Abiogenesis

Nosy wrote: Please see Message 284.”HM

Mod writes: Well, if those prebiotic chemicals didn't do the biological trick, then what did?”HM

As with many chemicals the order of the atomic arrangement makes a difference to the properties.See: Isomer - WikipediaWhere the exact same atoms are in each chemical but the arrangement makes a difference to what their properties are. They are however, still chemicals and only chemicals.In the case of DNA the order is known to make a difference to the resulting chemistry when the chemical processes which create proteins occur. It is all still chemistry however.Chemicals are not just the atoms as you seem to suggest with your thought experiment. They are also the order of the atoms. But this is still chemistry.If you disagree I would like to sell you a gram of graphite for the really cheap price of, for you, $20,000 US.

You're making the mistake here of thinking that isomers of the same chemical should act the same. They don't at all. Benzene, 2,4-hexadiyne, and 1,5-hexadiyne each have six carbons and six hydrogens, but are very distinct chemically. Two DNAs with differenr ordering of the same bases are just as different as two proteins with different ordering of the same amino acids - and that can be VERY different.

NoseyNed & Coragyps,There are more than chemicals in DNA; there are digital messages, too. If you deny this fact then you have to go back to school and learn what you missed in freshman biology. How many chemical isomers can you think of that are configured as digital code? I can think of DNA and RNA...and you can add the rest. I'll be interested in seeing how long your lists are.”HM

so when dealing with bits (you know, 1s and 0s), which are just electrical signals, there's more than electricity? Is that something "more" inherent and intrinsic, or extrinsic and not inherent?are you suggesting that information in DNA is not an inherent property? I argue here that information is an inherent, instrinsic property, not something that can be developed separately (which is what you are suggesting happened, if I understand you properly).and Hoot, you should go back to freshman biology. Why? There are apparently 80 different nitrogenous bases--not just 5 (which is all they teach in freshman biology. thank Doddy for this bit of info).

The "digital messages" are the arrangement of the chemicals. A set of chemical structures (alphabet) arranged in different ways ("code") is all that is needed to produce different reactions.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I didn't say prebiotic chemicals didn't do the biological trick. I said prebiotic chemicals can't do the biological trick in the present due to the existing biota.

Been there. Thunk that. The first batch didn’t do so well, as you pointed out. It just sorta sat there and got dead. That second batch however grew into something hideous like something out of those Saturday afternoon matinees. The Thing That Eat Phoenix. I guess I didn’t get all the parts back in the right places. I had to nuke it before it spread.The molecules in question are just chemicals. There is no denying that. The order of the molecules on the chain is important, obviously. No denying the order constitutes a code, and an elegant one at that, without which life sorta sits there and gets dead.The development of this code is the interesting part. Molecular combinations in random trial and error over a few hundred million years or something more directed? Any speculations on this you can share with us?

I disagree. A pristine abiotic world have a lot more time to develop life. The organic matter in that pond is decaying (ie being eaten by the smorgasbord) comparably quickly. Abiotic earth had organic chemicals, but without the bacterial decay to worry about and with a whole lot of time and space. The pond has little of either.

kuresu wrote: How about the signal-to-noise ratio? What makes your system coherent? Why don't rocks do that? They're chemicals, too, aren't they? Do you have a chemical principle for such kinds of coherent self-organization to offer? No, not separately. Intrinsically. I can agree that genetic information developed somehow along with the molecular development of RNA/DNA. Or maybe later, I don't know. But the fact that genes eventually appeared as encryptions on RNA/DNA is still interesting to me. Besides biological systems, no other marriage between codes and molecules ever occurred in nature. At least so far as we know. Why shouldn't I be curious about the role of digital code in biological organization? It seems like an awfully clever trick of nature.Chemicals. Reductionism. Tinker Toys. Erector Sets. Who, or what, writes the instruction manuals for those mechanical wonders? Am I to assume that the molecules, working in cooperation with unknown natural forces, invented the code on their own to inform their protein molecules? I don't think Goddidit. I think it probably did it on its own. But I simply don't understand how. That's all.”HM

Mod wrote: If you are right, Mod, then you have discovered an important biological principle. I'll call it the "abiogenic truncation principle"”once abiogenesis is successfuly established it cannot happen again, because existing biotic will truncate its late appearance by having it for lunch.If you know for certain that your principle is correct, then I'd suggest you apply for authorship immediately if not sooner. Hell, it's more than a principle! Let's call it "Mod's Law."”HM

Ringo wrote: Profound.”HM

AZPaul3 wrote: Wish I had a good one. Since I don't believe Goddidit, what are my options? Vitalism? Parallel universes? What ever it is that we don't yet know is HUGE.”HM

Do you reject molecular combinations in random trial and error over a few hundred million years?