Contemporary Abiogenesis Research

Rumraket · **#41** by **Rumraket** » May 03, 2010 12:42 pm

rainbow wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
rainbow wrote:
Rumraket wrote:

In other words, all you need is a warm surface and somewhere else a cool surface. Really not so implausible.

They have to be really close to each other, and at least partially enclosed. It is not a common arrangement to find forming naturally. Can you think of any examples?

I don't see why this is a requirement. I can obviously agree that it would help maintain a higher concentration of the product if all of the vapor resolidifies locally... but I don't see it as being absolutely required.

You'd get most of your product carried away with the breeze.
No, it really would be a problem. There is going to be so very little of this product made in any case - to lose any would be disastrous.

This is merely an assertion, and I still don't think it's a requirement. In any case, it has not even been demonstrated that the purification by sublimation is an absolute requirement for the reaction.

Rumraket · **#42** by **Rumraket** » May 03, 2010 2:46 pm

Additionally, I think it's a mistake to think of the reaction as one with a specific amount of starting material that happens once... I think it's more likely to be a continous process over a period of time, so even if the sublimation of an intermediate loses a large amount to the environment, over a period of time a local cool surface could collect a significant amount in cracks and pores.

rainbow · **#43** by **rainbow** » May 05, 2010 7:59 am

Rumraket wrote:

This is merely an assertion, and I still don't think it's a requirement. In any case, it has not even been demonstrated that the purification by sublimation is an absolute requirement for the reaction.

Purification by some means would be important.

Rumraket · **#44** by **Rumraket** » May 05, 2010 11:01 am

rainbow wrote:
Rumraket wrote:

This is merely an assertion, and I still don't think it's a requirement. In any case, it has not even been demonstrated that the purification by sublimation is an absolute requirement for the reaction.

Purification by some means would be important.

We fully agree on that. Even if it is not an absolute requirement, if a highly plausible mechanism for purification(which might not incidentially be by sublimation) was found, the case would stand considerably strengthened. I have no reason to object to this.

rainbow · **#45** by **rainbow** » Aug 22, 2010 2:47 pm

Any new stuff?

Animavore · **#46** by **Animavore** » Aug 23, 2010 8:42 am

rainbow wrote:Any new stuff?

Rumraket · **#47** by **Rumraket** » Aug 23, 2010 10:03 am

Animavore wrote:
rainbow wrote:Any new stuff?

Wtf happened to him at the end of that video? What a fucking nutcase.

Rumraket · **#48** by **Rumraket** » Aug 23, 2010 10:05 am

rainbow wrote:Any new stuff?

Not really, at least to my knowledge.

Someone · **#49** by **Someone** » Nov 14, 2010 2:55 am

Clearly the contributors to this thread have been making a far more impressive effort at understanding the nitty-gritty of this subject than I have up to this point. On that note, I'm wondering whether you have a favorable impression and any comments of specificity on the overview of the subject given at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/abiogenesis . For those here who have some familiarity (or not) with my perspective, I largely assume that de minimus tweaks to inevitible processes are involved. For the empirical basis I CLAIM EXISTS, a reading of my material is available in the thread Unbelievable Mathematics under General Debunking/Pseudoscience. You will understand why it is there because of the detachment of coincidences in mathematics from any larger hypothesis (and probably other things), but it's all that is presently available. I don't single out this particular topic as connected intimately with the subject of that thread, but it bears noting that what you may infer that I believe or aim to support with my evidence and this subject matter are not mutually contradictory.

For pre-emptive purposes, I need to assert that my main reason for joining this thread as more than merely a reader is to ask about the wikipedia article.

Rumraket · **#50** by **Rumraket** » Nov 14, 2010 8:00 am

Someone wrote:Clearly the contributors to this thread have been making a far more impressive effort at understanding the nitty-gritty of this subject than I have up to this point. On that note, I'm wondering whether you have a favorable impression and any comments of specificity on the overview of the subject given at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/abiogenesis . For those here who have some familiarity (or not) with my perspective, I largely assume that de minimus tweaks to inevitible processes are involved. For the empirical basis I CLAIM EXISTS, a reading of my material is available in the thread Unbelievable Mathematics under General Debunking/Pseudoscience. You will understand why it is there because of the detachment of coincidences in mathematics from any larger hypothesis (and probably other things), but it's all that is presently available. I don't single out this particular topic as connected intimately with the subject of that thread, but it bears noting that what you may infer that I believe or aim to support with my evidence and this subject matter are not mutually contradictory.

For pre-emptive purposes, I need to assert that my main reason for joining this thread as more than merely a reader is to ask about the wikipedia article.

It's a good overview in my impression, though the in-depth articles on each hypothesis could be better with some of them. The origin of life is a very vast field in terms of research avenues that could be taken and it's hard to say something about the individual plausibilities of each hypothesis, because the vastness of un-researched but possible physical circumstances and chemistry is still of an unfathomable magnitude.
Is there anything in particular you are looking for?

Someone · **#51** by **Someone** » Nov 14, 2010 9:32 am

No, just a good basic comprehension of the subject. I appreciate your comment, which contains the kernel of the answer to a possible follow-up question as to whether the article is of some value to you in deciding what's missing from your own reservoir of knowledge.

Rumraket · **#52** by **Rumraket** » Nov 14, 2010 10:48 am

Someone wrote:No, just a good basic comprehension of the subject. I appreciate your comment, which contains the kernel of the answer to a possible follow-up question as to whether the article is of some value to you in deciding what's missing from your own reservoir of knowledge.

Okay.
Basically the origin of life must be a process that leads to a molecular system capable of darwinian evolution(life as we know it). The proposed hypotheses are variations on a theme : The origin of a self-replicating genetic system like RNA and the origin of a type of membrane/cellwall to protect this genetic system from a changing environment.

Now, how exactly this system is envisioned to arrive is what all the fuzz is about. There are many different hypotheses. The one Rainbow and I have been discussing in this thread is a variation of the RNA-world hypothesis. In this version, it is proposed that the protocell-wall arose first, by the natural chemical synthesis of primitive fatty acids, which later accumulate in mineral pores until a point at which the concentration is high enough and they spontaneously assemble into bilayer "bubbles".
http://exploringorigins.org/fattyacids.html

Second up is the arrival of the genetic system, RNA. Most of the discussion here is on the plausibility of a naturally occurring chemical synthesis that is capable of producing all four RNA ribonucleotides and/or with a subsequent physical mechanism that allow these nucleotides to accumulate(like the fatty acids), permeate into the fatty-acid vesicles and start forming polymers once inside them.

Ultra short version of the RNA world is that RNA is able to do what a combination of DNA and proteins do today.
http://exploringorigins.org/nucleicacids.html

Scientists have successfully evolved RNA molecules that can make copies of themselves without the help of complicated protein translation machinery.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... /5918/1229

In living organisms today, DNA is translated into proteins by a Protein-RNA hybrid molecule known as the Ribosome, which it turns out is actually a Ribozyme (that is, the part responsible for assembling amino-acids is actually made of RNA).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribosome
The interesting thing is that along this translation pathway, DNA is first translated into RNA, and then into Protein. So basically there is a point at which RNA serves as the genetic information.

Today, DNA is copied by a protein called DNA Polymerase.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_polymerase

This gave the researchers the idea that RNA itself could have served as the first genetic system entirely, serving both the function of the self-replicating genetic system and the active translation machinery, before it evolved to take advantage of protein and the more chemically stable DNA.

So the basic question researchers are trying to answer is : Can RNA arise naturally and are there plausible scenarios for it's subsequent polymerization and compartmentalization? This is the RNA world hypothesis.

I should also add that there are many sub-questions relevant to this, that follow a potential solution to the former, like : How did the RNA genetic system evolve to take advantage of proteins? How did it evolve into using DNA as the basic unit of inheritance? How did proteins arrive? Etc. etc.

rainbow · **#53** by **rainbow** » Nov 14, 2010 11:47 am

Someone wrote:No, just a good basic comprehension of the subject. I appreciate your comment, which contains the kernel of the answer to a possible follow-up question as to whether the article is of some value to you in deciding what's missing from your own reservoir of knowledge.

What is missing is any sort of demonstration that non-living molecules can spontaneously form themselves into Replicators, that can evolve into more complex systems.
Artificial Chemical Evolution, if you like.

Someone · **#54** by **Someone** » Nov 14, 2010 12:06 pm

rainbow wrote:
Someone wrote:No, just a good basic comprehension of the subject. I appreciate your comment, which contains the kernel of the answer to a possible follow-up question as to whether the article is of some value to you in deciding what's missing from your own reservoir of knowledge.

What is missing is any sort of demonstration that non-living molecules can spontaneously form themselves into Replicators, that can evolve into more complex systems.
Artificial Chemical Evolution, if you like.

Well, of course I was referring not to what might be missing from the reservoir of our collective knowledge but to how useful the article might be to someone more knowledgable than myself, but thanks for that specific item of our collective ignorance.

Calilasseia · **#55** by **Calilasseia** » Nov 14, 2010 10:46 pm

!	MODNOTE Creationist derail of this thread split off to here. Let's keep this thread for valid science instead of mythology, OK?

rainbow · **#56** by **rainbow** » Nov 15, 2010 8:46 am

Someone wrote:
rainbow wrote:
Someone wrote:No, just a good basic comprehension of the subject. I appreciate your comment, which contains the kernel of the answer to a possible follow-up question as to whether the article is of some value to you in deciding what's missing from your own reservoir of knowledge.

What is missing is any sort of demonstration that non-living molecules can spontaneously form themselves into Replicators, that can evolve into more complex systems.
Artificial Chemical Evolution, if you like.

Well, of course I was referring not to what might be missing from the reservoir of our collective knowledge but to how useful the article might be to someone more knowledgable than myself, but thanks for that specific item of our collective ignorance.

You might find this article from NASA to be interesting:
http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/roadmap/g3.html

DanDare · **#57** by **DanDare** » Nov 19, 2010 8:29 am

Wow, real science! Last time I looked into this area was about 20 years ago. Lots of catching up to do. Thanks.

Contemporary Abiogenesis Research

Re: Contemporary Abiogenesis Research

Re: Contemporary Abiogenesis Research

Re: Contemporary Abiogenesis Research

Re: Contemporary Abiogenesis Research

Re: Contemporary Abiogenesis Research

Re: Contemporary Abiogenesis Research

Re: Contemporary Abiogenesis Research

Re: Contemporary Abiogenesis Research

Re: Contemporary Abiogenesis Research

Re: Contemporary Abiogenesis Research

Re: Contemporary Abiogenesis Research

Re: Contemporary Abiogenesis Research

Re: Contemporary Abiogenesis Research

Re: Contemporary Abiogenesis Research

Re: Contemporary Abiogenesis Research

Re: Contemporary Abiogenesis Research

Re: Contemporary Abiogenesis Research

Re: Contemporary Abiogenesis Research

Re: Contemporary Abiogenesis Research

Who is online