Abiogenesis

[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 (Peter)]

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-.../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]

Originally Posted by 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

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:

Peptide nucleic acid (PNA) is an artificially synthesized polymer similar to DNA or RNA invented by Peter E. Nielsen (Univ. Copenhagen), Michael Egholm (Univ. Copenhagen), Rolf H. Berg (Risø National Lab), and Ole Buchardt (Univ. Copenhagen) in 1991.

I also found this interesting paper, 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

The physical model to describe the hydrophobic interactions of molecules has been a mystery that has challenged scientists and engineers since the 19th century.
Hydrophobic interactions are central to explaining why oil and water don’t mix, how proteins are structured, and what holds biological membranes together.
Chemical engineering researchers at UC Santa Barbara have developed a novel method to study these forces at the atomic level, and have for the first time defined a mathematical equation to measure a substance’s hydrophobic character.

.. 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 ? ….

One example of how hydrophobic interactions are critical to biomedical applications can be found in how DNA base pairs on the two strands are drawn together to form a double helix. The basic structure of a DNA molecule is a hydrophilic backbone and a hydrophobic inner region of nitrogenous bases (adenine, guanine, thymine, and cytosine). These molecular hydrophobic forces repel the water between them which drives the bases towards each other.

Very interesting !

Cheers

[xelasnave]

The net is wonderful ..just when you think you know everything something new comes along...now add this into the mix.

http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre...bel-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 (Peter)]

Originally Posted by 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

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 (Peter)]

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 (Peter)]

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

Originally Posted by xelasnave

The net is wonderful ..just when you think you know everything something new comes along...now add this into the mix.

http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre...bel-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

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Poita

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Poita

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.

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 !

Originally Posted by Poita

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

Originally Posted by Poita

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.

I personally don't mind living with the riddle …

Cheers

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

The net is wonderful ..just when you think you know everything something new comes along...now add this into the mix.

http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre...bel-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

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



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]

Originally Posted by 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

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