Abiogenesis

[CraigS]

I am starting this thread as a follow-on from the latter discussion stages of the ‘Not sure what I saw’ (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?p=769547#post769547) thread.

One of the factors influencing the ‘chances of exo-life in the universe discussion', which is of primary importance, is how life can start from pre-biotic chemicals. There is no firm answer to this, (& there probably never will be unless of course, neutrinos actually do violate causality and we can go back in time to find out .. ;) ), but theory might give us a glimpse into it all.

So here goes … what is 'Abiogenesis' ? ...

Wiki defines Abiogenesis as ... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis)


So, since the Miller-Urey experiment, Wiki lists about 10 'models', (or tentative statements/hypotheses), all having varying degrees of evidence or scientific rationale behind them.

Given that:

- these 'models' are science's best attempts at describing how it all started;
- the basic environments described by these 'models' ultimately give rise to our present definitions of past and present 'Habitable Zones' and;
- the most likely process leading to life follows the sequence: bio-monomers, bio-polymers then finally molecules to cells;
- life metabolises, regulates its internal environment, grows, responds to stimuli, contains information, replicates and evolves;

1) What does the reader think might be the closest model so far developed for abiogenesis and how simple does this mean 'exo-life' might be, (ie: as far as for the purposes of searching for it) ?

2) How close have we come to making an exo-life discovery, so far ?

3) How much significance does the presence of these 'models' add to the confirmation of discovered exo-life, should such a discovery occur ... and why? (Eg: can a discovery ever be claimed without them ?)

Cheers

[CraigS]

To Peter (Poita);

Re: you last post on the other thread …
... I don't think a protein is needed in order to declare life, as I don't think this is necessarily what they're looking for … (although it would be awesome to find one)!

I think this thread will explain what I mean. They've got a few more cards up their sleeve(s) than I first thought, also.

I'll elaborate more when I get the chance. Plenty of thought and care is needed for this thread and preparation time might be a bit longer than is needed in the other forum.

Cheers

[CraigS]

Ok .. so, to throw a little more fuel on the fire, try this one out …

This is a Youtube slideshow presentation called:
The origin of Life – Abiogenesis – Dr Jack Szostak. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg)

Szostak was awarded the 2009 Nobel Laureate in medicine for his work on telomerase. He is thus a highly credible scientist in the field.

Summarising, these are what he says are the crucial major steps described in his theory on how abiogenesis can lead to 'life' (my summary ... of his slides):

Abiogenesis steps (~7:30 minute mark)

- monomers diffuse into a fatty acid vesicle;
- monomers spontaneously polymerise and copy any template;
- heat separates strands, increases membrane permeability to monomers;
- polymer backbones attract ions increasing osmotic pressure;
- pressure on the membrane drives its growth at the expense of nearby vesicles containing less polymer;
- vesicles grow into tubular structures;
- mechanical forces cause vesicles to divide;
- daughter vesicles inherit polymers from the parent vesicle;
- polymer sequences that replicate faster will dominate the population.

Thus the beginning of evolution.

Early genomes were completely random and therefore contained no information. (Ie: way, way simpler information content than modern DNA/RNA).
It was their ability to spontaneously replicate, irrespective of the sequence that drove growth and division of the fatty acid vesicles.
Any mutation that increases the rate of polymer replication would be selected for.

Mutation + Natural Selection = Increased Information

Early beneficial mutations would include:

- change sequence to contain only the most common nucleotides;
- don’t form secondary structures that block replication;
- form sequences that are stable, yet separate easily;
- form secondary structures that show some enzymatic activity ;
- Just like RNA, early nucleotides could both store information and function as enzymes.

Early polymer enzymes would:

- enhance replication;
- use high energy molecules in the environment (near thermal vents) to recharge monomers;
- synthesize lipids from other molecules in the environment;
- modify lipids so they don’t leave the membrane.

AND THAT’S IT … a simple two component system that spontaneously forms in the pre-biotic environment, that can eat, grow, contain information, replicate and evolve.

Simply through thermodynamic and electrical forces.

The long chain organic molecules he starts with, are the fatty acids: 'Stearic Acid' (an 18 Carbon saturated fatty acid) or 'Oleic Acid' (18 Carbon unsaturated fatty acid). These are rather ordinary long chain organic molecules comprising C, H and Oxygen.

So, according to his theory, all one needs is a warm, wet planet and some long chain organic molecules in order to declare: 'LIFE' (as we know it).

The question is: can we find some long chain organic exo-molecules ?

Interestingly, this is exactly what the MARS MSL/Curiosity rover is equipped to look for !

Cheers

[adman]

Poita, if you have a jar full of the required amino acids, and let it sit and watch and wait, yes the odds of a functional protein appearing are astronomical (and more). But this getting dangerously close to the irreducible complexity argument of the ID proponents, who like to say that the appearance of life is analogous to a strong wind blowing through a junkyard and randomly assembling a Boeing 747.

Functional proteins are almost certainly a much more recent development in the processes of life, and as Craig says above the main initial requirement for kick-starting life is the appearance of self-organising and self replicating non-living 'cells' or vesicles. These entities have a much more palatable chance of appearing - indeed given the right mixture, are almost inevitable. It is my belief that the 'universe geared towards life' you were talking about is nothing more exotic than molecules simply following the path of least thermodynamic resistance (so to speak).

Adam

[renormalised]

Yes, but self organisation and replication, in any system, doesn't make it alive....does it:):)

There are plenty of systems which are self replicating and organising given the right conditions (crystal growth, for example), even proteins and other organic molecules. Let alone other inorganic, non biological systems. Doesn't mean they're necessarily alive. To be brutally honest about it, we don't have a clue about what life is. All we do know is some very limited, functional appreciation of the mechanics of it all. However, we've got plenty of time to figure this one out:):)

[adman]

No not at all - but that wasn't my point. It was that the odds of constructing a functional protein from its constituent amino acids is not representative of the chances of life appearing elsewhere in the universe.

[Poita]

Have you thought about what that really means?
That you can crank out 'life', i.e. a system that defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics by molecules following a set of simple rules that follow the 'path of least thermodynamic resistance'.

That the simple reductionist laws of physics have within them a 'formula' for creating life is a total 180 over current thinking, it would mean that life is either not as complex or information rich as we think it is (that we are the equivalent of Pi for instance - looks information rich, aperiodic and random but is in fact a simple calculation), or that how we believe the universe works is wrong.

People make the statement all that time, that a simple process that follows the known laws of physics can lead to life, without thinking of the ramifications of that statement.

Szostack's work has not yet been successful, despite years of work and extremely contrived conditions, he has not yet managed a spontaneous basic RNA replicator from scratch. This is despite hand picking in vitro combinations from trillions of unlikely ones. http://www.hhmi.org/research/investigators/szostak.html

His work is important, it shows potentially more simple "life forms" than anything that exists today, but even the model he proposes still has greater than astronomical odds of forming randomly.

We know bugger all about life, or about how it may have begun. There may be some basic protocell that will spontaneously form and have enough complexity to have a 'software' system that can push against the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, but if there is, then it means we need some new theories of physics to explain it.

[avandonk]

We are only barely starting to understand the complex molecular processes of life.
Do not forget compared to what we know there is an infinity of unknown.
My lust for things whether sexual, food or bright shiny things cannot be pointed to by reductionist means.
To denigrate any attempts at a rational elucidation of what makes us tick is both pointless and absurd.

I prefer to think that the whole of our 'reality' is even stranger than we can imagine. As a devout atheist I think that the devil dodgers have at least got one thing correct. This is that at some fundamental level such as quantum mechanics and what we do not yet know everything is connected.

What we see as complexity could just be the eddies in some cosmic lattice of so called order.

It is up to us to try and discover what is real. Making up fairy tales leads nowhere. Only science based evidence that is peer reviewed works.

Bert

[CraigS]

Guys, this conversation only works if we don't dig in too much on either side.

The fact is that no-one has ever cracked this nut … and they may never crack it. There are gaping holes in both arguments.

My personal aim is to stand as close to the middle-road as I can (and its not easy .. I have views/beliefs and opinions as well) .. and again, my aim is to expose my own opinions for myself, and recognise them for what they are … ie: pure opinions.

The points raised so far, are all valid points.

I'm not particularly of the view that one can cite any specific Law of Thermodynamics, (like the 2nd Law), and apply it to the overall life emergence process. I think the thermodynamic argument needs to look holistically at the applicability of all the Laws across the whole theorised process, and then pose the question: exactly where are they applicable to specific parts of the end-to-end complex system (such as the theorised emergence process). This allows for recognition of the non-determinstic (ie: random) components and to look at teh effects these may have on the overall theorised process.

This approach may aid Peter's colleagues' argument in uncovering some of the mysterious "statistical fluke" aspects. It also provides more depth of insight into exploring the other side of the coin, also. The interaction of deterministic sub-processes, (on the basic chemistry side), and the random pure chance mutation/natural selection-over-vast-time sub-processes on the evolutionary side should also not be underestimated (?)

Also, I'm not presenting Szostack's theory as be-all and end-all theory. There are others … however, it does represent a fairly comprehensive and well thought out biological sciences view of the topic. (At the very least, it seems to provide some useful tools as the basis for discussion).

I recommend moving on to examining more evidence and probing the question: "What's the closest we've come to discovering exo-life"

I'll attempt that in another post.

Cheers & thanks for some interesting views. Hopefully this one won't go south .. like so many others have on this topic.

[adman]

First of all - nothing 'defies' the 2nd law of thermodynamics - not even life. In a closed system entropy will increase to a maximum, yes. But living things are not a closed system. They are, in part at least, machines for consuming energy and changing it into different forms, and once you start to add energy to any system it accordingly permits localised decreases in entropy. No Laws are defied in the process. Most things we see in the universe are localised descreases in entropy, stars, solar systems, planets galaxies etc - all very unlikely if you are trying to create one randomly from their constituent parts, and yet there they are.

The fact that Szostack has not been successful means nothing. The composition of earths early atmosphere may have been different to what our models show, his suppositions about the mechanisms of the appearance of early life (about which you correctly say we know very little) may be a little (or even way) off. But by far the biggest problem is time - Szostack has had a few years, and a laboratory, whereas life had a few billion years and the entire earth to generate those first steps towards life.

Like you said - we know bugger all about life, and even less about how it started. I think we need to know more before we go altering our view of how the universe works

Adam

[CraigS]

So, the next piece of the puzzle would be to look at some of the evidence. In pre-emption of being accused of cherry-picking, I’ll state upfront that my reason for zooming in on this bit, is that I just like it ... it intrigues me ... there is objectivity behind it, the results have been scrutinised and peer-reviewed, and the source is reasonably reputable.

So ... onto the 2006 results of the Stardust Probe Return Sample ... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stardust_(spacecraft)#Sample_return )

In 2006, the probe returned samples to Earth, taken from the coma of comet Wild 2:



However, in 2009 the following was announced:

Glycine amino acid discovered in Comet Wild 2 sample: (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2009-126)

From Wiki:


So there was some question about contamination of the sample. However, this was answered by isotopic analysis:



Very interesting, eh ?

For me, this is pretty close to the mark (but still arguably, by no means, conclusive).

Cheers

[renormalised]

Of course:)

[CraigS]

But it is representative of the way science works.

Looking for something unknown, not knowing where to look for it, in an infinite universe, is about as close as it gets to being a feebly based, disruptive waste of time and resources, in my view. (.. And yes, that is an opinion unworthy of further argument).

The 'dream' is not what motivates the search .. scientific process involving hypothesis, theory and objective evidence (perhaps, preceded by the dream), is. (Yep .. another opinion unworthy of further argument)

Cheers

[CraigS]

So, looking at:

i) post #3 (Szostak's abiogenesis theory, requiring long chain organic compounds like stearic or oleic acids) … and;

ii) post #11, the actual confirmed discovery of extra-terrestrial Glycine, (an organic compound and an amino acid, probably found in the coma of comet Wild 3);

… might we have what one could call one of the closest approaches so far of discovering something which might have a snowball's chance in a hot place, of evolving into something which could be called exo-life ?

There is a little inference in my above question .. and thus its legitimacy might be debatable, but my purpose in raising this, is to try and gain visibility of the 'best case' for abiogenesis that I can come up with. It would seem that going much further than this, would probably rely on heavier doses of inference .. and all its associated shortcomings.

Its quite an interesting perspective, though.

I also find it interesting that perhaps by co-incidence, this aligns with the organic molecule and C12/C13 isotope detection technologies, being built aboard the Mars MSL/Curiosity rover, due for launch shortly.

So, given that there's quite a pile of 'reasonably' based biological theory and objective, peer reviewed evidence behind the scenario implied, I wonder what the outcome might be if MSL/Curiosity discovered long chain organic molecules ?

Well, I guess I'm back onto speculation here again, so to bring 'er back on track', but remaining in the same 'groove', the question left for me is:

"How much significance does the presence of these 'models' add to the credibility of a hypothetical discovery of long chain organic molecules (LCOMs) in a 'habitable zone' (HZ), should such a discovery occur ... and why?

For example: Would a discovery of exo-LCOMs in an HZ, mean anything without theories like Szostack's, and evidence such as Stardust's coma sample ? If these do carry some significance, and add enough 'weight' to the situation, perhaps significant enough to justify say, a manned mission to Mars, then does a 'non-discovery' of an LCOM in an HZ carry the same weight ? And if so, what could possibly be the consequences of a non-discovery (or multiple non-discoveries) ?

In consideration of 'weight' aspects mentioned above, are our expectations really objective?
:shrug:
Cheers

[adman]

Well - from a purely objective point of view, until we know the exact mechanism by which life or 'proto' life came into being, we don't even know whether these types of molecules were required at the very beginning or whether life just took advantage of them once it had come into being. So finding these molecules on Mars will just add to the complexity of the speculation.

From a more human point of view it would be fantastic to find them, and will certainly be a leverage point for more funding!:)

Adam

[renormalised]

Yes, it is an opinion...and, have you actually ever worked as a scientist?? So how do you know how science works??? Stick to your subject at hand, Craig. You're starting to get into territory you're not familiar with.

[Poita]

I understand how the 2nd law works, but the formation on stars, solar systems planets galaxies and so forth are easily explained by the existing laws of physics, they are not at all unlikely events to happen. They don't go against chemistry or physics to occur, they are, for the most part, 'powered' by gravity and easily understood physical and chemical reactions etc. none of their increase in order or complexity defies the 2nd law, neither does evolution or processes that occur once you get DNA based life forms.
They are in fact inevitable formations due to the known laws of physics.

The formation of something complex enough to become life doesn't fit that mould. I haven't seen any research that as even proposed an basic organism that doesn't have stupendously large odds against occurring, even the simplest ones proposed run up against the error catastrophe problem. Once you get to a DNA type system, natural selection, mutation etc. can kick in, but until you do, you don't have Darwinism to act as the method of swimming upstream against the current so to speak.

Anyway, all of that is really by the wayside, my point is that if life is bound to happen given certain conditions, i.e. that we have a bio-friendly universe, then that is an incredibly profound, and shocking statement, and I don't see how it could be codified or incorporated into the current theories of physics. I'm not at all saying the universe isn't that way, I agree that it could be, we just don't know, but if it is then that would turn current theories on their heads. I don't think I'm communicating my point clearly, I'll have a re-think.

[Poita]

I'm not sure what relevance of the presence of glycine is to the argument?

I'm not being facetious, I'm just missing the significance...I haven't had a lot of sleep and am running on slo-mo today.

[CraigS]

Peter;
Consider that life on Earth exists …

Hope this helps .. :shrug:
:)
Cheers

[CraigS]

Well .. its an organic molecule … I don't think it could be classified as a long chain organic molecule .. but its not a simple one, either.

I don't know what steps might turn it into one .. I guess Szostack doesn't know either, eh ?

Cheers

[Poita]

Ah, I see. Organic molecules have long been known to be belting around in space, we had a meteorite with plenty aboard land in Australia during the year of my birth.

This article is an interesting read re that and other stuff related to the discussion.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-simpler-origin-for-life&page=2
End of page 2 and start of page 3 talks about that directly, but the whole article is a good read.

[avandonk]

We are here. Get over it.

Are we alone? Yes we will soon be at the rate species other than us are going extinct. We will very soon follow! As our existence relies on them.

As Abbott said to Costello 'this is another fine mess you have got us into'.

Or was that Laurel and Hardy?

The questions remain the same and we have no real answers! Meanwhile Rome burns!

Bert

[Poita]

Agreed!

To me, the current fact that we have not found any other life anywhere, and that we may truly be alone in the universe is more impetus to get off our arses and stop wrecking the joint.
For us to snuff out what may be the only sentient life in the universe is a bad joke.

If there is something else out there, I hope it has more sense than us :P

[CraigS]

I'm not so pessimistic (or sentimental) about species going extinct.

It seems to be part of the process.

Cheers

[Alchemy]

Actually, I'm rather sentimental, particularly as Bert says, we are all interconnected, and that means goodbye humans too. Although getting rid of humans would be beneficial to the planet:sadeyes:

[marki]

Speculating on the origins of life is nowhere near as much fun as carrying out our major biological function...the continuation of our species. Imagine a world where we all so focused on the job at hand that we didn't have time to fight ;).

Mark

[CraigS]

Hi Peter;

Ok .. read through that article.

Its a beauty ! Thanks very much for that contribution .. it gives a very good outline for the arguments behind the view of the implausibility of Abiogenesis.

The implications of the Abiogenesis line of thinking also appear to lead towards a universe which seems to favour the emergence of life. This would call for an explanation of some sort. If this were so, then I would think life would be very common in Habitable Zones throughout the universe. However, one cannot ignore the implausibility factor behind it all, which has been your point throughout this discussion.

I've mentioned in the other thread, the 'no exo-life' perspective is, in my view, as equally as valid as the alternative 'pro exo-life' view, and that both seem to be ultimately driven by beliefs … as opposed to science. I remain of that view.

One issue arising from this discussion is one of the integrity of the arguments:

i) If one is arguing the 'pro exo-life' view, one cannot abandon the implausibility factor, nor the consequent abundant exo-life implications. With this line of argument, accumulated evidence of non exo-life findings in HZs should not be simply ignored, (IMHO), as accumulated evidence does eventually become a significant factor. When and how many non-findings, then becomes the question, for me.

ii) If one is arguing the 'no exo-life' view equally, one should not ignore the complete absence of an explanatory theory for the emergence of life on Earth (IMHO). There is none, from what I can see, and without it, one derives no guidance as to where to search for a second instance of life. The search is completely, hap-hazardly random, is guided equally by faith, and comes at an extremely high and ultimately unjustifiable cost.

iii) The third argument purely driven by faith .. 'we have no idea what life is .. therefore we don't know what we're looking for when we look for exo-life, … but it exists' … leads to the same problems as outlined in (ii) above.

This has been a most interesting thread (for me).

At the end of the day, "we are here" .. but before we "get over it", we should realise that justifiable statements of certainty are very few and far between.

Cheers

[CraigS]

I'll add one more post with my best attempts at statements of certainty (a duplicate from the 'I don't know what I saw' thread):

In the hunt for exo-life discussion, I find three curious statements which can be stated with certainty:

1) the uniqueness of life to Earth can be instantly 'disproven' with the first confirmed exo-life discovery;

2) the existence of exo-life in the universe, can never be 'disproven' with multiple negative discoveries, no matter how vast in number these are;

3) purely mathematically speaking, the numbers of habitable environments throughout the universe, tells us nothing about the uniqueness or otherwise, of exo-life in the universe, until a single instance of exo-life is discovered in an exo-habitable zone.

Inference from beliefs taken from non-insular Earth modelled habitats, is what keeps the search going.

Cheers

[Robh]

Agreed! Hi Craig.

However, there are generally two opposing groups in this type of discussion. The first believes that life is rare or perhaps even unique to the Earth in this Universe, the result of almost impossible convergent events: a case of the right ingredients being in the right place at the right time. For the Creationists, I'll include you in this group (no religious discussion intended)!

The second believes that there are so many planets in habitable zones in this universe that life is bound to be commonplace. The "life is inevitable" group.

Scientific deduction is often the result of statistical evidence. Thus, in an increasing sample size, a continued negative result would lead one to believe the proposition is less likely to be true.

Any confirmation of life at the moment would consist of an intelligent signal from afar or perhaps soon, detection of the "by-products" of civilisation. At some time in the future we might be able to travel to these exo-planets in reasonable time- who knows how. Continued failure to find life on planets in habitable zones (or elsewhere for that matter) would give increasing support to the first group's view. It can never make their view definitive (unless there is a finite number of habitable planets in our discoverable Universe) but it does imply that life may not be as common as the second group believes.

Regards, Rob

[CraigS]

Hi Rob;
Good to have you aboard ! I'm really trying my hardest to maintain this as a 'no-one can win' conversation. Your help in this regard would be very much appreciated .. its not as easy as it sounds !


Yikes ! :eyepop: I'm no Creationist ! Have I given that impression ?
I'm happy to declare right up front that I'm no Creationist ! (And that's not saying that there's anything wrong with having Creationist beliefs).
What I believe one way or the other, is basically irrelevant anyway. I'm just an intrepid explorer! (… who frequently gets into trouble :) )
Having said this, some of the ID ideas do come from Complexity Systems theory. The 'irreducibility' function from Complexity is more or less defined as:
"The new produced qualities are not reduceable to or derivable from the level of the producing, interacting entities"
.. and is demonstrable in certain complex systems. Its fairly easy to characterise life as a complex system. Perhaps the origin can be similarly characterised.

The ID folk relate what they observe to this phenomenon, (of complex systems), but the relationship may be tenuous, and is certainly debatable.

I personally don't see a big problem with following the complex systems direction. It doesn't at all lead to the existence of a 'Creator' as many folk seem to think. Deterministic extrapolation of the random/chaotic components of a complex system is actually as odds with complexity/chaos behaviours (and this principle is supported by hard evidence). So extrapolations leading to a 'Creator' would actually be coming from somewhere else, again … (ala determinism beliefs .. :question:).

I think the statistical argument is necessary in order to overcome the improbability aspects against the argument. :question:
At best, I find it difficult to see it as deduction, also. Its more like 'inference', as 'deduction' requires the confirmed discovery of another instance of exo-life .. which doesn't presently exist.


Other than the temptation to use it as 'evidence' against exo-life, I'm not at all sure that their case even requires this, as their counter argument (the 10^30,000 statistic, or whatever), seems to far outweigh, and render a few cases of non-discovery as irrelevant, anyway. :question:

Yes .. and it seems the logic in the 'pro exo-life' argument, predicts the abundance of exo-life (if one follows the pre-biotic organic compound/self replicating RNA/etc line. :question:

Interesting.

Cheers … & good to have you around.

[Robh]

My original statement ...
"For the Creationists, I'll include you in this group (no religious discussion intended)!"

Craig,

My apologies for the ambiguity. The statement was meant to be interpreted as "For those of you who are Creationists, I'll include them in this group."

Rob

[tonybarry]

It might be instructive to see a chemical oscillator at work. These kinds of oscillators are frequently seen at university open days, and amount to a large vat of liquid, well stirred, which exhibits long range order and cyclic changes over time scales quite at odds with the size of the individual molecules that make up the oscillator.

When I first saw one (at the uni where I did my undergraduate) I recall being badly disturbed by the implausibility of the whole setup.

My chemistry prof. pointed me in the direction of Iliya Prigogine, a Nobel Laureate who first explained their chemistry and kinetics. And the key is to have environments which are far from equilibrium. In an equilibrium state, the 2nd law of thermodynamics is in force and you can't get order out of chaos. In far-from-equilibrium states, it becomes possible to produce remarkable order (at the overall expense of other things descending into great disorder). When we observe these environments, it is not difficult to imagine abiogenesis actually occurring.

We have not seen it yet, mainly because we have been looking for such a short time in the overall scheme of things. It is the hubris of humanity to think that just because something is unlikely, to our time sense, it becomes impossible for all time and all places.

While the Creationists may be in error in requiring a Divinity to create life, they at least have humility as a virtue. And that might be one area where we could take a leaf from their folio.

Regards,
Tony Barry

[CraigS]

Greetings Tony ! :hi:

Cool words ..

I've personally never seen one of the oscillators but I have seen chemical experiments which appear to 'undo' or 'reverse' what appears to be a system in the state of equilibrium (perhaps these are the systems you speak of). :question:

There also appears to be a fair amount written along the lines of enquiry into whether life is a far from equilibrium system (or degrees therefrom).

I find it interesting to note also, that there are measuring concepts, like the 'Lyapunov exponent', which aids as a 'measuring stick' to quantify the exponential divergence from equilibrium, sometimes measured in bits per time step, averaged over a large set of samples. A positive Lyapunov exponent is considered mathematical proof of chaos. It also acts as a bound for the quality of predictions from a chaotic system.

I really do think these 'tools' give us a way better method of quantifying disorder, (or degrees of distance from equilibrium states), than the combined laws of thermodynamics (including entropy). The laws of Thermodynamics originated from deterministic physics and have thus always had difficulty exploring degrees of chaotic or non-linear behaviours, eh ?

I agree with your statement about imagining abiogenesis actually occurring resulting in the order plainly visible in life. (.. Which could be why I, myself, appear to oscillate between these two competing views ! :) ).

Thanks for your input … very interesting dimension.

Cheers

[CraigS]

The following point raised from the ‘no exo-life’ perspective, as presented by Peter, and argued by Robert Shapiro, (in the Scientific Amercian article (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-simpler-origin-for-life&offset=7)), has gotten me thinking some more:

So one observation taken from nature is the asymmetry or chirality of life supporting molecules: (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/44795)


They go on to say that other organic molecules also exhibit this asymmetry, but it is the imbalance of left or right handedness between the sugars and amino acids comprising DNA, which has a large impact on the fundamental protein folding process in cells. The polarisation-caused-resulting-chirality, would thus have existed way before life got underway and thus, would not be particular to life.

I can see how the presence of chiral differences between sugars and amino acids in DNA, would conjure up a perception that this chemical signature results in a ‘bio-friendly’ universe, but I think this perception is caused by a logical fallacy:

Protein folding is caused by chirality. (Supportable/'true').
Chirality is caused by polarisation. (Supportable/'true').
Polarisation is caused by the Universe. (Supportable/'true').
Therefore the Universe favours protein folding. (Not supportable/'false').
The universe is thus ‘bio-friendly’. (Not supportable/'false').

The final point put forward in the Physicsworld article, and specifically by Laurence Barron, however is:

Also, as an aside, interestingly, others are even building remote sensory devices to detect the chirality difference: (http://www.physorg.com/news159640612.html)


Interesting.

Cheers

[CraigS]

So here's another interesting snippet (just for the record) ... this may not be relevant to the abiogenesis topic, but the numbers involved caught my eye. I guess one could say this is a snap-shot of what stands about 3.5 to 4 bill years after abiogenesis got underway on Earth , (if it all happened that way, that is .. oh and also putting aside panspermia hypotheses for the moment).

Surprisingly, this figure has never been known to any certainty, either .. (and it still isn’t).

"How Many Species are There on Earth ?" (http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-wild-world-millions-unseen-species.html)
Answer:
8.74 +/- 1.3 million (Eukaryote based .. no viruses etc included in this figure):



Just goes to show how little of the total life we've discovered during our own era, on Earth!

Cheers

[xelasnave]

Thank you Craig for posting on such an interesting matter:thumbsup:.

I started wondering about how the first cell may have been made under "natural" conditions (and ((probably because I have been following stuff related to Bert,s pointer on the latest research into water)) it occurred to me that a single droplet of water seems similar to a cell:eyepop:..the alignment of water molecules at the surface offers the droplet a simple shell..a method of containment.. perhaps the very first initial containment..

Within a droplet of water it seems we can observe the pushing of material to the centre..this would seem a simple machinery to cause other molecules within the droplet to meet and provide the best possible environment providing opportunity to bond.
Berts water material tells us that this simple shell apparently holds a charge...a charge can regulate exchange and perhaps even cause a larger droplet to split..whatever but the fact that there is an available charge opens many doors... anyways from such simplicity if you start to consider the complexity and opportunity it does your head in...thanks again:D.
alex:):):)

[xelasnave]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111006113408.htm

Maybe we can observe the creation of the first cell;)...

alex:):):)

[CraigS]

G'Day Alex;

I had decided to let this thread lay for a while … I'm glad you've found it interesting .. there are certainly a lot of aspects which I was not aware of, and have subsequently found out, since leaving this thread. (I may add these when I get the chance).

For the record, post #22 on this thread (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=79844&highlight=water&page=2) is Bert's reference to what you were mentioning.

I find it quite amazing how many life supporting mechanisms have been identified by following the 'exo-life exists' line of speculation. I'm sure there are many others, and I can certainly visualise the relevance of this one (as far as cell membrane forming, and dissociation, mechanism analogies go).

The "water saturation in Mars' atmosphere" article also chases another possible mechanism which could be used to infer the existence of past exo-life. In this one however, I find there are many questionable usages of "if confirmed", "would have consequences", "is known", etc .. so I'll take this as more attempts at applying verifiability to a logical proposition (for the positive exo-life argument), than actual evidence in direct support of the 'exo-life-on-Mars-in-the-past' proposition. (This being because we have no idea as to whether water causes the emergence of life, or whether it is merely correlated with the only instance of life we know of). ;)

Cheers

[xelasnave]

I suggest a shell mechanism seems important but may not be exclusive of other mechanisms but it would seem the first step must be the creation of some type of seperation from the outside... a drop of water would seem perfect.
This thread causes one to embrace just how very complex something, we take to be simple, can be...a mere cell (modern one:D) yet so much to it...and applying russian doll imagination down to the atoms and their parts and how those parts can be described as a point movement via string theory you need a good deal of imagination just for a very simple overview.

The chemistry (my old love) appeals to me.


alex.

[CraigS]

I was reading a freely available, widespread document the other day by an Astrophysics-type scientist who declares his religion to be Catholic (Dermott J. Mullan, is his name). D. J. Mullan is a member of the Bartol Research Center in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Delaware, where he has been Professor since 1982. His Biography is here. (http://delspace.org/biography-of-dr-dermott-j-mullan.html)
The paper is quite a good read, (http://www.iscid.org/papers/Mullan_PrimitiveCell_112302.pdf) and its all over the web at the moment.

Here is part of his conclusion:



Note**: A (12-14) cell is defined as being a cell that is able to function with only 12 proteins and that each protein consists of a chain of no more than 14 amino acids (ie: highly minimalist when compared with a modern-day cell). There are a bunch of other assumptions behind this figure .. a read of the paper reveals each one, as well as the sensitivity of varying them compared with this final figure. (Note that he also assumes that the RNA sequence, from which these proteins are derived, is already present, and is thus not included in the above probability estimation, as trying to generate this sequence randomly, results in an absurdly small probability figure).

He also eventually manages to whittle this down to one in 10^63.
By way of comparison, the number of atoms in the universe is estimated to be about 10^80, (I think).

Even with all of the simplest definitions of life we can come up with, there is still some explaining to do in coming up with a modern day cell .. and I think we all recognise this. I, for one, am happy to leave it at this point, without jumping to any further conclusions.

Its an interesting read .. and an interesting point.

Cheers

[avandonk]

He shows a complete lack of the understanding of the mechanisms let alone probabilities. All these devil dodgers think that the complexity they see proves the existence of some mythical being.

It is not random assembly it is random evolution!

He has set up a straw man/organism.

Of course it is absurd as that is not how it happened!

Does anyone know what the chances are of assembling an Iron nucleus from its constituent protons and neutrons. Yes it is zero!

Ergo there should be no Iron in the Universe!

Bert

[Poita]

But how do you get to the evolution part without an evolutionary mechanism?
Once a cell is established with a basic DNA/RNA setup, or even just an RNA replicator, then natural selection kicks in and evolution provides the mechanism to drive complexity against the tide.

Getting to something complex enough to allow replication and selection to happen is the tricky part, as you have to get past the error catastrophe issue.

I don't believe in any creator or divine being, but I have noticed a problem with discussions of the first living things, many scientists (astronomers and chemists in particular) assume one is looking for evidence of God if one brings up the difficulties of the formation of the first proto-cells etc. and discussion gets a bit stifled.

I personally think the answers may come from information theory, and that some totally new laws will be discovered which can help answer some of these questions.

Paul Davies wrote an interesting book on some of the issues, and despite the title, it is not a search for religion being the answer ;)

http://www.amazon.com/Fifth-Miracle-Search-Origin-Meaning/dp/0684837994

[sjastro]

Why is an individuals religious background automatically assumed to be motivating factor behind the paper?

By that logic the Big Bang Theory formulated by the Jesuit priest Georges Lemaître falls into the same category.

Yet the cosmological community populated by a large percentage of atheists don't seem to have a problem.....;)

Regards

Steven

[avandonk]

Poita the evolution started when the first particle interactions occurred!

Why dont we have super massive nuclei? Simple they cannot exist as they are very unstable.

The rest is in the history of the Universe. The evidence is all around us. We only have to look to understand. Simplistic dogma does not cut it.

Bert

[avandonk]

It is the standard ploy of the dogma peddlers to start to quote 1/10^40 or any big two digit ten to power number as the chance of something that is patently in existence such as yourself to exist without outside divine influence.
Religiousity does not imply all are dogmatic but the chances of that is about 1/10^40!

Bert

[CraigS]

Actually, I don't care about Mullan's religion, either. I only raised it, as its easily discovered simply because he's openly declared it as part of his bio, elsewhere on the web.

I think the question Peter raises is a fair point, and I'd also like to explore it further, independently of any religious 'extensions'.

Peter: Can you summarise the issues Davies raises ?

Cheers

[CraigS]

Another interesting model is the PNA model: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peptide_nucleic_acid)



I also found this interesting paper, (http://www.pnas.org/content/101/25/9182.full.pdf) which raises the possibility as to whether non-protein amino acids might have been the progenitors of RNA life forms.

They found diamino acids for the first time in a carbanaceous chondrite (from the Murchison Meteorite) and they propose a pathway from the diamino acids to PNA, (which from the above), could be a precursor to RNA.

Cheers

[CraigS]

Here's one (which by chance, turned up just this morning) .. for Bert and Alex ..

UCSB Researchers First to Develop Equation that Predicts Molecular Forces in Hydrophobic Interactions (http://engineering.ucsb.edu/news/520)


.. So, first the observation of separation in water, (as per Bert's original post on it), and now, the empirical quantification of it !

More pieces of the puzzle coming together …

The applicability to life molecules ? ….


Very interesting !

Cheers

[xelasnave]

The net is wonderful:thumbsup: ..just when you think you know everything;) something new comes along:)...now add this into the mix.
:eyepop:
http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre7941ep-us-nobel-chemistry/

I only picked up on this today and have to research the matter but from the article it is most exciting at multiple levels.


alex:):):)

[Poita]

I'll work up a bit of a summary over the next few days.

Bert, I don't see how partical interactions equate to evolution (I'm not being argumentative or being an arse, I'm genuinely interested). Evolution or Natural Selection requires a duplication mechanism that can 'lock in' a particular trait. That way if a trait is more favourable for survival, those with the new trait multiply and start to outnumber those without the trait, or the ones without the trait are 'killed off' in greater numbers. I don't see anything in particle reaction physics that contains that mechanism.

I guess what I find most interesting, is that usually scientists are a pretty pedantic bunch, they hate general statements (like this one :) )and are usually reluctant to state a general principal unless it is backed up with some well understood and repeatable science/mathematics.

The often heard statement that a planet/moon/etc. has water meaning that it is a probable that life will be found, or is a probable haven for life is based on just one occurance, life on earth. No experiments have created even the simplest form of life, none have come close, yet the belief seems strong that water + sunlight etc. leads inevitably to life. I find that curious, as I can't think of another example where one group of scientists are so confident when there isn't much in the way of evidence.

Saying that we exist, so that is the evidence doesn't really work. Life here could be a truly collossal fluke, if that is the case, then it happening again is so unlikely as to be basically impossible. If it isn't, then the laws of the universe are pro-life, which is a pretty amazing thing.

I hope the second is the case, I'd like to think of a universe teeming with all manner of life, but it bugs me that I can't find a mechanism that can even make me find it likely other than Panspermia.

[Poita]

I find the answer that there was a 'Creator' or 'Designer' unsatisfying as well, as that doesn't really give any greater understanding either, and feels as arbitrary as the universe being coughed out of a turtle like in 'It'. Same with life having always existed in a universe that has always existed, it doesn't really explain anything.

[Poita]

Davies covers quasi-crystals in his book as a possible non-periodic information rich system, they are intriguing.

[CraigS]

If unique proteins are capable of performing the same or different functions in a cell, and proteins can hugely vary in size, then surely there is scope for functional variations of simple ones, (ie: those which look more like organic compounds), amongst a given sample ? If there are variations, then I can see the applicability of natural selection.
Also, if the process is a Complex System process, then there would be interactions (feedback) between higher level functions and micro level ones, as well as feedback/interactions across functions at the same levels.
This results in characteristics which are not visible when looking purely at the sum of the components.
These chemical reactions are bound to be complex yielding many possible permutations of other compounds.


I think if one considers where they're coming from as a case of attempting to apply verifiability principles to a logical proposition, then it makes sense for them to look for evidence, (or signs), that they might be on the right track.
This line of query doesn't necessarily skew the results when evidence is found, in support, or otherwise.
I agree. It also gets frustrating for me, for instance, whenever I read some agitated piece of news about 'big water' existing on Mars !


I believe this to be a logical fallacy (see my post #34).


I personally don't mind living with the riddle …

Cheers

[CraigS]

The propagation of holes in a graphene crystal lattice structure, is also a keen topic of research at the moment. From memory, the effect of the movement of these directly results in the bizarre resistivity characteristics of graphene at room temperatures.
I think there are plenty more non-linearities and unexpected phenomena, yet to come from the materials research areas of science, which may yet alter our views of the rigid determinism scientists typically apply to bio-chemistry.

Cheers

[avandonk]

There is no magical boundary between 'inanimate' matter and 'life' matter it is all the same stuff following the laws of the Universe.

The Universe started as pure energy and all particles evolved from this. These particles if assembled in various ways can have characteristics that none of the constituents have. The Hydrogen bond and water is the common factor in all life as we know it. It allows us mammals to burn C and O for energy to produce CO2 at 37C! The pathway is rather complex but known.

Are self replicating crystals life? Is the PCR of DNA in vitro life? Is a virus alive? Do bacteria have self awareness? Then we have single celled fungi or slime molds that assemble and differentiate to propagate via a fruiting body. You can work your way up the tree of life to us.

We cannot do the experiment as you would have to set up a primordal Earth and wait a a few million or many more years. A simple test tube will not simulate an entire planet.

Bert

[xelasnave]

There is no magical boundary between 'inanimate' matter and 'life' matter it is all the same stuff following the laws of the Universe

:thumbsup:

alex:):):)

[CraigS]

I'll bet someone comes up with a super computer-based complexity model one of these days, though Bert .. maybe even in our lifetimes (fingers crossed).

I guess what's missing at the moment are more of the basic interactions .. like the hydorphobic/hydrophyllic behaviours recently uncovered (??)

Cheers

[avandonk]

We molecular biologists have been dealing with hydrophobic and hydrophilic interactions for years. One of our theoretical chemists was simulating protein enzyme and target molecule interactions at the QM level in silico (computer simulation). It takes weeks of super computer time to calculate a few nS of interaction in three dimensions. It seems the best simulation of these molecules are the molecules themselves and they even 'know' about QM!

Bert

[CraigS]

Yep … gathering the data is crucial.

Did you see my post #48 today ? Developing a formula for the forces involved would seem to be another small step towards a bigger model. I'm not saying a model would be the be-all-and-end-all. Clearly this is the most complex system we know of … but I think simulations are our best bet for coming up with a better cohesive theory on it all ?

Even discovering exo-life in the real laboratory wouldn't necessarily answer anything much .. it'll just raise more questions, eh ?

Cheers

[xelasnave]

Even discovering exo-life in the real laboratory wouldn't necessarily answer anything much .. it'll just raise more questions, eh ?

Firstly it would be disputed within the scientific community... arguments about contamination etc followed by death threats from the devil dodgers as Bert calls them...there are still places in the world where you may be killed for this talk...

The consideration of nothing tells me that the most simple is beyond adequate description and possibly computing power wont even help.
We simplify for our understanding possibly leaving out small things we consider unimportant whereas probably all things interact.

Thinking about the nuetrino news we focus upon how it may change our rules rather than wondering how this and other particles flying about may play their part.(fortunately research goes on).. could you imagine a program that maps, as points, all the nuetrinos in a region as well as the EME and perhaps random atoms or molecules that we simply rate as on atom per x cubic mts...and into this nothing we then must fit something and compute how it will interact etc...I doubt a model will ever play using all we know and must fit in.. that can be only the universe itself.

But at some level information is passed in the universe irrespective of the seemingly impossiblty to human comprehension why this information dictates chemistry one can only wonder.

alex:):):)

[marki]

Well put Bert, certainly worthy of some thought.

Mark

[Poita]

That is kind of my point. If we cannot simplify the process of abiogenesis down into an experiment, or find it in our existing laws, then it needs a new set of laws to explain it happening, or alternatively, it was a total freak event outside the odds.

Usually scientists don't so readily 'believe' in something if they can't formulate something to explain it, or have an experiment to be able to at least recreate a simplified version. We have neither a clear set of rules that we can show lead to life, or an experiment that has had anything close to success in creating it, yet the belief is certainly widespread. (We do have hard science to explain what happen once we get a cell with RNA/DNA and how evolution works from there.) I find it hard to think of another area where scientists are like that. My personal guess it is because they don't want to let the God of the Gaps in, and with good reason, but it is an odd anomaly to me in the way scientists usually treat ideas.

CraigS, I'm not good at paraphrasing, send me your address and I'll send you the P. Davies book, I'm not one of those guys that worries about keeping his books pristine, so I'm happy to lend it out.

[CraigS]

Peter;
Don't worry about the book .. I'll get my hands on a copy for myself .. thanks for the offer though, much appreciated.

Also, I believe you should take a close to look at Complexity Theory. I really think this is where they have developed the tools which explain, at a systems level, how self assembly of complex structures is the norm arising from a large abundance of components obeying simple rules. Organic chemistry would not be an exception to this.
I also really feel you are making generalised statements about what you perceive there is no scientific discourse on, when there exists quite a lot which describe quite feasible mechanisms to explain the complexity.

Cheers

[avandonk]

The evidence is there just like archaeology we have to deduce history from the fragments we find.

Bert

[Poita]

My thesis was on information theory, which has mutated into complexity theory in recent years. I've read just about every paper I get time to these days, there is plenty of new ground being covered but nothing conclusive yet as far as I have read.
I think this is the arena where a breakthrough will eventually be made, that information will have to be treated as an actual entity, similar to the way it is in quantum physics... the information content of living organisms, even basic ones is huge, it has to come from somewhere. Basic Physics doesn't cover that. Someone in the thread commented that living or dead, there is no difference, that it is just matter following the same laws. The information content of a living vs non-living thing is hugely different, the non-living entity can be easily (relatively) modelled and predicted using standard physics, the living entity cannot. It is an interesting field of study.

[joe_smith]

like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z2vU8M6CYI)? ;)

[avandonk]

That is not deduction it is extrapolation taken to the absurd!

Very funny though.

Bert

[sjastro]

Very funny.
Is there a message behind this, namely archaeology isn't a science?

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

Hmm …
I've always been uncomfortable with viewing DNA as 'information'. Seeing it as 'information', seems to me to imply that its 'sequence' has a purpose.

There are plenty of things we could call 'information' which, when acted upon by a process, result in something other than what it started out as.

I have a feeling 'information' is an illusion we have created in our own minds .. because that's what we do .. acquire 'information' over our lifetimes and then expire.

DNA simply exists .. it has no purpose .. there are no 'huge' or 'tiny' 'amounts' of it. Such comparisons seem like anthropomorphising what simply exists .. for no reason, or purpose.

If one abandons the search for the purpose, then the 'mystery' of how a specific DNA sequence occurred in the first place, also simply disappears.

Cheers

[Poita]

I would have to take you to task on that, DNA is a highly evolved, non-periodic, information rich system. I can't think of any other way to explain it, and you would have a hard time finding any scientist that wouldn't consider it information rich I would think (Glad to be shown to be wrong though as always!). Abandoning some imagined purpose does nothing to make the DNA mystery disappear at all, I don't follow your argument here.

I've pretty much exhausted my knowledge on this topic now, I've enjoyed the discussion, but I'll leave you guys to it until I stumble across anything new. The skies are clearing up outside, so I'm off to practice setting up for imaging!

[avandonk]

Here you go then. Check this out.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111012132651.htm


this is the start of I Robot!

Bert

[CraigS]

Interesting …. and very clever! .. So they’ve achieved self-replication of complex DNA molecules, without the need for an RNA enzyme.

They did however start with a BTX (a bent triple helix molecule containing three DNA double helices), with each BTX molecule composed of 10 DNA strands. For replication, a seed BTX ‘seven-letter word’, is then needed to catalyse ‘multiple generations of identical arrays’.

As I understand it, to-date, replication theories have always required the presence of an RNA enzyme, but no-one has been able to work out how these enzymes arose in the first place .. but this process, doesn’t seem to need one of these. Very clever.

Just summarising, (from this article), (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128251.300-first-life-the-search-for-the-first-replicator.html?page=1) with the RNA first hypothesis, the other three traditional problems have been:

i) coming up with a membrane to enclose the replication reactions and to allow passage into and out of the ‘cell’ structure. Szostack seems to have solved this one though, (see my previous post on this) and;

ii) how the first nucleotides got arranged into a long chain RNA molecule, without the presence of enzymes. It seems that activated nucleotides are those with an extra bit tacked on to the phosphate. They worked out some time ago that when these were added to a kind of volcanic clay, RNA molecules up to 55 nucleotides long formed. ‘Ordinary nucleotides’ don’t favour the formation of large RNA molecules (due to a lack of energy), but the activated ones, provide the energy needed to drive the reaction. With this process, RNA molecules, can be seen to form spontaneously. (The only problem which the remains is that the long molecule can break down fairly shortly after it is formed).

iii) how the first nucleotides formed. Two of the four nucleotides in RNA have already been produced in the lab and the hunt for making the other two, is currently underway.

Cheers

[xelasnave]

AND from the same article Craig his comment on membranes........

And membranes were key to the physiology of cells because they protect their contents, concentrate chemicals to promote reactions and isolate successful genes from unsuccessful ones. "It's clear you really need both these elements to get evolution off the ground and running," says Szostak..

As I suggested earlier a simple water drop already has in effect a membrane, and given the alignment of the molecules at the surface maybe this provides a foundation for other molecules to also line up and "evolve" toward a membrane or shell.. a droplet also concentrates chemicals as we know.

It is only my mere opinion but I doubt that isolation of sucessful and unsuccessful genes would be necessary or that would be part of the early membranes job.. it would be probable that certain chemicals were just more stable than others and that was what defined their sucess.

So all we need for a simple cell is a droplet of water maintained at a correct temp and with the correct chemicals to be concentrated in the center... all I am suggesting is the structure of a droplet of water may provide the mechanism for evolvement to a more complex object.

alex:):):)

[CraigS]

Here's another drop in the bucket … this study has shown (theoretically) that a thermodynamic state can pass on mutations to chemically replicating 'offspring' ...
Could thermodynamic fluctuations have led to the origins of life? (http://www.physorg.com/news201171540.html)



Cheers

[CraigS]

And this study has gotten cell membranes to divide into daughter cells which possess completely different functions to the parent cell. All this without involving genes or cellular machinery !

New technique sheds light on the mysterious process of cell division (http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-technique-mysterious-cell-division.html)



I don't know whether 'a simple drop of water' is capable of achieving this feat ?? :shrug:

Cheers

[xelasnave]

Craig I think a simple droplet of water is far more complex than we have considered it to be perhaps and maybe capable of providing a basic system from which other complexities evolve... I have little idea really and am looking for the simplest of starting steps.

The reason I dwell upon it is because the more one thinks about it the greater complexity one can suggest and adding simple aspects that may have some effect produces opportunity one possibly overlooked... just with a simple droplet so I am seeing more in it than someone with better things to do I suspect.

I have become preoccupied with this subject and have tried to focus upon only one aspect that being a method of containment... hence the observation of the membrane like characteristic of the skin of water and how such characteristic may offer the initial system for placement of chemicals... would calcium and CO2 etc find a suitable condition to form an egg shell approach:D and I suspect already the egg did indeed come before the chicken:rolleyes:


It would seem that "division" of a simple water droplet is possible from action of temp and or variation in size for example even variation in charge will have consequences making division more or less likely one would think and all I have been trying to consider is if any of these fundamentals offer a course to a development of more complex structures....or put another way ..there must be an initial starting point where the rules of the universe dictate a certain progression will follow...they seem to have things worked out to a large degree with the chemical reactions and I have tried to consider environment aspects.

Anyways great stuff Craig:thumbsup:. I have vowed to read and not offer input (opinions) but with this most interesting subject I can not help myself:D.

alex:):):)