quote:I get the impression that he is concerned about something that he feels is being ignored by the specialists, and that he is looking for answers more than saying he has them.
All the experts are trying to solve the problem of the origin of life only through protocells as the membrane compartments. For this they need in self-generation of sodium pump. Nobody watched such self-generation. Nobody knows what is to be done for that. Prior to the publication, I asked for 60-70 specialists in the West: in which point I'm wrong? All (all!) of them chose to remain silent.
quote:Really? That's not the impression I got from the work of specialists such as Craig Venter and his labs. Has he reviewed your work?
A Reviwer rejected my MS wrote: "Dr. Matveev is convinced that the best model of a precellular structure are the so-called Fox microspheres, a belief that is shared by very few researchers nowadays, many of which are convinced that liposomes, micelles and equivalent microstructures are a much more realistic model of precellular structures." As to Craig Venter, peer review is anonymous. This Craig Venter (http://sandwalk.blogspot.ru/...r-discusses-tree-of-life.html) is far from physical aspects of the origin of life.
Vladimir Matveev. The great basic question of science: Membrane compartment or non-membrane phase compartment is a physical basis for origin of life? Oral presentation at The 2nd All-Russian Conference on Astrobiology. Moscow, Pushchino, 5-9 June 2016. Video in English: https://youtu.be/Hn7A-1w0tuQ
I'm probably missing something here, but I'm not sure I quite see what specific problem your model solves.
Phase approach has full experimental evidences in support of. Membrane approach has no such evidences. My (phase) model disproves membrane approach. However, the membrane approach is commonly accepted approach to solving the problem of the origin of life. This is my main contribution. Thanks for the answer.
But that doesn't explain the transition from gram-positive prokaryotes to gram-negative prokaryotes. In other words, just imagining the origin of a simple membrane bag does nothing to explain the origin of the earliest life forms empirically known to exist -- bacteria.
Anyways, I'm still a little confused about your model. How does your model explain the origin of (1) the first membrane-bound cell systems, (2) the origin of ATPases and other early molecular machinery?
Nobody explanes these things you want to be explaned. If you watched my oral presentation (https://youtu.be/Hn7A-1w0tuQ) you know that I have many quastions too without any excplanations.
You missed my main idea: the first step in the origin of life is the creation of the physical conditions necessary for life. Only after that evolution can begin (the origin of different types of cells, enzymes and ATPases, etc.). According to the membrane approach, the necessary physical conditions can only occur when there is sodium pump in plasma membrane. This is the first step according to this approach. If this step is not passed, no evolution is possible because only the living cell can evolve. There is no experimental evidence of origin of sodium pump in prebiotic conditions. If there is no such evidence, then the membrane approach is not confirmed. Other questions I have formulated here: http://www.bioparadigma.spb.ru/...Preview.and.Highlights.pdf I'm talking only about the first step in the origin of life. You talk about life itself.