Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,912 Year: 4,169/9,624 Month: 1,040/974 Week: 367/286 Day: 10/13 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Converting raw energy into biological energy
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5878 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 104 of 314 (419510)
09-03-2007 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Doddy
09-03-2007 5:57 AM


Leslie Orgel
I found some interesting comments on this subject (in general) by Orgel. I have some questions for you Doddy, since I cannot seem to find what it is I am looking for and cannot recall where I got the information I have forgotten. Perhaps you can answer them.
Conclusion
The inevitable conclusion of this survey of nucleotide synthesis is that there is at present no convincing, prebiotic total synthesis of any of the nucleotides. Many individual steps that might have contributed to the formation of nucleotides on the primitive Earth have been demonstrated, but few of the reactions give high yields of products, and those that do tend to produce complex mixtures of products. It should also be realized that any prebiotic synthesis of a nucleotide would yield a racemic product, not the biologically important D-nucleotide. Recent publications, particularly those of Zubay and his coworkers (cited above), suggest that the search for a convincing prebiotic synthesis of the nucleotides is not hopeless. However, the difficulties remain so severe that alternatives to the de novo appearance of RNA on the primitive Earth deserve serious consideration. The succeeding sections of this review, in addition to discussing possible routes to RNA from a hypothetical source of prebiotic nucleotides, will also consider other ways in which the RNA World could have appeared.
( Taylor & Francis - Harnessing the Power of Knowledge )
Forgetting the problem of racemic molecules and chiralty for now(second bolded section), in the first bolded section above; 'are the environmental factors necessary for formation of nucleotides in differing experiments compatable'?
Or, in other words, would it take necessarily different environments to produce individual components that would have to merge and cohere at some single point in time to spontaneously create life?
And do you think this is one reason why the de novo approach is effetively being abandoned even though it is not addressed in this aritcle?
Orgel seems to hint at the question here, but in the sense of 'environment'. in terms of encapsulation by a cell wall:
Molecules that stay together evolve together. This sums up the arguments in favor of compartmentalization. There are two important and distinct aspects of this generalization, one concerning small-molecule metabolites, etc., and the other concerning macromolecules. Evolution is at a severe disadvantage in enhancing the performance of an organism's metabolic enzymes unless the small molecules that they synthesize are retained long enough to be utilized by the producing macromolecules (or their near relatives). There is no place in evolution for charity, and to synthesize a useful molecule and hand it over to an unrelated competitor would constitute molecular charity.
She even appears to hint at the other double-stranded structures kind of like the article jar brought to bear:
The prebiotic synthesis of nucleotides in a sufficiently pure state to support RNA synthesis cannot be achieved using presently known chemistry. Each of the steps needed to assemble a nucleotide from very simple starting materials was demonstrated early in the development of prebiotic chemistry, but the reactions were inefficient, nonspecific, or both. Some progress has been made in developing more specific prebiotic syntheses, but formidable difficulties remain. This has led some researchers to explore a major new approach to the problem of molecular evolution”the search for polymers that could function as alternative genetic systems.
It is now clear that there are numerous double-stranded structures with backbones very different from that of RNA but held together by Watson-Crick base pairing. Investigation of these structures is a novel and fruitful branch of organic chemistry (and Astrobiology) regardless of whether it turns out to be relevant to the origin of life on the Earth. It also seems possible that there are pairing structures much simpler than RNA in the sense that their monomeric components can be synthesized much more easily than nucleotides. The discovery of TNA is encouraging, but structures that are independent of Watson-Crick base pairing are as yet unknown.
I like the honesty in her final statement. Some of you (not you Doddy) could learn a lesson from her:
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Prebiotic chemistry remains so diverse a field that it is by no means clear where the next important advances will occur. It seems likely that adsorption on and catalysis by minerals was essential for the origin of the RNA World, so increasing efforts to study heterogeneous reactions are to be anticipated. Since minerals are so varied in composition and structure, combinatorial methods will be required. It will be necessary to study each potentially important reaction in parallel on tens or hundreds of different mineral samples. Whether or not this approach will lead to the discovery of a plausible prebiotic route to the nucleotides, as the believers in the Molecular Biologists' Dream hope, remains to be seen, but it is likely that many novel mineral catalysts will be discovered in this way.
The search for pairing structures based on monomeric components that can be synthesized much more easily than nucleotides and, hopefully, that polymerize more readily has just begun. No doubt it will remain an active and expanding field. Whether or not it leads to a plausible scenario for a simple pre-RNA World, as advocates of "RNA late" hope, it is likely to generate some novel organic chemistry.
One must recognize that, despite considerable progress, the problem of the origin of the RNA World is far from being solved.
Doddy, in your opinion, how relevant to this debate is the issue of chiralty?
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by Rob, : chiralty not chiralry

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Doddy, posted 09-03-2007 5:57 AM Doddy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by CK, posted 09-03-2007 11:47 AM Rob has replied
 Message 110 by Wounded King, posted 09-03-2007 12:12 PM Rob has replied
 Message 124 by molbiogirl, posted 09-03-2007 4:00 PM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5878 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 106 of 314 (419518)
09-03-2007 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by CK
09-03-2007 11:47 AM


Re: Leslie Orgel
CK:
What is "chiralry"? none of the academic sources I can access have heard of such a term and it doesn't appear in any general web searches I do.
Oops!
Don't know where I got that spelling actually... I was referring to chiral molecules. It's about handedness. Still learning about it myself...
Racemic mixture - Wikipedia
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by Rob, : And if that wasn't bad enough, I then gave the wrong link....
Corected.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by CK, posted 09-03-2007 11:47 AM CK has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5878 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 107 of 314 (419519)
09-03-2007 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by CK
09-03-2007 11:47 AM


Re: Leslie Orgel
Chirality... it' Chiralty. those t's and r's are so close together you know?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by CK, posted 09-03-2007 11:47 AM CK has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5878 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 111 of 314 (419531)
09-03-2007 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Chiroptera
09-03-2007 11:59 AM


Re: Request for More Info
Chiroptera:
Ha! See? There are still questions that science hasn't answered! That's proof, proof I say, that it must have been divine intervention!"
I really was laughing btw... I pictured it with a poor cartoonish 1950's mafia voice.... 'Proof I say, proof I say, see, see'?
There's never going to be proof either way really. It's all theory...
To me it boils down to probability. But we must continue the discussion. And you guys (like Lewontin) must proceed because materialism is an absolute. And that is the case even though matter is relative as per Einstein. Of course Godel showed that mathematics are incomplete so maybe Einstein was wrong?
You make my head spin.
Is this thread going to ammount to anything?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Chiroptera, posted 09-03-2007 11:59 AM Chiroptera has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5878 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 112 of 314 (419532)
09-03-2007 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Wounded King
09-03-2007 12:12 PM


Re: Leslie Orgel
WK:
Just as a point of information, Leslie Orgel isn't a woman.
Well that's wonderful... So she didn't comment on chiralry at all then. But He did comment on chiralty.
Sometimes I am the fool.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Wounded King, posted 09-03-2007 12:12 PM Wounded King has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5878 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 113 of 314 (419534)
09-03-2007 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Wounded King
09-03-2007 12:12 PM


Re: Leslie Orgel
WK:
I'm not sure why Orgel makes such a sweeping blanket statement since some of the work that prebiotic symmetry breaking hypotheses are based on, particularly the Frank chiral amplification model, have been around for some decades.
Isn't it just a mathematical model though?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Wounded King, posted 09-03-2007 12:12 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Chiroptera, posted 09-03-2007 12:41 PM Rob has replied
 Message 115 by Wounded King, posted 09-03-2007 1:02 PM Rob has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5878 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 116 of 314 (419553)
09-03-2007 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Chiroptera
09-03-2007 12:41 PM


Re: Leslie Orgel
Chiroptera:
(d) There are experimentally verified possibilities, but all have problems.
I agree with you... I found a relevant section of Behe's book detailing the dillemas, but I tire of simply playing the spoiler. So let's move the debate some...
Chiroptera, you and Percy have framed the debate in a manner that may be fruitful. Your earlier comments about finding material causes and systems previously thought 'miraculous' is noteworthy. I think it is a valid observation and inference to further material causes 'as of now' may only be appearently 'miraculous'.
The real battle isn't over the unknowns... because they are unknowns. A lot of this thread has been useless because of that fact. What we have, are commitments to a particular philosophical view on both sides of this debate.
The question is really one of the definition of science. Though methodological naturalism does not eliminate a designer by necessity, it does require the designer to be appearent in material terms. What is frustrating for folks like me, is that the designer is by definition a spiritual being. So methodological naturalism does effectively eliminate the designer.
We infer design because the existence of certain systems are explainable in terms of analogous systems created by human intelligence elsewhere.
Why is that not a legitimate inference even without the exact material causes, when methodological naturalism is assuned to be valid without the material causes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Chiroptera, posted 09-03-2007 12:41 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by mark24, posted 09-03-2007 1:44 PM Rob has not replied
 Message 118 by Percy, posted 09-03-2007 2:24 PM Rob has replied
 Message 120 by Chiroptera, posted 09-03-2007 3:16 PM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5878 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 119 of 314 (419560)
09-03-2007 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Percy
09-03-2007 2:24 PM


a la Behe
Percy:
If, a la Behe, the designer performs microbiological redesigns, thereby creating things like the bacterial flagellum and blood clotting, then he is *very* apparent in the material world.
Methodological naturalism has no requirement that natural phenomenon be directly apparent to one or more of the five senses. Using electron microscopes and cloud chambers and thermometers and pressure gauges to detect natural phenomena that we can't perceive unassisted is just fine. It is also just fine to detect events that occurred when we weren't around by examining the evidence they left behind, such as geological layers and fossils and ancient starlight and archaeological remains.
So it is not a problem if the designer cannot be directly detected as long as we may detect him by his works. The only problem with claims that the designer is responsible for the diversity of life is that the evidence he left behind is identical to that produced by evolutionary processes.
Since natural explanations for the diversity of life exist, arguing that a designer is actually responsible is like arguing that the designer also causes other natural phenomena such as lightning and earthquakes and the aurora borealis.
The diversity of life is only one issue. Perhaps there it is a stalemate. Common ancestry could be a result of theorized evolutionary processes, or it could be the result of the theology of the common creator working within His created common environment using common materials.
However, the design inference is not inferred for that reason... It is made because of the presence of the quaternary digital code known as DNA. Analogous languages and digital codes have been shown emperically to have arisen from intelligence. Researchers in SETI search for such analogous complex information as 'proof' of intellignet life. And it would indeed be proof even without seeing the alien intelligence first hand.
On the flip side, there is no known natural explanation for such complex arrangements of information. And the attempt to produce them results in multiple difficulties as my questions in this thread are intended to show.
Jar may consider this or that off topic, but all of these topics are related, and that is why they are all being discussed at EVC (which stands for Evolution vs Creation)
As you said Percy:
So it is not a problem if the designer cannot be directly detected as long as we may detect him by his works.
Well?
The design inference is an inference to a non-material being who manifests Himself in the physical world, so that 'men are without excuse' as per the apostle Paul in Romans 1. It is both emperically testable and an internally coherent theological (or philsophically theoretical) construct.
This argument is made with extreme clarity here: Abiogenesis If you scroll down to the man writing on the chaulkboard, and watch the clip (clip 6), you can then watch clip 7 when the menu pops up at the end of clip 6. The two clips together take no more than about 20 minutes to view. Enjoy...
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Percy, posted 09-03-2007 2:24 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by jar, posted 09-03-2007 3:37 PM Rob has replied
 Message 126 by Percy, posted 09-03-2007 4:59 PM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5878 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 122 of 314 (419566)
09-03-2007 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Chiroptera
09-03-2007 3:16 PM


Ciroptera:
I don't buy this. Some people claim this, but I don't believe it, if for no other reason than I have never come across a definition of "supernatural" or "spiritual" (as opposed to the "natural" or "material") that didn't have some sort of inherent problems. Something either exists or it does not.
What about a photon? What about the laws of physics? What about energy? Is everything material?
Sidelined has a very interesting link to his homepage. And in that homepage is Feynman's definition of energy as, 'the capacity to do work'. Is it purely another coincidence that, Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." (John 5:17)
When you combine that with the elusive character of light photons, and His comments about being 'the light of the world', and just consider the coherence with modern understandings of physics, it truely boggles the mind. How in the name of Stephen Hawking is that possible?
One of the biggest shocks to me after my conversion was to realize how 'natural' (if I can put it that way) the 'spiritual' is... It was there all the time, I just didn't percieve it as such.
As for bias chiroptera, we all have one. Mine was completely subconscious to me until my conversion. Your conscious will agree. You may not like to think about it, but you do have a motive. We all do... but like you said, it's only the creationists who admit it.
We're getting off topic, but I appriciate your honesty in mentioning these issues. I defer to my reply 119 to Percy for answering some of your other questions.
I know that many people have invested enormous resources to the cause of explaining things materially. And I agree with Behe and any other reasonable person that science has made some tremedous advances and discoveries that have been beneficial to mankind. However, that does not mean that material explanations are our savior all of the time. There are non material forces in our universe, and they require another method of understanding to engage them besides methodological naturalism.
There are times when no matter what the investment, we must give up the ghost. Dean Kenyon certainly did. Irrespective of the cost to him personally. He followed his conscious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Chiroptera, posted 09-03-2007 3:16 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Chiroptera, posted 09-03-2007 4:01 PM Rob has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5878 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 123 of 314 (419567)
09-03-2007 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by jar
09-03-2007 3:37 PM


Re: a la Behe
jar:
Except there is evidence, abundant evidence of the "theorized evolutionary processes" and so far absolutely NO evidence of the common creator.
That evidence can be interpreted either way jar. And each of those creatures you refer to contain a quaternary digital code. Find one without that code that wasn't manufactured (which would defeat the point) in a test tube, and I'll convert to the jar brotherhood.
Why don't you just let Percy handle this one...
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by jar, posted 09-03-2007 3:37 PM jar has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5878 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 127 of 314 (419576)
09-03-2007 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by molbiogirl
09-03-2007 4:00 PM


Re: There's been work done since 2004
Molbiogirl, I just wanted to repost and highlight some of your sources for the blind among us:
Orgel writes:
Molecules that stay together evolve together.
Not necessarily!
Frequency of RNA-RNA interaction in a model of the RNA World, RNA, 12:353-359, 2006.
The RNA World model for prebiotic evolution posits the selection of catalytic/template RNAs from random populations ... This low probability (of random interactions) could be overcome if the molecules capable of productive recombination were redundant, with many nonhomologous but functionally equivalent RNAs being present in a random population ... Parallel SELEX experiments showed that at least one in 106 random 20-mers binds to the P5.1 stem-loop of Bacillus subtilis RNase P RNA with affinities equal to that of its naturally occurring partner. This high frequency predicts that a single RNA in an RNA World would encounter multiple interacting RNAs within its lifetime, supporting recombination as a plausible mechanism for prebiotic RNA evolution. The large number of equivalent species implies that the selection of any single interacting species in the RNA World would be a contingent event, i.e., one resulting from historical accident.
In other words, it would be inevitable.
Orgel writes:
The inevitable conclusion of this survey of nucleotide synthesis is that there is at present no convincing, prebiotic total synthesis of any of the nucleotides.
As for de novo synthesis:
Possible prebiotic catalysts formed from adenine and aldehyde, Planetary and Space Science, Volume 48, Issue 11, September 2000, Pages 1139-1142
Prebiotic chemistry experiments search to explain the origins and properties of chemical structures and reactions which may have been involved in the life emergence (for recent reviews see Eschenmoser and Loewenthal, 1992; Sutherland and Whitfield, 1997; Maurel and Décout, 1999). Small molecules present in the primitive Earth atmosphere such as water, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, methane, dinitrogen (but not dioxygen) could react to lead to the elementary building blocks, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, formaldehyde, acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, cyanogen and cyanoacetylene. Cosmic rays, ionizing radiations, electric discharges and radioactive process induced ion-molecule and radical reactions which led to these building blocks. From these molecules, formation of amino acids ( Miller and Miller; Joshi and Pathak, 1975; Kobayashi et al., 1998) and nucleic acid bases ( Or and Or; Or and Kimball, 1961; Ferris and Orgel, 1966; Robertson and Miller, 1995; Miyakawa et al., 1999) such as adenine 1 (Fig. 1, C5H5N5: pentamer of hydrogen cyanide) under prebiotic conditions could be explained. Many prebiotic molecules could already have been present in comets such as adenine detected into comet Halley dust. Or suggested that comets might already have brought to the Earth biochemical precursors necessary for emergence of life (Or, 1961; Or et al., 1992). Delsemme emphasized more and more evidences support that an intense bombardment of comets has brought to the Earth all the carbon compounds present in organic molecules used by life ( Delsemme and Delsemme 2000).
In the search of chemical prebiotic routes which could lead from nucleic acid bases to building blocks capable of polymerizing to form nucleic acids strands, we are investigating reactions of adenine with different aldehydes under presumably prebiotic conditions. Such reactions could have led to nucleoside and nucleoside-like building blocks endowed with catalytic properties necessary for life. Previously, Fel'dman (1962) reported slow reactions of adenine with formaldehyde in aqueous solution at room temperature under neutral conditions to form adducts on the 6-amino group and/or the 9-nitrogen atom.
Pyruvic acid being a central intermediate in the present metabolism, we studied reactivity of the corresponding aldehyde, pyruvic aldehyde 2 (methylglyoxal), with adenine 1 (Fig. 1) and we are reporting here these results. Pyruvaldehyde could have been produced under prebiotic conditions by retroaldolization from complex mixtures of sugars formed by the formose reaction. It was detected in caramel ( Tomasik et al., 1989) and alkaline decomposition of hexoses such as Image-mannose, Image-xylose and Image-glucose which affords pyruvaldehyde hydrate (Evans, 1942; Feather and Harris, 1973). Such decompositions of sugars could have been a source of various prebiotic molecules like aldehydes and heterocycles.
Careful examination of the present metabolism and in vitro selection of various catalytic RNAs strongly support the “RNA World” hypothesis of the origin of life. However, in this scenario, the difficult prebiotic synthesis of ribose and consequently of nucleotidesnext term remain a major problem. In order to overcome this problem and obtain nucleoside analogs, we are investigating reactions of the nucleic acid base, adenine 1, with different aldehydes under presumably prebiotic conditions. In the reaction of adenine and pyruvaldehyde 2 in water, we report here the formation in high yield of two isomeric products. These compounds possessing alcohols functions as nucleosides result from condensation of two molecules of pyruvaldehyde on the 6-amino group of one adenine molecule.
And then there's this:
Nucleoside Phosphorylation by Phosphate Minerals, Journal of Biological Chemistry, Vol. 282, Issue 23, 16729-16735, 2007.
In prebiotic scenarios biopolymers can be thought of as condensation products of abiotically formed monomers. Polymers (polysaccharides, peptides, and polynucleotides) will not spontaneously form in an aqueous solution from their monomers because of the standard-state Gibbs free-energy change ... In the polymerization process of nucleic acids extant organisms activate the monomers by converting them to phosphorylated derivatives and then utilize the favorable free energy of phosphate hydrolysis to drive the reaction. Does this present day process mimic spontaneously occurring prebiotic reactions, thus representing a sort of biochemiomimesis descending from ancient pathways, or should it be considered a fully novel cellular invention? ... we report the efficient phosphorylation of nucleosides occurring in formamide on numerous phosphate minerals. Consequently, ... activated monomers can form in prebiotic conditions in a liquid, non-aqueous environment in the presence of phosphate minerals in conditions compatible with the thermodynamics of polymerization.
And this:
Protein and nucleic acid together: A mechanism for the emergence of biological selection, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Volume 240, Issue 3, 7 June 2006, Pages 337-342
Recent studies have shown how interactions of the ”RNA world’ with lipids may have been mutually beneficial for both vesicle formation and RNA replication (Chen et al., 2004). In lipid vesicles, replicating RNA molecules profit by being segregated away from non-replicating ”free-loading’ RNAs that would otherwise benefit from efficient RNA polymerase action. Conversely, the ability of RNA molecules to replicate would have allowed vesicles to grow through increased osmotic pressure (Chen et al., 2004). In this scheme, the more successful vesicle/replicating RNA combinations would expand the fastest and would thus be more likely to split into daughter vesicles, thereby fulfilling many of the key requirements for the initiation of primordial life.
Less progress has been made in showing how mutually beneficial interactions could have arisen between the RNA and early protein world. In vitro selection strategies have shown that RNA molecules are capable of carrying out several steps required for amino acid activation and peptide bond formation (Chapple et al., 2003; Ferreira and Coutinho, 1993; Huang et al., 2000; Johnston et al., 2001; Kumar and Yarus, 2001). However, it is unclear how the acquisition of these enzymic activities would have been subject to immediate selection in the primordial environment (Orgel, 1989).
Here I propose a scheme that integrates nucleic acid and protein function in a way that allows the mutual co-evolution of nucleic acid-dependent protein synthesis and nucleic acid-dependent nucleic acid replication. The model proposes a very early association between nucleic acid and protein polymers in the primordial development of life. It suggests a specific role for amyloid; a protein aggregate in which main chain -sheet interactions stabilize the formation of fibres. Predictions from the model are consistent with recently published observations.
This proposal differs from the prevailing ”RNA-world’ model of pre-biotic development because it involves proteins interacting with the nucleic acids much earlier in evolution than previously suggested. It is even possible that the first self-replicating RNA molecules evolved in association with protein/amyloid and never existed in isolation. An advantage of this model is that it suggests simple evolutionary paths from amyloid-associated elongase and replicase activities to ribosomes and RNA polymerase respectively. In particular, the elongase activity could act as a focus for incremental selective changes that were necessary for the development of template-directed peptide bond formation, without any one step being contingent on future evolutionary developments (Chapple et al., 2003; Huang et al., 2000; Johnston et al., 2001; Lohse and Szostak, 1996; Nissen et al., 2000; Yarus and Welch, 2000; Zhang and Cech, 1997).
Re: chirality
A primordial peptide cycle involving the chemical formation and degradation of peptides has recently been proposed (Huber et al., 2003). Here I argue [insert: -as opposed to showing emperically-]that peptides in solution would be selectively degraded by comparison to those included in amyloid. Mixed chiral peptides are unlikely to have formed amyloid since they have a lower propensity to form -sheet structures (Brack and Barbier, 1990), thus it is likely that amyloid was homochiral and that mixed chiral peptides were selectively degraded and recycled into other random chiral combinations. Base-pairing of nucleic acids during replication has also been argued to promote homochirality (Schoning et al., 2000), leading to the proposal here that both protein and nucleic acid polymers involved in the proposed mechanism were homochiral.
There is no a priori reason to believe that any particular homochiral amyloid-nucleic acid combinations (e.g. DD, DL, LD or LL) would have had a selective advantage. [Insert: -and no a priori reason that they would not have either-]Indeed RNA was found to induce the aggregation of both homo L and D poly (Lys-Leu) polypeptides with equal efficiency (Brack and Barbier, 1990). It is therefore possible that all chiral combinations co-existed and competed with each other. The later development of enzymic activities that could direct the synthesis of chiral protein and RNA precursors would then have been the key event in the genesis of the current chiral combination.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by molbiogirl, posted 09-03-2007 4:00 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Percy, posted 09-03-2007 5:13 PM Rob has replied
 Message 132 by molbiogirl, posted 09-03-2007 5:41 PM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5878 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 130 of 314 (419580)
09-03-2007 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Percy
09-03-2007 4:59 PM


Re: a la Behe
Percy:
So let's design a test that would detect the designer by his works. Let us say that me and a Greek from ancient Athens observe lightning in a thunder storm. I claim the lightning is a natural phenomenon caused by the discharge of electricity between clouds and ground which have become oppositely charged due to the storm. The ancient Athenian says the lightning bolt was cast by Zeus. What test could we make to tell who is right?
I was expecting so much more...
There is no test for such a scenario. I agree!
But, are you telling me that a lightening bolt is the equivilant in terms of information complexity to the quaternary digital code of DNA?
I might very well say that the mathematical elegance and balance necessary for the creation of a lightening bolt does itself indicate a supremely intelligent creator who makes those laws stand firm, but I would not expect you to necessarily agree.
But in the case of DNA were not talking about electricity, we're talking about a peculiar kind of information; specified, highly complex, non-repeating digital text that instructs and directs the building of biological structures. It even contains the instructions for building the machines that do the actual work of transporting parts and such in the cell.
We know of other systems that do the same... A blueprint designed by engineers that instruct agents on how to build a specified building for example. And it is designed by intelligent agents.
And to touch on the thermodynamic problem which is always evaded with assurances of invalidity because we live in an open system; the energy to build the system must be directed. Water cannnot flow up hill simply because it flows in a thermodynamically open system. But you can use the available energy in an open system if it is converted and harnessed to create a water pump. But it is an intelligently designed system. Free undirected energy will contribute to the deterioration of the pump, hence it must also be maintained. Even the instructions will deteriorate in an open system. But the energy in the open system cannot build the pump, and it cannot make water flow uphill. if the law of thermodynamics wasn't valid in an open system, then how did we discover it and prove it here in an open system?
The same applies for cellular factories that convert energy. The energy itself cannot create them. Which gets back to a major point of the thread.
So... we know where instructions come from; intelligence. It has yet to be shown (though it is extravegantly suggested and theorized) that non-intelligent guidance and simple repetative physical laws (informationally) can be a cause and origin for this peculiar form of information that is shown emperically to be caused by intelligence elsewhere.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Percy, posted 09-03-2007 4:59 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by molbiogirl, posted 09-03-2007 5:50 PM Rob has replied
 Message 140 by Doddy, posted 09-03-2007 7:21 PM Rob has replied
 Message 180 by Percy, posted 09-04-2007 5:25 AM Rob has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5878 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 131 of 314 (419581)
09-03-2007 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Percy
09-03-2007 5:13 PM


Re: There's been work done since 2004
Percy:
Rob, all you've done is highlight in bold phrases that include the typically tentative phrasing of scientific papers. We've been over this ground before. Science is tentative.
So when a scientific paper says that something "could" have occurred in such-and-such a way, it only means that it is a possibility as opposed to a definite fact. What those papers are describing are possible natural pathways for the formation of ATP. That such pathways exist does not mean that they are the ones that nature actually took advantage of, it only means that we understand some of the ways ATP could have formed naturally. After billions of years there may be too little evidence left to reach any definitive conclusions.
What you require in order to keep open the possibility of divine intervention is for scientists to never discover any natural pathways for the formation of ATP. Unfortunately for you, scientists have already uncovered such pathways.
Not at all Percy...
I firmly believe it is possible! I think anythings possible because of what the Bible tells me about possibility. But not all things are probable, and not all things are right.
All I am saying is that these theories offer no emperical proof of anything.
Furthermore, the creation of these systems by human manipulation only proves intelligent design (ironically for the case of proving inteligent design is not necessary).
If you want proof on how these complex systems can be made, you need only look to intelligent agents ie. human ingenuity. We can even invent stories that are so clever, that other intelligent people believe them.
You really need to read my last reply to you...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Percy, posted 09-03-2007 5:13 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by DrJones*, posted 09-03-2007 6:20 PM Rob has replied
 Message 181 by Percy, posted 09-04-2007 6:04 AM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5878 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 134 of 314 (419586)
09-03-2007 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by molbiogirl
09-03-2007 5:41 PM


Re: There's been work done since 2004
molbiogirl:
Are you suggesting that unless a scientist knows, without a shadow of a doubt, the exact prebiotic conditions 3.8 billion years ago, he can't further our understanding abiogenesis?
Not at all... though it may only show us more understanding of the complexity of biology, and other useful understandings. Unlike you, I am not assuming that abiogenesis is a fact explainable by material causes alone.
I am suggesting however that he can only infer it. And that there is a superior inference to solve the problem that has made itself available in the last decade. And science has always made inference to the best explaination. But in this case, the inference is made to that which though emperical does not provide the 'how', only the 'what'. And without a physical being to attach the 'what' to, methodological naturalism rejects the emperical evidence.
Would you as a methodological naturalist also reject an alien transmission of a quaternary digital code picked up by SETI researchers? Or even a simple set of prime numbers? I doubt it...
But in another universe (inside the vast complexity of the living cell) the alien is communicating.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by molbiogirl, posted 09-03-2007 5:41 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5878 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 135 of 314 (419588)
09-03-2007 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by molbiogirl
09-03-2007 5:50 PM


Re: You just couldn't wait to drag in the Second Law, could you?
molbiogirl:
This is biochemistry, Rob. As Percy mentioned upthread, when a reaction is thermodynamically favorable, chemical bonds form. Period. Each of the papers I've cited employ thermodynamically favorable reactions.
So what?
And none of those papers suggest anything resembling the emmense metabolisms we see today. What created them? What good is one one thousanth of a solution when you have a whole factory to account for?
You got gaps that make the Grand Canyon look like a seam between the cells of a human hair.
Have you shown me any life that exists without the known energy conversion mechanisms? Where are these precursors and transitional forms of metabolism? Those that exist today are extraordinarily complex.
All you've done is provided sources to postulated and incredibly insuficient components to produce even the simplest of conceivable cells (which have never been shown to exist but are only conceived of...). There are thousands and millions of components that not only have to be created, but brought together to form an entire organized system we call an organism even in only a single celled creature.
What you're doing is burying the public in masses of details that don't even begin to touch the survface of these problems. And yet our televisions and science classes at school would lead us to believe it is a certainty!
Let me ask you molbiogirl... is it a certainty? Or is it your deep faith that it is a certainty?
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by molbiogirl, posted 09-03-2007 5:50 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by molbiogirl, posted 09-03-2007 6:14 PM Rob has replied
 Message 139 by Chiroptera, posted 09-03-2007 6:22 PM Rob has replied
 Message 182 by Percy, posted 09-04-2007 6:16 AM Rob has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024