Calilasseia: 78 Papers on Abiogenesis

Composition and transformation of substance.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Calilasseia: 78 Papers on Abiogenesis

#21  Postby rainbow » Mar 25, 2010 10:23 am

:scratch:
Last edited by rainbow on Mar 25, 2010 10:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Kill the Wise One!
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155419

"Það er ekki til betri tími en núna til að fresta"
User avatar
rainbow
Banned User
 
Name: Señor Moderato
Posts: 6903

Mozambique (mz)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Calilasseia: 78 Papers on Abiogenesis

#22  Postby rainbow » Mar 25, 2010 10:27 am

Rumraket wrote:
The interesting facts to ponder are that these various compounds are synthesizable under conditions where no mind is investing it's will in their production.

Not really. Small compounds are generally easily formed by undirected reactions. So I'd not think that the formation of glycine would be of any greater importance than say glyceraldehyde:Image
Would you?
Kill the Wise One!
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155419

"Það er ekki til betri tími en núna til að fresta"
User avatar
rainbow
Banned User
 
Name: Señor Moderato
Posts: 6903

Mozambique (mz)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia: 78 Papers on Abiogenesis

#23  Postby byofrcs » Mar 25, 2010 11:00 am

Glycine was found in the Stardust collectors whereas I think glyceraldehyde is used in the likes of the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Homochirality (SETH) project so they are both important but for different reasons.
In America the battle is between common cents distorted by profits and common sense distorted by prophets.
User avatar
byofrcs
RS Donator
 
Name: Lincoln Phipps
Posts: 7906
Age: 53
Male

Country: Tax, sleep, identity ?
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia: 78 Papers on Abiogenesis

#24  Postby Dracena » Mar 25, 2010 11:10 am

:coffee:
User avatar
Dracena
 
Posts: 2386
Age: 43
Female

Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia: 78 Papers on Abiogenesis

#25  Postby Rumraket » Mar 25, 2010 11:11 am

rainbow wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
The interesting facts to ponder are that these various compounds are synthesizable under conditions where no mind is investing it's will in their production.

Not really. Small compounds are generally easily formed by undirected reactions. So I'd not think that the formation of glycine would be of any greater importance than say glyceraldehyde:Image
Would you?


You misunderstand me. I'm not myself, putting any special significance on the synthesis of some particular compound over any other.
I'm merely pointing out that I find it compelling that almost all of the various compounds which are suggested as candidates important for the origin of life, are indeed synthesizable without intelligent intervention. Many of them are indeed found in comet fragments, meteors, interstellar clouds etc. etc.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 12614
Age: 36
Male

Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia: 78 Papers on Abiogenesis

#26  Postby rainbow » Mar 25, 2010 1:59 pm

Rumraket wrote:
rainbow wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
The interesting facts to ponder are that these various compounds are synthesizable under conditions where no mind is investing it's will in their production.

Not really. Small compounds are generally easily formed by undirected reactions. So I'd not think that the formation of glycine would be of any greater importance than say glyceraldehyde:Image
Would you?


You misunderstand me. I'm not myself, putting any special significance on the synthesis of some particular compound over any other.
I'm merely pointing out that I find it compelling that almost all of the various compounds which are suggested as candidates important for the origin of life, are indeed synthesizable without intelligent intervention. Many of them are indeed found in comet fragments, meteors, interstellar clouds etc. etc.

If you were to put C, H, O and N together with enough energy, you'd get glycine, and if you were really lucky - you'd get some glyceraldehyde. It really is no big deal.
...so I'm still waiting to hear what's so exciting about this?
Kill the Wise One!
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155419

"Það er ekki til betri tími en núna til að fresta"
User avatar
rainbow
Banned User
 
Name: Señor Moderato
Posts: 6903

Mozambique (mz)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia: 78 Papers on Abiogenesis

#27  Postby Rumraket » Mar 25, 2010 2:40 pm

rainbow wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
rainbow wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
The interesting facts to ponder are that these various compounds are synthesizable under conditions where no mind is investing it's will in their production.

Not really. Small compounds are generally easily formed by undirected reactions. So I'd not think that the formation of glycine would be of any greater importance than say glyceraldehyde:Image
Would you?


You misunderstand me. I'm not myself, putting any special significance on the synthesis of some particular compound over any other.
I'm merely pointing out that I find it compelling that almost all of the various compounds which are suggested as candidates important for the origin of life, are indeed synthesizable without intelligent intervention. Many of them are indeed found in comet fragments, meteors, interstellar clouds etc. etc.

If you were to put C, H, O and N together with enough energy, you'd get glycine, and if you were really lucky - you'd get some glyceraldehyde. It really is no big deal.
...so I'm still waiting to hear what's so exciting about this?


I find it exciting because many of these various compounds are the building blocks of life today. I find it exciting because they could have been the building blocks of the first lifeforms on earth. I find the Origin of Life an exciting subject.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 12614
Age: 36
Male

Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Calilasseia: 78 Papers on Abiogenesis

#28  Postby rainbow » Mar 25, 2010 3:11 pm

Rumraket wrote:
I find it exciting because many of these various compounds are the building blocks of life today. I find it exciting because they could have been the building blocks of the first lifeforms on earth. I find the Origin of Life an exciting subject.

I find the origin of life to be interesting too.
However these simple undirected reactions form many more compounds that are not 'building blocks of life', for instance the alkane hydrocarbons we've discussed elsewhere.
There is nothing magical or significant about them. There are just simple organic compounds. The right proportions under the right conditions - they form, along with thousands of other compounds.
Now find some RNA in space, and I'll be really impressed!
Kill the Wise One!
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155419

"Það er ekki til betri tími en núna til að fresta"
User avatar
rainbow
Banned User
 
Name: Señor Moderato
Posts: 6903

Mozambique (mz)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia: 78 Papers on Abiogenesis

#29  Postby byofrcs » Mar 25, 2010 3:14 pm

rainbow wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
I find it exciting because many of these various compounds are the building blocks of life today. I find it exciting because they could have been the building blocks of the first lifeforms on earth. I find the Origin of Life an exciting subject.

I find the origin of life to be interesting too.
However these simple undirected reactions form many more compounds that are not 'building blocks of life', for instance the alkane hydrocarbons we've discussed elsewhere.
There is nothing magical or significant about them. There are just simple organic compounds. The right proportions under the right conditions - they form, along with thousands of other compounds.
Now find some RNA in space, and I'll be really impressed!


That doesn't make sense unless there was some kind of competition in space to select for the chemicals to cause then to evolve to RNA.

Where is the competition in space to drive selection ?.
In America the battle is between common cents distorted by profits and common sense distorted by prophets.
User avatar
byofrcs
RS Donator
 
Name: Lincoln Phipps
Posts: 7906
Age: 53
Male

Country: Tax, sleep, identity ?
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia: 78 Papers on Abiogenesis

#30  Postby rainbow » Mar 25, 2010 3:23 pm

byofrcs wrote:
That doesn't make sense unless there was some kind of competition in space to select for the chemicals to cause then to evolve to RNA.


How could they evolve into RNA on Earth?
Was there a simpler replicator first?
If so, what was it?
Kill the Wise One!
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155419

"Það er ekki til betri tími en núna til að fresta"
User avatar
rainbow
Banned User
 
Name: Señor Moderato
Posts: 6903

Mozambique (mz)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia: 78 Papers on Abiogenesis

#31  Postby byofrcs » Mar 28, 2010 9:34 am

rainbow wrote:
byofrcs wrote:
That doesn't make sense unless there was some kind of competition in space to select for the chemicals to cause then to evolve to RNA.


How could they evolve into RNA on Earth?
Was there a simpler replicator first?
If so, what was it?


No, the question is how could they not evolve ?. What possible mechanism would be used instead of the process of natural selection ? The alternatives presented to date are just plain silly. So thus there was a simpler replicator and the job is now to find it.

I suspect we won't see it around much today any more than we see scaffolding around buildings except when they are under construction.
In America the battle is between common cents distorted by profits and common sense distorted by prophets.
User avatar
byofrcs
RS Donator
 
Name: Lincoln Phipps
Posts: 7906
Age: 53
Male

Country: Tax, sleep, identity ?
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia: 78 Papers on Abiogenesis

#32  Postby rainbow » Mar 29, 2010 8:27 am

byofrcs wrote:
rainbow wrote:
byofrcs wrote:
That doesn't make sense unless there was some kind of competition in space to select for the chemicals to cause then to evolve to RNA.


How could they evolve into RNA on Earth?
Was there a simpler replicator first?
If so, what was it?


No, the question is how could they not evolve ?. What possible mechanism would be used instead of the process of natural selection ? The alternatives presented to date are just plain silly. So thus there was a simpler replicator and the job is now to find it.

I suspect we won't see it around much today any more than we see scaffolding around buildings except when they are under construction.


Am I then correct in taking this as there was a simpler replicator, but we have no clue as to what it was?
Kill the Wise One!
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155419

"Það er ekki til betri tími en núna til að fresta"
User avatar
rainbow
Banned User
 
Name: Señor Moderato
Posts: 6903

Mozambique (mz)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia: 78 Papers on Abiogenesis

#33  Postby aspire1670 » Mar 29, 2010 8:56 am

rainbow wrote:
byofrcs wrote:
rainbow wrote:
byofrcs wrote:
That doesn't make sense unless there was some kind of competition in space to select for the chemicals to cause then to evolve to RNA.


How could they evolve into RNA on Earth?
Was there a simpler replicator first?
If so, what was it?


No, the question is how could they not evolve ?. What possible mechanism would be used instead of the process of natural selection ? The alternatives presented to date are just plain silly. So thus there was a simpler replicator and the job is now to find it.

I suspect we won't see it around much today any more than we see scaffolding around buildings except when they are under construction.


Am I then correct in taking this as there was a simpler replicator, but we I have no clue as to what it was?


FIFY
psikeyhackr wrote: Physics is not rhetorical pseudo-logic crap.

I removed this signature at the request of another member.
aspire1670
 
Posts: 1454
Age: 68
Male

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia: 78 Papers on Abiogenesis

#34  Postby byofrcs » Mar 29, 2010 9:03 am

rainbow wrote:
byofrcs wrote:
rainbow wrote:
byofrcs wrote:
That doesn't make sense unless there was some kind of competition in space to select for the chemicals to cause then to evolve to RNA.


How could they evolve into RNA on Earth?
Was there a simpler replicator first?
If so, what was it?


No, the question is how could they not evolve ?. What possible mechanism would be used instead of the process of natural selection ? The alternatives presented to date are just plain silly. So thus there was a simpler replicator and the job is now to find it.

I suspect we won't see it around much today any more than we see scaffolding around buildings except when they are under construction.


Am I then correct in taking this as there was a simpler replicator, but we have no clue as to what it was?


That is a good bet and there are clues as to what it is. The key is self-organization being an inherent property of all matter. The problem is the sheer choice. There won't be one magic reaction or set of chemicals but a long chain of reactions, with different chemicals, reactions and most importantly without any pre-planned direction that it will take.

So we just have to backtrack the maze from B back to A and we should eventually show the path that was taken from A to B so many years ago. In an accelerated environment I'm also confident we can repeat this. That is the end of ID and creationists have to move back to navel gazing cosmogony - both out of space and out of time - where they should have stayed in the first place.
In America the battle is between common cents distorted by profits and common sense distorted by prophets.
User avatar
byofrcs
RS Donator
 
Name: Lincoln Phipps
Posts: 7906
Age: 53
Male

Country: Tax, sleep, identity ?
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia: 78 Papers on Abiogenesis

#35  Postby Rumraket » Mar 29, 2010 9:57 am

byofrcs wrote:
rainbow wrote:
byofrcs wrote:
rainbow wrote:
byofrcs wrote:
That doesn't make sense unless there was some kind of competition in space to select for the chemicals to cause then to evolve to RNA.


How could they evolve into RNA on Earth?
Was there a simpler replicator first?
If so, what was it?


No, the question is how could they not evolve ?. What possible mechanism would be used instead of the process of natural selection ? The alternatives presented to date are just plain silly. So thus there was a simpler replicator and the job is now to find it.

I suspect we won't see it around much today any more than we see scaffolding around buildings except when they are under construction.


Am I then correct in taking this as there was a simpler replicator, but we have no clue as to what it was?


That is a good bet and there are clues as to what it is. The key is self-organization being an inherent property of all matter. The problem is the sheer choice. There won't be one magic reaction or set of chemicals but a long chain of reactions, with different chemicals, reactions and most importantly without any pre-planned direction that it will take.

So we just have to backtrack the maze from B back to A and we should eventually show the path that was taken from A to B so many years ago. In an accelerated environment I'm also confident we can repeat this. That is the end of ID and creationists have to move back to navel gazing cosmogony - both out of space and out of time - where they should have stayed in the first place.


Nah, they'll just go back to claiming it's wrong because the peanutbutter experiment proves it. :drunk:
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 12614
Age: 36
Male

Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Calilasseia: 78 Papers on Abiogenesis

#36  Postby rainbow » Mar 31, 2010 6:47 am

byofrcs wrote:
rainbow wrote:
byofrcs wrote:
That is a good bet and there are clues as to what it is. The key is self-organization being an inherent property of all matter. The problem is the sheer choice. There won't be one magic reaction or set of chemicals but a long chain of reactions, with different chemicals, reactions and most importantly without any pre-planned direction that it will take.


What clues?
Was it RNA, DNA, polypeptides, a vesicle based on fatty acids?
A metabolic cycle perhaps?
Pray tell.

We are not looking for one magic reaction, but a simple replicator. Something that can evolve into something more complex.
Kill the Wise One!
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155419

"Það er ekki til betri tími en núna til að fresta"
User avatar
rainbow
Banned User
 
Name: Señor Moderato
Posts: 6903

Mozambique (mz)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia: 78 Papers on Abiogenesis

#37  Postby Darwinsbulldog » Mar 31, 2010 9:52 am

rainbow wrote:
byofrcs wrote:
rainbow wrote:
byofrcs wrote:
That is a good bet and there are clues as to what it is. The key is self-organization being an inherent property of all matter. The problem is the sheer choice. There won't be one magic reaction or set of chemicals but a long chain of reactions, with different chemicals, reactions and most importantly without any pre-planned direction that it will take.


What clues?
Was it RNA, DNA, polypeptides, a vesicle based on fatty acids?
A metabolic cycle perhaps?
Pray tell.

We are not looking for one magic reaction, but a simple replicator. Something that can evolve into something more complex.


Folks like Christian DeDuve (1995)in "VITAL DUST" and the authors in Andre Brack's (1998) "
THE MOLECULAR ORIGINS OF LIFE
" investigate these questions in considerable detail. Better replicators, like RNA would have totally replaced any simpler precursors, and since we are talking about events that happened over 3.8 billion years ago, much, if not all information could be lost. So while we may not get to know the exact conditions of that time, or the initial replicators, it is possible to work out the likely "options" that might have been available to chemical interactions of that era.

DeDuve and others think that the first thing to arrive was metabolism. I makes sense because all chemical reactions need energy. Perhaps a polymer of something like Adenosine phosphate chains that ended up bonding with sugars and bases. DeDuve especially likes thioesters as the initial electron acceptor.
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 7440
Age: 62

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia: 78 Papers on Abiogenesis

#38  Postby rainbow » Mar 31, 2010 9:59 am

Better replicators, like RNA would have totally replaced any simpler precursors, and since we are talking about events that happened over 3.8 billion years ago, much, if not all information could be lost.

Invisible Pink Unicorns might also exist, but we have no way of knowing either, do we?
Kill the Wise One!
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155419

"Það er ekki til betri tími en núna til að fresta"
User avatar
rainbow
Banned User
 
Name: Señor Moderato
Posts: 6903

Mozambique (mz)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia: 78 Papers on Abiogenesis

#39  Postby byofrcs » Mar 31, 2010 10:28 am

rainbow wrote:
byofrcs wrote:
rainbow wrote:
byofrcs wrote:
That is a good bet and there are clues as to what it is. The key is self-organization being an inherent property of all matter. The problem is the sheer choice. There won't be one magic reaction or set of chemicals but a long chain of reactions, with different chemicals, reactions and most importantly without any pre-planned direction that it will take.


What clues?
Was it RNA, DNA, polypeptides, a vesicle based on fatty acids?
A metabolic cycle perhaps?
Pray tell.

We are not looking for one magic reaction, but a simple replicator. Something that can evolve into something more complex.


Well it's the "evolve into something more complex" that is the gotcha isn't it ?. If we measure complexity as simply a molecular weight then clearly polymers get more "complex". If we measure complex as the steps in a chain then is something like Glycolysis is more complex than each step.

How do you measure complex ?.
In America the battle is between common cents distorted by profits and common sense distorted by prophets.
User avatar
byofrcs
RS Donator
 
Name: Lincoln Phipps
Posts: 7906
Age: 53
Male

Country: Tax, sleep, identity ?
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia: 78 Papers on Abiogenesis

#40  Postby rainbow » Mar 31, 2010 10:43 am

byofrcs wrote:
rainbow wrote:
byofrcs wrote:
rainbow wrote:
byofrcs wrote:
That is a good bet and there are clues as to what it is. The key is self-organization being an inherent property of all matter. The problem is the sheer choice. There won't be one magic reaction or set of chemicals but a long chain of reactions, with different chemicals, reactions and most importantly without any pre-planned direction that it will take.


What clues?
Was it RNA, DNA, polypeptides, a vesicle based on fatty acids?
A metabolic cycle perhaps?
Pray tell.

We are not looking for one magic reaction, but a simple replicator. Something that can evolve into something more complex.


Well it's the "evolve into something more complex" that is the gotcha isn't it ?.

Rather.
If we measure complexity as simply a molecular weight then clearly polymers get more "complex".

...which would be wrong.
If we measure complex as the steps in a chain then is something like Glycolysis is more complex than each step.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

How do you measure complex ?

Admittedly a difficult one, complexity is difficult to define, and understand.
There is an example that invokes design, but I'll avoid that as it will most likely invoke mass hysteria.
...so I won't.
Kill the Wise One!
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155419

"Það er ekki til betri tími en núna til að fresta"
User avatar
rainbow
Banned User
 
Name: Señor Moderato
Posts: 6903

Mozambique (mz)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Chemistry

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest