The Simplest Protein of Life

Larni writes: People only do that to try to sound clever or because they are hopeless twats.

They are not mutually exclusive criteria...

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

No, an ocean is self-sustaining like any inert process, a virus avoids death. It's smart. It's got memory better than yours. That means it can initiate an action as soon as it meets the host. That is the principle divide between the alive and the inert. Anything inert is always one step behind something else either alive or equally inert. Needs to be pulled. What is alive keeps abreast of all else. It's not the question of individual survival. All individual life dies sooner or later. It's a question of memory and being a part of a system. Note that I said a system of death escaping machines. Lonely proto-cell of one kind is impossible. So it has to be no simpler than that. Therefore the alive does not evolve from the inert. The two can only co-exist. Always.

Reproducing is death avoidance par excellence.
That life had originated and does not exist always is not anything you know. That's only a belief you've acquired from your bigbangist priest.

Are you taking the piss? Your taking the piss, arn't you?

You must be taking the piss.

Well played.

It's got memory better than yours.

Support this with evidence, not drivel.

Reproducing is death avoidance par excellence.

That's stupid. But when I'm fucking my girlfriend tonight, I'll just keep reminding myself: "Just trying not to die... just trying not to die"

That life had originated and does not exist always is not anything you know.

Sure it is; There was a point in time in the past when life was unable to exist.

That's only a belief you've acquired from your bigbangist priest.

Well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

You're just making up bullshit. And its not even clever or interesting.

You're really old, aren't you? I feel like I'm talking to my grampa.

Irrelevant what you are thinking when fucking your girl. When she'll dump you, you will be in deadly pain to illustrate what I say.
A point in time is a point in space. That goes in every relative direction. So which direction was your putative point where life was absent? You again parrot the bigbangist nonsense. Start thinking for yourself. Parroting is not anything young and fresh

So you're a crackpot about biology too? I might have guessed. In fact, I did. When I saw that you'd posted on this thread, I thought to myself: "A.M. will once again have degraded himself by drooling out stupid nonsense in public". And I was right. I must confess, I didn't guess just how stupid it would be.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Irrelevant what you are thinking when fucking your girl. When she'll dump you, you will be in deadly pain to illustrate what I say.

Its like you're not even trying to make sense anymore.

A point in time is a point in space. That goes in every relative direction. So which direction was your putative point where life was absent?

It was in the past. Billions of years ago in the early universe. Life simply couldn't have existed.

You again parrot the bigbangist nonsense. Start thinking for yourself. Parroting is not anything young and fresh

Actually, its called learning. You should give it a try sometime... no, wait, you're an old dog - you ain't gonna learn shit.

So whatever, you're kind will die off soon enough and we won't have to be bothered by you anymore.

Which past? Learn relativity and proper physics for a change. If B and C are equidistant in time from A may not mean B and C are contemporary objects. They might be billions light years in each other's past. Inflation and expansion don't cut it as an excuse as those are magical explanations. Space is not an object so it cannot move. Sorry.

Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.

Which past?

The one behind us. The one that's in the direction of the time when I posted my previous message to you. "Earlier"

Learn relativity and proper physics for a change.

No, seriously:

That's rich coming from you.

If B and C are equidistant in time from A may not mean B and C are contemporary objects.

That doesn't make any sense.

They might be billions light years in each other's past.

I'm talking about the Universe's past. Back when life was unable to exist. And how that means that life cannot be eternal.

So, to the topic: At some point in the emergence of life, there would have been really simple proteins. What do you think the simplest one could be?

Inflation and expansion don't cut it as an excuse as those are magical explanations. Space is not an object so it cannot move.

Unevidence off-topic assertions like these will not be addressed anymore.

Sorry.

I sincerely accept your appology for posting ridiculous off-topic nonsense.

Crackpot about biology? What is that, Inadequate? Crackpots and quackademics are just ad hominids the human monkeys hurl at each other for fun. Irrelevant otherwise. The things are the one and only way they are. The rest is impossible but anybody is welcome to present their case and try to tell which is which and why. That is all. If the big bunk and abiogenesis were in the stars to have happened nothing any one says can change that. If not then, sorry Inadequate, toeing the party-line, will not help it either.

What does any of that have to do with abiogenesis?

Is English not your mother tongue?

I'm not going to step in as moderator, I'm just posting a topic reminder. Could participants perhaps stop responding to points that aren't related to the topic? Could they particularly stop making points about participants, including themselves?

Sorry, you fail to grasp it. The universal past is absolutely impossible because no universal linear time of your naive bigbangist conception is possible for the reasons of elementary geometry and relativity of simultaneity. I'll try to explain slowly for the last time before I give up on you lot. Distance in time cosmologically is the same as distance in space. Direction is though strictly relative to an arbitrary location. Simple. Draw yourself a circle or sphere to illustrate my point about A, B and C. B and C could be at the same distance both in time and space from A while the distance separating B and C from each other again both in time and space may vary depending on the angle the lines connecting B and C to A meet at. Time is relative. No bang is possible for that reason alone.