Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
283 online now:
Coragyps, Diomedes, DrJones*, JonF, PaulK, RAZD, Theodoric (7 members, 276 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,676 Year: 21,712/19,786 Month: 275/1,834 Week: 275/315 Day: 31/77 Hour: 1/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Primordial Soup Cannot Tolerate Salt
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 37 (18015)
09-23-2002 10:32 AM


A recent article in the journal )Astrobiology Vol 2. No. 2 (2002) shows that sea salt destroys fatty-acid membranes and prevents RNA from polymerizing, even at 1/7th the concentration of salt of today's oceans. They effectively dismember membranes and stop RNA units from forming anything longer than dimers. With mechanisms proposed to concentrate these for abiogenesis, it also appears that these mechanisms would also concentrate salt.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by nos482, posted 09-23-2002 10:34 AM blitz77 has responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 37 (18016)
09-23-2002 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by blitz77
09-23-2002 10:32 AM


quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:
A recent article in the journal )Astrobiology Vol 2. No. 2 (2002) shows that sea salt destroys fatty-acid membranes and prevents RNA from polymerizing, even at 1/7th the concentration of salt of today's oceans. They effectively dismember membranes and stop RNA units from forming anything longer than dimers. With mechanisms proposed to concentrate these for abiogenesis, it also appears that these mechanisms would also concentrate salt.

Not all bodies of water would contain all that much salt, or life just gradually adapted as salt content increased, just like when the atmosThe requested document is freely available only to registered users with an online subscription to Astrobiology

You can purchase this article below

Click here for the publisher's subscription information

CatchWord has not recognised you as a registered user.

If you have registered to access a personal subscription to this title please enter your username and password[/i]

[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-23-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by blitz77, posted 09-23-2002 10:32 AM blitz77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by blitz77, posted 09-23-2002 10:38 AM nos482 has responded

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 37 (18017)
09-23-2002 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by nos482
09-23-2002 10:34 AM


The point is is that the "primordial soup" theory relies on a mechanism to concentrate amino acids and other organic molecules. This would also concentrate salt, which would stop macromolecules forming. Also, many studies show that the early ocean was twice as salty as it is now-read this abstract of a book-Life on Land in the Precambrian and the Marine Vs Non-Marine Setting of Early Evolution

And as for your point about anoxic vs oxic, I thought most people agree here that it was oxic- refer to exobiology@dukeuniversity

quote:
However, most of the scientific community now believes that the early Earth's atmosphere was not reducing. Instead, scientists beleive the atmosphere was full of oxidants, such as CO2 and N2. An oxidizing atmosphere is essentially neutral, and does not permit organic chemistry to occur.

[This message has been edited by blitz77, 09-23-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by nos482, posted 09-23-2002 10:34 AM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by nos482, posted 09-23-2002 10:43 AM blitz77 has responded
 Message 10 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-23-2002 12:09 PM blitz77 has responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 37 (18018)
09-23-2002 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by blitz77
09-23-2002 10:38 AM


quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:
The point is is that the "primordial soup" theory relies on a mechanism to concentrate amino acids and other organic molecules. This would also concentrate salt, which would stop macromolecules forming.

How does life exist in the oceans of today if it is so toxic to it?

Also, it has been shown that life may have had to "start over" several times in the past as well because of early mass extinctions.

[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-23-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by blitz77, posted 09-23-2002 10:38 AM blitz77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by blitz77, posted 09-23-2002 10:46 AM nos482 has responded

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 37 (18020)
09-23-2002 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by nos482
09-23-2002 10:43 AM


Because todays organisms are protected by cell membranes, skin, scales, etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by nos482, posted 09-23-2002 10:43 AM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by nos482, posted 09-23-2002 10:49 AM blitz77 has responded
 Message 11 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-23-2002 12:11 PM blitz77 has not yet responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 37 (18021)
09-23-2002 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by blitz77
09-23-2002 10:46 AM


quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:
Because todays organisms are protected by cell membranes, skin, scales, etc.

And they got that way from trail and error and a lucky mutation or two.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by blitz77, posted 09-23-2002 10:46 AM blitz77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by blitz77, posted 09-23-2002 10:56 AM nos482 has responded

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 37 (18023)
09-23-2002 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by nos482
09-23-2002 10:49 AM


This relates to abiogenesis, not evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by nos482, posted 09-23-2002 10:49 AM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Joe Meert, posted 09-23-2002 11:10 AM blitz77 has responded
 Message 9 by nos482, posted 09-23-2002 11:14 AM blitz77 has responded

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 4014 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 8 of 37 (18027)
09-23-2002 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by blitz77
09-23-2002 10:56 AM


Blitz,

You have any number of problems with your idea. Number 1: You assume that the only place for life to have originated is in oceanic tide pools. This need not be the case as it also could have arisen in fresh water systems. Number 2: You assume that concentration of organic molecules in tide pools is the sole candidate for how life arose and this is clearly wrong. Number 3: It is possible that life arose elsewhere in the solar system and was transported here. Finally, no matter the debate about how life started be it by a hairy fondler or a cosmic muffin, it did start and has since evolved.

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by blitz77, posted 09-23-2002 10:56 AM blitz77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by blitz77, posted 09-25-2002 8:35 AM Joe Meert has not yet responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 37 (18028)
09-23-2002 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by blitz77
09-23-2002 10:56 AM


quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:
This relates to abiogenesis, not evolution.

There are many theories on abiogenesis as well where some could have occured along side each other instead of just one. In other words life could have started on this planet through several different methods until one, or more, "caught on". How life started is still mostly an unknown, though.

[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-23-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by blitz77, posted 09-23-2002 10:56 AM blitz77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by blitz77, posted 09-25-2002 8:36 AM nos482 has responded

  
acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 37 (18041)
09-23-2002 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by blitz77
09-23-2002 10:38 AM


First off, if I want to verify something, I do not want to read abstracts of a book. I would rather read the book. Abstracts are not written by the book's authors, and merely reflects what someone else thinks the author is saying.

------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by blitz77, posted 09-23-2002 10:38 AM blitz77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by blitz77, posted 09-25-2002 8:40 AM acmhttu001_2006 has responded

  
acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 37 (18042)
09-23-2002 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by blitz77
09-23-2002 10:46 AM


Yes and how do you think they got this protection?

I do not believe that the organisms of today could live in eons ago, nor vice versa. I believe the organism evolved to fit their surroundings.

Even though this is not the scope of the thread. There is no way we will ever find out how life started, why becuase we can't. Do not know why. I guess this is where the Magesterium of Religion and Beliefs come in. As for me, I do not need to know all the answers.

------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

[This message has been edited by acmhttu001_2006, 09-23-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by blitz77, posted 09-23-2002 10:46 AM blitz77 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Andya Primanda, posted 09-24-2002 11:32 PM acmhttu001_2006 has responded
 Message 13 by peter borger, posted 09-24-2002 11:40 PM acmhttu001_2006 has responded

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 37 (18186)
09-24-2002 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by acmhttu001_2006
09-23-2002 12:11 PM


quote:
Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006:
Yes and how do you think they got this protection?

I do not believe that the organisms of today could live in eons ago, nor vice versa. I believe the organism evolved to fit their surroundings.

Even though this is not the scope of the thread. There is no way we will ever find out how life started, why becuase we can't. Do not know why. I guess this is where the Magesterium of Religion and Beliefs come in. As for me, I do not need to know all the answers.


I once heard that the reason scientists try to create the clone sheep Dolly is to confirm their theories. Abiogenesis theories can also be tested; all you have to do is translate them into a working model and see if it runs. Personally I am most curious about how replication emerge from non-replicating matter. Even Dawkins do not dare speculate on this.

btw, Anne, you're a self-proclaimed atheist (capital letters) yet you appeal to the Magisterium of Religion. SOunds paradoxical... Maybe Gould also did this?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-23-2002 12:11 PM acmhttu001_2006 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-24-2002 11:43 PM Andya Primanda has not yet responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 6000 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 13 of 37 (18189)
09-24-2002 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by acmhttu001_2006
09-23-2002 12:11 PM


Dear anne,

You confirm what I deduced, that evolutionism is a religion based on believe:

QUOTE:
"I do not believe that the organisms of today could live in eons ago, nor vice versa. I BELIEVE the organism evolved to fit their surroundings."

Best wishes,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-23-2002 12:11 PM acmhttu001_2006 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-24-2002 11:48 PM peter borger has responded
 Message 20 by derwood, posted 09-25-2002 9:48 AM peter borger has not yet responded

  
acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 37 (18190)
09-24-2002 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Andya Primanda
09-24-2002 11:32 PM


Oh really, but I do mention if I am answering within a certain Magesterium.

Sure it sounds paradoxical. I do not believe in a God nor that such a entity exists. As for morals I define them. But, I can understand a little where the religionists are coming from, as I have grown up in such a household.

I am not appealing to the Magesterium of Religion in the last post you were replying to. I think the original post was in response to gene40, wanted to know what her answer would be outside a scientific answer, and if she could back it up. Guess not, I do not know what her answer is.

Sorry if it looked like I was going to the other camp. Excuse me.

------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Andya Primanda, posted 09-24-2002 11:32 PM Andya Primanda has not yet responded

  
acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 37 (18192)
09-24-2002 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by peter borger
09-24-2002 11:40 PM


Now, why would I have said that they evolve to fit their surroundings? Not based off of my beliefs alone, but becuase of the evidence.

Do you believe in gravity or in thermodynamics? You are a fool to answer no, yet if you answer yes, surely these are not religious beliefs.

Though I will not argue, for some it is possible to make anything of their own choosing into their own personal religion. Evolution is not my choice of religion. I have none. Besides, since when did belief make something into a religion. Surely, you are not so narrow-minded as to say that works all the way across the boards?

And this is what PISSES me off, are people like you who misquote everything I say to make it justify their points. I have never done that to any of the creationist nor the others whom I may not agree with. I have that respect for them, and expect the same in return. So, before you begin to misquote anyone, ask for clarification, and then confront if their clarification does coincide with what you thought. Otherwise, keep you gosh-danged math shut and not assume.

HAve a nice day.

------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by peter borger, posted 09-24-2002 11:40 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by peter borger, posted 09-25-2002 12:09 AM acmhttu001_2006 has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019