Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Simplest Protein of Life
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 211 of 281 (676372)
10-22-2012 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by ICANT
10-20-2012 11:22 AM


Re: Revised Suggestion
Since proteins are manufactured by orders that are placed by the DNA in a cell, wouldn't the information in the DNA be required before the protein could begin to exist?
Actually, it could be argued that RNA runs the cell. DNA is simply a stable form of RNA created by the reaction of RNA and proteins. Ribosomes are made of RNA, and the ribosomes make proteins from RNA. Also, RNA is capable of catalyzing reactions like a protein. It is possible that the first life did not have any DNA, nor did it require any.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2012 11:22 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 212 of 281 (676374)
10-22-2012 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by ICANT
10-21-2012 11:46 PM


Re: Revised Suggestion
DNA has a highly sophisticated means of fixing those errors.
But not all of them are fixed and offspring are produced with mutations. That is a fact.
Most mutations are bad.
Very few are good.
At least in modern life, most mutations are neutral while very few are either deleterious or beneficial. In early life there probably would have been fewer neutral mutations, but more beneficial and deleterious mutations. Given a smaller genome and the dependence on RNA folding (probably) there would probably be more constraint on most sequences.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by ICANT, posted 10-21-2012 11:46 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 213 of 281 (676375)
10-22-2012 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-22-2012 5:27 AM


Re: Speaking of lost...
What's wrong with that motivation if it helps to do the job well?
What job? Where are the peer reviewed ID scientific papers?
Face it, something from nothing you borrow from bigbangism is invalid.
We are talking about abiogenesis which is something from something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-22-2012 5:27 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-22-2012 4:15 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 217 of 281 (676443)
10-22-2012 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-22-2012 4:15 PM


Re: Speaking of lost...
Yes, abiogenesis as such is something from something, yet it is Dawkins who is talking with his head deep in the arse of Hawking and not the other way round.
Hawking's work has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Please stay on topic.
Speculative cosmogony puts constraints on biology, whereas it should by rights be the other way round.
The constraints put on abiogenesis are based on the evidence we have of what the early Earth was like and the conditions found don meteors/comets. The universe could have been magically poofed into being with its current set of laws and conditions 13.7 billion years ago and abiogenesis would be unchanged. The BB has nothing to do with abiogenesis, so why keep bringing it up?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-22-2012 4:15 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-22-2012 6:14 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 219 of 281 (676447)
10-22-2012 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-22-2012 6:14 PM


Re: Speaking of lost...
No, you don't get it. The Universe may not have any origin necessarily and by definition. Therefore as the Universe may not have any measurable age and is a collective idea not compatible with the notion of age or duration, life might not have any traceable origin or age either.
None of this has anything to do with abiogenesis or the simplest protein.
That is the constraint on biology put by the fancy cosmogony the cat is talking about.
Biology is constrained by the age of the solar system, not the age of the universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-22-2012 6:14 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-22-2012 7:28 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 227 of 281 (676494)
10-23-2012 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-22-2012 7:28 PM


Re: Speaking of lost...
No, that is nothing but your conjectures and bare assertion.
It is a statement of the problem. You really can't have life appearing until you have a place where life can thrive. That necessarily limits this whole problem to the age of the Earth. I think we all agree that Panspermia is still an option, but that is merely moving the problem away from Earth to another planet/planetoid. If we can solve the problem for Earth or our Solar System then we can solve the problem for anywhere else where life originates.
The cat read not so long ago a paper by a Spanish astrobiologists team where they ran a computer simulation of such a process claiming that such was the most likely way life had first appeared on earth.
Then life originated in another solar system, but we still have the same problems and using our solar system as a model seems like a valid choice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-22-2012 7:28 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-23-2012 4:20 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 233 of 281 (676535)
10-23-2012 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by ICANT
10-23-2012 11:25 AM


Re: Anything to say about the topic?
RIDICULOUSLY UNLIKELY
No one is proposing that proteins from modern organisms were present 4 billion years ago when abiogenesis might have occurred. You are beating on a strawman.
The only known method of creating a protein is that the information in DNA for a specific protein be sent to a receiver called a ribosome which produces the protein.
That is false.
"Addressing the still open question of the prebiotic origin of sequential macromolecules (peptides, nucleic acids) on the primitive Earth, we describe a molecular engine (the primary pump), which works at ambient temperature and continuously generates, elongates and complexifies sequential peptides."
Source
Abiotic processes can produce sequential peptides.
Anything else is incredibly unlikely as you have said and ridiculously unlikely as BoredomSetsIn says.
We simply don't know how many different combinations of molecules will result in life, so any calculation of any probabilities is based on pure speculation. For all we know, given the volume of water on a planet and the number of reactions that can occur the emergence of life may be guaranteed within 100 million years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by ICANT, posted 10-23-2012 11:25 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 236 of 281 (676546)
10-23-2012 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-23-2012 4:20 PM


Re: Speaking of lost...
I see life coming from life only.
I could care less what you see or don't see. What I care about is what you can demonstrate with evidence. Comparing beliefs is a laughable excersize. Proclaiming your beliefs may work from a pulpit, but it just doesn't work in the arena of science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-23-2012 4:20 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-23-2012 5:05 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(2)
Message 237 of 281 (676547)
10-23-2012 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-23-2012 4:00 PM


I am a death escaping machine myself.
No you aren't. You will die someday just like all organisms.
What is the purpose of the code? To modify and neutralise the way the chemical interactions of the inert would run otherwise.
Do you even understand how you contradicted yourself here? If something is inert it does not go through chemical reactions.
The problem you are having in these conversations is that you describe aspects of nature using contradictory descriptors. You describe organisms that die as death escaping machines. You describe reactive matter as inert matter. This is why people frown on your posts. They are jibberish.
That leads to the conclusion that all life is intelligent in principle and in a way none of non-life is.
Nowhere have you shown that this intelligence can not occur through natural mechanisms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-23-2012 4:00 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-23-2012 5:19 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 240 of 281 (676552)
10-23-2012 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-23-2012 5:05 PM


Re: Speaking of lost...
It is your beliefs that are immaterial.
I agree which is why I don't post beliefs.
My belief that life comes from another is easy to support.
It is your belief that life can ONLY come from life is a claim that you have not supported with evidence.
Apart from your words the evidence life has come from non-life that are in your possession is zero exactly.
I agree. The evidence is very small to non-existent. What we do have is evidence that life started out as simple unicellular organisms. What we don't see is the sudden emergence of zebras and bats in the earliest parts of the fossil record. This is certainly consistent with life starting out as simple organisms which is consistent with abiogenesis.
What is occuring now within the scientific community is an effort to see if life can come about through abiogenesis. I think most people agree that we will never be able to figure out how exactly life started on Earth. All we can do is see if there are pathways by which abiogenesis can occur.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-23-2012 5:05 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-23-2012 6:17 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 241 of 281 (676553)
10-23-2012 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-23-2012 5:19 PM


Death-escaping does not mean immortal.
Then it is a very poor descriptor.
It would seem to me that the important feature of life is replication, not the length of an individual's lifetime. If all life did was live and then die there would be no life on Earth. It is the ability to reproduce which has resulted in the biodiversity we see today.
Inert in this context means not alive . . .
Then use abiotic instead. Inert means that it does not react. Obviously, this matter is reacting, therefore it is not inert.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-23-2012 5:19 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-24-2012 12:52 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 243 of 281 (676575)
10-23-2012 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-23-2012 6:17 PM


Re: Speaking of lost...
I said I take a good note that the concept that life may come from non-living matter by an unspecified gradual chemical process is present in people's minds. And I take a good note that there is another concept that life may come about from a supremely intelligent, powerful object called God equally poorly specified.
The interesting part is that people are only doing research on one of those proposals. Why do you think that is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-23-2012 6:17 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-24-2012 1:14 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 248 of 281 (676613)
10-24-2012 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-24-2012 1:14 AM


Re: Speaking of lost...
They tend to assume stuff and interpret the results any way they please.
So you discount the conclusions before they are even voiced. So much for being open minded.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-24-2012 1:14 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 249 of 281 (676614)
10-24-2012 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-24-2012 12:52 AM


What else the living are replicating for if not to escape death, silly?
Reproduction has nothing to do with escaping death. It never has. Reproduction is about passing on your genes. If organisms simply lived and then died there would be no life right now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-24-2012 12:52 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-25-2012 1:12 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 252 of 281 (676914)
10-25-2012 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-25-2012 1:12 AM


Do you get how lame is your reasoning, Tacky?
Says the person who uses the phrase "death avoiding machines". Says the person who describes reactive matter as inert matter.
My reasoning is just fine.
Besides, what is a collection of genes? Memory of how to build a functioning death-avoiding machine, isn't it?
No. Memories require brains. Modern genomes are the product of billions of years of evolution. Those are not memories any more than the roundness of a stone in a stream is a memory of flowing water.
As to the topic, this is why modern proteins are not valid examples to be used for probabilities that describe abiogenesis. They are the products of evolution, not abiogenesis.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-25-2012 1:12 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024