Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (9005 total)
63 online now:
(63 visitors)
Newest Member: kanthesh
Post Volume: Total: 881,158 Year: 12,906/23,288 Month: 631/1,527 Week: 70/240 Day: 33/4 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The great basic question of science on origin of life
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 570 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


(1)
Message 36 of 64 (776587)
01-16-2016 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Vladimir Matveev
01-13-2016 12:54 AM


Hey Vladimir,

Hmm. I'm trying to understand your argument. Is there any way you could send me the PDF of your paper? Most journals AFAIK do not prohibit this; they only prohibit dissemination of your paper to the broader public. Let me know.

Having said that, I've briefly outlined my understanding of your thesis:

1. Proto-life forms cannot easily survive in an environment rich in Na+. This puts the origin of life in K+ ponds ("potassium big bang").

2. But if life originated in potassium-rich ponds, why is an ATPase needed? This raises the possibility that the origin of the ur-ATPase required the intervention of agency.

3. To understand the origin of life, we must understand non-membrane phase compartments.

I'm still a little confused. Maybe you can expand further on how your points are linked together in a logical sequence. Thanks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Vladimir Matveev, posted 01-13-2016 12:54 AM Vladimir Matveev has not yet responded

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 570 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 50 of 64 (788895)
08-07-2016 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Vladimir Matveev
08-07-2016 12:29 AM


Re: Oral presentation
Hey Vladimir,

So I've been busy over the past couple of months, but will gradually be responding to posts and a Great Debate thread.

Anyway, I had a look at your presentation slides. It's an interesting hypothesis you propose. However, I'm not sure I quite see how it approaches the origin of life in a more effective manner than, e.g., Fox's microspheres. For starters, your model doesn't seem to address the origin of lipid membranes, a genetic code, and more sophisticated molecular machinery like F-ATPases. I'm probably missing something here, but I'm not sure I quite see what specific problem your model solves.

(Of course, it doesn't have to "solve" a problem necessarily, since exploratory science -- where alternatives models are offered -- can often be useful)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Vladimir Matveev, posted 08-07-2016 12:29 AM Vladimir Matveev has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Vladimir Matveev, posted 08-07-2016 5:16 AM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 570 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 59 of 64 (789262)
08-12-2016 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Pressie
08-12-2016 7:21 AM


Re: Oral presentation
I do know that life isn't poofed into existence.

C'mon, Pressie. You're looking for an argument where there isn't one. For starters, you didn't ask if life is poofed into existence. You asked if he thought life was poofed into existence. That nuance may be subtle, but it matters, because it makes your whole analogy kinda tangential.

And just read his freakin' paper. I'm guessing you have what it takes to grasp at least some of it. His model is based on the adsorption of water molecules on polypeptide surfaces. No poofing involved. Case closed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Pressie, posted 08-12-2016 7:21 AM Pressie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Vladimir Matveev, posted 08-12-2016 11:51 PM Genomicus has responded

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 570 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 61 of 64 (789875)
08-21-2016 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Vladimir Matveev
08-12-2016 11:51 PM


Re: Oral presentation
Genomics, please give us a model which is proved as the cradle of life.

No models have been demonstrated to provide a satisfactory explanation for the origin of biological life. That includes your model. While your hypothesis does offer a somewhat different approach to looking at the origin of life, it still leaves a lot to explain, like the origin of gram-positive and gram-negative membrane structures.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Vladimir Matveev, posted 08-12-2016 11:51 PM Vladimir Matveev has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Vladimir Matveev, posted 08-22-2016 2:19 AM Genomicus has responded

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 570 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 63 of 64 (789903)
08-22-2016 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Vladimir Matveev
08-22-2016 2:19 AM


Re: Oral presentation
Fox's microspheres are gram-positive and gram-negative protocells. It is good point to start.

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?

Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Vladimir Matveev, posted 08-22-2016 2:19 AM Vladimir Matveev has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Vladimir Matveev, posted 08-22-2016 4:01 AM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020