"arXiv - QuanBio - Other Quantitative Biology","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv - QuanBio - Other Quantitative Biology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/arxiv-2406.06826","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Assembly Theory (AT) was developed to help distinguish living from non-living
systems. The theory is simple as it posits that the amount of selection or
Assembly is a function of the number of complex objects where their complexity
can be objectively determined using assembly indices. The assembly index of a
given object relates to the number of recursive joining operations required to
build that object and can be not only rigorously defined mathematically but can
be experimentally measured. In pervious work we outlined the theoretical basis,
but also extensive experimental measurements that demonstrated the predictive
power of AT. These measurements showed that is a threshold in assembly indices
for organic molecules whereby abiotic chemical systems could not randomly
produce molecules with an assembly index greater or equal than 15. In a recent
paper by Hazen et al [1] the authors not only confused the concept of AT with
the algorithms used to calculate assembly indices, but also attempted to
falsify AT by calculating theoretical assembly indices for objects made from
inorganic building blocks. A fundamental misunderstanding made by the authors
is that the threshold is a requirement of the theory, rather than experimental
observation. This means that exploration of inorganic assembly indices
similarly requires an experimental observation, correlated with the theoretical
calculations. Then and only then can the exploration of complex inorganic
molecules be done using AT and the threshold for living systems, as expressed
with such building blocks, be determined. Since Hazen et al.[1] present no
experimental measurements of assembly theory, their analysis is not
falsifiable.
集合理论(AT)的提出有助于区分生命系统和非生命系统。该理论非常简单,它认为选择或组装的数量是复杂物体数量的函数,而复杂性可以通过组装指数客观地确定。某个对象的装配指数与构建该对象所需的递归连接操作次数有关,它不仅可以用数学方法严格定义,还可以用实验方法测量。在之前的工作中,我们不仅概述了 AT 的理论基础,还进行了大量实验测量,证明了 AT 的预测能力。这些测量结果表明,有机分子的装配指数有一个临界值,非生物化学系统不可能随机产生装配指数大于或等于 15 的分子。在 Hazen 等人最近发表的一篇论文[1]中,作者不仅混淆了组装指数的概念和用于计算组装指数的算法,而且还试图通过计算由无机构件构成的物体的理论组装指数来伪造组装指数。作者的一个基本误解是,阈值是理论的要求,而不是实验观察的要求。这意味着对无机组装指数的探索同样需要与理论计算相关联的实验观察。然后,也只有这样,才能利用 AT 技术探索复杂的无机分子,并确定用此类构件表示的生命系统的阈值。由于 Hazen 等人[1]没有提出装配理论的实验测量结果,因此他们的分析无法证伪。