Thread: abiogenesis -- clays in vesicules theory

Yes, it's a personal theory. Since there isn't any standard abiogenesis theory.
I believe my very reasonable thread, has it's place in the biology thread.

1.some interesting properties of vesicles

vesicles are bilayers of simple lipids. They look like modern membranes.
The simple lipids however are much more fluid.
They switch layers, or completely leave a bilayer.
There is a dynamic equilibrium between the free floating lipids and the lipids in the membrane.
If the membrane is stretched. The lipids tend to add them selves to the membrane.

2.some interesting properties of clays.

Microscopically. Clays, are actually crystals.
They grow axially in columns.
They are very fragile however. They easily brake.
As the crystals grow, they replicate the previous layer.
Defects and shape of the cross-section are replicated.
When the crystal brakes. The two daughter crystals are very similar and can keep growing.
Essentially, information was replicated.
These crystals, can have certain catalytic properties.
So the process, duplicate catalysts.


*The little theory

In the primordial soup, various lipids are formed
They spontaneously assemble in to vesicles
Inside, we can have some clay crystals
Other little molecules(primordial soup), can enter and leave the vesicles.

The crystals polymerise the little molecules.
They can't get out and accumulate.
The osmotic pressure increases and water gets in.
The membrane stretches.
Because of the dynamic equilibrium, lipids are added to the membrane. Depleting the free floating lipids.
And the depleted free floating lipids, deplete the membranes of the less stretched vesicles
All this because of the dynamic equilibrium.

In other words. They eat each other.
This capacity depends on the crystals they contain.
The ones that are beater at eating the other, are the ones with beater crystals.
The crystals can replicate them selves. This replication can have "mutations".
When the vesicles get too big. They split, there content been randomly distributed between the daughter vesicles.

In other words. We have natural selection.

Some times the vesicles merge.
There are evolutionary advantages in that.
That is basically ...sex.

The polymers are just random crap at first. Their only job, is to increase the osmotic pressure.
The crystals will be under pressure by natural selection to make something more useful.
Among the very first improvements, it's the increase in the reliability of replication of the crystals.
In turn allowing beater polymers. In turn increasing the reliability of replication further.
The feed back loop continues, and at some point other information replicating mechanisms are created.
At some point, the crystals are dropped, and the information mechanism keeps evolving by feed back.
A very long time later ..... boom humans evolve :P.

I told a physicist friend, and he liked it.
So. What you people think?

Duplication of information from breaking crystals.. I don't see this happening, sorry. You never split exactly in 2, with both sides exactly the same conditions. To much difference to be anything of a pattern.

And what would be the advantage for this situation, why would it exist? I feel it is simply floating freely here, not much to hold on to. There is nothing actually evolutionary in there. You get to an end, and thats that. You feed the crystals, until they get too big, can't break, and they destroy the "cells".

The system is so simple, that not observing it now, would be reason enough to believe it never happened.

However, i like the idea of growing crystals having some part in the focussing of carbohydrates and aminoacids. They could have been used as a cofactor in early proteins, yes. But not as a start of an organism.

Originally Posted by Zwolver

Duplication of information from breaking crystals.. I don't see this happening, sorry. You never split exactly in 2, with both sides exactly the same conditions. To much difference to be anything of a pattern.

It's just the clay theory of abiogenesis.
I edited a bit the clay part. You understand beater?
It's not the whole 3D crystal that is replicated. Only the configuration of the cross section.

Is life a necessity in chemistry?


Dean H. Kenyon (celebrated scientist) tried to meet this challenge and finally withdrew the proposition.


I am deeply disturbed by explanations containing “spontaneous” in them. The nitty gritty of the matter is teleonomy. Is anyone here actually have any hope in random processes creating life?


I am sorry but Information theory will always be the best friend of the creation paradigm. Let us talk…

Originally Posted by GTCethos

Is life a necessity in chemistry?


Dean H. Kenyon (celebrated scientist) tried to meet this challenge and finally withdrew the proposition.


I am deeply disturbed by explanations containing “spontaneous” in them. The nitty gritty of the matter is teleonomy. Is anyone here actually have any hope in random processes creating life?


I am sorry but Information theory will always be the best friend of the creation paradigm. Let us talk…

So what is your theory?

Originally Posted by GTCethos

Is life a necessity in chemistry?


Dean H. Kenyon (celebrated scientist) tried to meet this challenge and finally withdrew the proposition.


I am deeply disturbed by explanations containing “spontaneous” in them. The nitty gritty of the matter is teleonomy. Is anyone here actually have any hope in random processes creating life?


I am sorry but Information theory will always be the best friend of the creation paradigm. Let us talk…

What do you find so disturbing about the concept? There is more evidence for random accumulation of traits resulting in life then then magical intervention resulting in all life at once.

Originally Posted by GTCethos

Is life a necessity in chemistry?


Dean H. Kenyon (celebrated scientist) tried to meet this challenge and finally withdrew the proposition.


I am deeply disturbed by explanations containing “spontaneous” in them. The nitty gritty of the matter is teleonomy. Is anyone here actually have any hope in random processes creating life?


I am sorry but Information theory will always be the best friend of the creation paradigm. Let us talk…

What if you criticized this idea instaid?

most chemical process are spontaneous. If they aren't, it's because there's a catalyst involved.
The compounds try to minimize energy and maximise entropy at the same time.
lipids spontaneously assemble in vesicles. Crystals grow "spontaneously".
Vesicles have a neat property with the osmotic pressure.
Nothing magical with osmotic pressure. The system tries to minimise energy and maximise entropy.
There isn't anything extraordinary with the crystals either. They can replicate some information.

It's a matter of interpretation.
But basically, the "cell" can eat it's neighbours. The shape of the crystals are important in this property.
With the weak information replication of the crystals, natural selection can start.
Of course, among the first things to start evolving, is a beater system of information replication.....
This gives a feedback loop....

The classic example with the monkeys.
Usually, people compare the appearance of the first living cell,
with a bunch of monkeys typing random crap on the typewriter.
And one of them, writing by chance Shakespeare stuff.
Here, you have a bunch of monkeys, typing random crap.
But there is no requirement that what they write is not random.

Ever heard of "genetic algorithms" before?

I remind people, that there isn't a standard theory of abiogenesis as of yet.

There isn't anything extraordinary with the crystals either. They can replicate some information.

It's a matter of interpretation.
But basically, the "cell" can eat it's neighbours. The shape of the crystals are important in this property.
With the weak information replication of the crystals, natural selection can start.
Of course, among the first things to start evolving, is a beater system of information replication.....
This gives a feedback loop….
The classic example with the monkeys. Usually, people compare the appearance of the first living cell, with a bunch of monkeys typing random crap on the typewriter. And one of them, writing by chance Shakespeare stuff. Here, you have a bunch of monkeys, typing random crap. But there is no requirement that what they write is not random.


Ever heard of "genetic algorithms" before? (Do you have examples?)


I remind people, that there isn't a standard theory of abiogenesis as of yet.

Spontaneous bonding does tend to be a covalent bond that releases energy. The bonding I speak of as not being spontaneous are the N-glycosidic bonding between nucleobases in the Double Helix.


Does this sound reasonable?
Yes there are replicating crystals and self replicating Proteins (protein world view). But all these will eventually run out of energy in a closed system and unless they are “pumped” they fall to the second law of thermodynamics.


About Probability… we can discuss a simple life form or protein probability from natural amino acids.


Where do you want to go with this?

@GTCethos
"Dean H. Kenyon (celebrated scientist)"
I looked him up. He is a young earth creationist
O_o

You doubt natural selection it self.
The thread is not about the validity of the theory of natural selection....
it's pointless to discuss the abiogenesis model with you....

Originally Posted by GTCethos

There isn't anything extraordinary with the crystals either. They can replicate some information.

It's a matter of interpretation.
But basically, the "cell" can eat it's neighbours. The shape of the crystals are important in this property.
With the weak information replication of the crystals, natural selection can start.
Of course, among the first things to start evolving, is a beater system of information replication.....
This gives a feedback loop….
The classic example with the monkeys. Usually, people compare the appearance of the first living cell, with a bunch of monkeys typing random crap on the typewriter. And one of them, writing by chance Shakespeare stuff. Here, you have a bunch of monkeys, typing random crap. But there is no requirement that what they write is not random.


Ever heard of "genetic algorithms" before? (Do you have examples?)


I remind people, that there isn't a standard theory of abiogenesis as of yet.

Spontaneous bonding does tend to be a covalent bond that releases energy. The bonding I speak of as not being spontaneous are the N-glycosidic bonding between nucleobases in the Double Helix.


Does this sound reasonable?
Yes there are replicating crystals and self replicating Proteins (protein world view). But all these will eventually run out of energy in a closed system and unless they are “pumped” they fall to the second law of thermodynamics.


About Probability… we can discuss a simple life form or protein probability from natural amino acids.


Where do you want to go with this?

First off, organic molecules did not start out as a perfectly formed double helix, so stop asserting that evolution is wrong based on that.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

....First off, organic molecules did not start out as a perfectly formed double helix, so stop asserting that evolution is wrong based on that.

Great stuff!

Originally Posted by GTCethos

Spontaneous bonding does tend to be a covalent bond that releases energy. The bonding I speak of as not being spontaneous are the N-glycosidic bonding between nucleobases in the Double Helix.


Does this sound reasonable?
Yes there are replicating crystals and self replicating Proteins (protein world view). But all these will eventually run out of energy in a closed system and unless they are “pumped” they fall to the second law of thermodynamics.


About Probability… we can discuss a simple life form or protein probability from natural amino acids.


Where do you want to go with this?

Thermodynamics? Doesn't a modest change in temperature reverse some thermodynamic processes. And we already have a day/night cycle in this, a lunar cycle for high and low tide, we have plate tectonics, a rotating earth core, geomagnetic effects. Plus simple flows of water, rivers, salt/fresh water mixing, geothermal effects. And those are only the obvious things that will keep the thermodynamics laws in motion.

Not sure where you were going with the spontaneous bonding in DNA molecules.

please don't derail the thread :'(

He is a young earth creationist...
Go discuss this somewhere else....

thank you

First off, organic molecules did not start out as a perfectly formed double helix, so stop asserting that evolution is wrong based on that.

Where in the following did I claim that?

Spontaneous bonding does tend to be a covalent bond that releases energy. The bonding I speak of as not being spontaneous are the N-glycosidic bonding between nucleobases in the Double Helix.

Does this sound reasonable?
Yes there are replicating crystals and self replicating Proteins (protein world view). But all these will eventually run out of energy in a closed system and unless they are “pumped” they fall to the second law of thermodynamics.

N-glycosidic bonding exists in the RNA world view…


Or do we talk about such things here?

If I restrict my comments to things you understand will we be talking about anything?

“Not sure where you were going with the spontaneous bonding in DNA molecules.”

My entry statements were nothing more than a foil to set up a contrast between thermodynamic entropy and information theory. The board must be set before the chess game starts.

Uhuh, and suddenly we have another chessplaying pigeon who thinks he was sent to us by God.
What kind of ethos makes bearing false witness into the Christian thing to do?

Originally Posted by dan hunter

Uhuh, and suddenly we have another chessplaying pigeon who thinks he was sent to us by God.
What kind of ethos makes bearing false witness into the Christian thing to do?

Don't confuse me with Ethos please.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by dan hunter

Uhuh, and suddenly we have another chessplaying pigeon who thinks he was sent to us by God.
What kind of ethos makes bearing false witness into the Christian thing to do?

Don't confuse me with Ethos please.

I have never seen you lie.

The REAL issue.
you are a young earth creationist. Just say it.
natural selection is a fact, get over it!
in principle abiogenesis doesn't violate thermodynamics either.

DNA and RNA systems are too complicated to appear spontaneously.
.... The model above uses simple crystals instaid, that don't need complicated machinery.
Their quality is crap, but the "metabolism" of the "cell" is so simple, that its good enough.
Error rates are very high, but fault tolerance is also very high.

For discussion sake, lets admit that initial error rates are 50%, that's still tolerable, because the fault tolerance rate is practically 100%.
Don't forget, that they compete with each other! They are all crap!
If we assume that the firsts improvements lower the error rates to 49%, the fault tolerance rate is still practically 100%.
This first 1% improvement can start a feedback loop, since it will permit to lower the error rate further.
Natural selection can function, because this ridiculous error rate is not fatal to the "cell".
The price to pay, is that it will take a while to reach something like a modern cell.

The information system it self has a chance of evolving incrementally with natural selection.
This "cell", can incrementally improve it's machinery....

The "cell" is barely alive? Of course it is.
It couldn't sustain it self if it was any more complicated, with just random molecules produced by the primordial soup.

Why everybody expect that life started with a system that is 99% reliable and 1% fault tolerant?
Why should the first cell have important metabolic needs?
Why should it have complicated metabolisms with energy consumption and production of molecules?
Why it couldn't be barely alive?


Any comments ON topic?

Why everybody expect that life started with a system that is 99% reliable and 1% fault tolerant?

Why should the first cell have important metabolic needs?
Why should it have complicated metabolisms with energy consumption and production of molecules?
Why it couldn't be barely alive?




Any comments ON topic?

Maybe a model can help…


Basically von Neumann layed out what a self replicating machine must have to survive. Summing it up and applying it to a living cell:


A cell must replicate.
A cell must self repair.
A cell must have a obtainable source of useable energy (metabolize fuel).
A cell must adapt to it’s environment.


If from the beginning anything is missing you do not have a viable cell.


This is only a general layout so if I missed anything please excuse me.

And the first self replicating organic molecules are not thought to have been cells, so that set of requirements is not applicable.

Here is a recent incident that might interest you…


The most credible evidence of abiogenesis.


“Emergency recall of green play-doh.


The clay has recently shown the tendency to spontaneously self assemble into Green Gumbys


Children in the San Francisco area have reported instances of creatures springing fourth from green Play-Doh containers; the creatures exhibit a tendency to break windows and steal cigarettes. Checking for evidence and finding strange unexplained phenomena, Police contacted Evolutionary scientists. Top scientists in the field were able to identify the first evidence of Spontaneous Biogenesis. Professor Dawkins dubbed the new creature Evil Green Gumby or (EGG). He further stated that evolution guarantees the existence of an evil Blue Gumby and evil Yellow Gumby. Some biological scientists remain skeptical of his assertions. They argue that Play-Doh shows no tendency to auto assemble into life. Dawkins argues in light of extraordinary new scientific evidence; (EGG) must be accepted and expected on evolutionary face value. “


Just for fun (I do not wish to offend). Please a creation joke is in order.

Originally Posted by GTCethos

Basically von Neumann layed out what a self replicating machine must have to survive. Summing it up and applying it to a living cell:

A cell must replicate.
A cell must self repair.
A cell must have a obtainable source of useable energy (metabolize fuel).
A cell must adapt to it’s environment.

replication: They can replicate.

repair: very high fault tolerance.

energy/entropy: The environment lowers entropy. The flow of energy from the sun....
The "cells" are viable, only at certain special places.

adaptability: You mean following a program? It's the catalytic effects of the crystals.
First goal, is to have adequate osmotic pressure.

Originally Posted by GTCethos

Here is a recent incident that might interest you…


The most credible evidence of abiogenesis.


“Emergency recall of green play-doh.


The clay has recently shown the tendency to spontaneously self assemble into Green Gumbys


Children in the San Francisco area have reported instances of creatures springing fourth from green Play-Doh containers; the creatures exhibit a tendency to break windows and steal cigarettes. Checking for evidence and finding strange unexplained phenomena, Police contacted Evolutionary scientists. Top scientists in the field were able to identify the first evidence of Spontaneous Biogenesis. Professor Dawkins dubbed the new creature Evil Green Gumby or (EGG). He further stated that evolution guarantees the existence of an evil Blue Gumby and evil Yellow Gumby. Some biological scientists remain skeptical of his assertions. They argue that Play-Doh shows no tendency to auto assemble into life. Dawkins argues in light of extraordinary new scientific evidence; (EGG) must be accepted and expected on evolutionary face value. “


Just for fun (I do not wish to offend). Please a creation joke is in order.

That wasn't a joke, was it?

It was a Joke...

that's funnier

Very good…

Originally Posted by GTCethos

Very good…

Are you agreeing evolution is an incompetent designer?

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by GTCethos

Very good…

Are you agreeing evolution is an incompetent designer?

In case you don't know. They are making fun of "intelligent design". It's a big thing over there, in the USA. (I'm European)

Originally Posted by Quantum immortal

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by GTCethos

Very good…

Are you agreeing evolution is an incompetent designer?

In case you don't know. They are making fun of "intelligent design". It's a big thing over there, in the USA. (I'm European)

I'm intelligent too, so I know what you're saying, but if you say it is "incompetent" who do you blame when you know about evolution? The end result is the same, a so called "bad design".

In case you didn't know.
"Intelligent design" is a brand of creationism.
You can look up the term.
The song is just a joke about that.

This video was very creative, I can really appreciate that. I know exactly who they were making fun of. Anyone who can’t endure light hearted ridicule needs to lighten up. Although I would not be standing too close to these guys in a lightning storm.


Creationism does not need me to defend it. I willingly take up the challenge with scientific orthodoxies.


Question: Do clays increase the probability of biogenic organic compounds by promoting peptide (amide) bonds ?

Originally Posted by GTCethos

This video was very creative, I can really appreciate that. I know exactly who they were making fun of. Anyone who can’t endure light hearted ridicule needs to lighten up. Although I would not be standing too close to these guys in a lightning storm.


Creationism does not need me to defend it. I willingly take up the challenge with scientific orthodoxies.


Question: Do clays increase the probability of biogenic organic compounds by promoting peptide (amide) bonds ?

In an open system it is impossible to tell. He has suggested it was possible, but i doubt you could measure it. It has passed over millions and millions of years, and you can't simply keep it abiotic, without complex organic carbons, and accelerate it to an afternoon.

In situ observation of peptide bond formation at the water is an article that shows the possibility of formation of polypeptides in early earth. Though no mention of clay.

Originally Posted by Zwolver

In an open system it is impossible to tell. He has suggested it was possible, but i doubt you could measure it. It has passed over millions and millions of years, and you can't simply keep it abiotic, without complex organic carbons, and accelerate it to an afternoon.

In situ observation of peptide bond formation at the water is an article that shows the possibility of formation of polypeptides in early earth. Though no mention of clay.

In the context of abiogenesis. Meaning, starting from ZERO!!!! Really ZERO!!!

Why restrict to amino acids? Chemistry can make so many other polymers...
How can you have any functional system if you are depended on something specific and rare?
Not taking in to account all the similar molecules that fly around in the primordial soup,
that would confuse any precise molecular mechanism.

One of the ways that natural selection functions, is that all components are useful to the organism at any given time.
Take the evolution of the eye or the bacterial flagellum as examples of that.
For abiogenesis, you need a system, that already works, with the little that is available.
And not much is available.
The primary or exclusive use of amino acids straight away, to make functional molecular machines in a similar way modern proteins are made, is very improbable.
The amino acid system, it self had to evolve from a predecessor.

In the system i propose.

Natural selection hasn't decided yet on what monomers to use.
It's not one type of lipids in the membrane, but a mixture of them.
We are talking about the primordial soup. Amino acids are rather rare and very diverse.
You can't have a system that depends on them straight away....
The use of amino acids as monomers, it self evolved.
The first generation molecular machine, were the clay crystals.
The crystals where crap as machines, yes.
But the "cells" competed with each other, they were all crap.
The "cells" them selves, were very fault tolerant.
They can survive a ridiculous amount of error.


Yes it's speculative....
It's beater then "God did it" or "We don't even have a speculative theory".

I believe that what i propose, is the best out there...
considering that all abiogenesis theories are speculation...

Originally Posted by Quantum immortal

In the context of abiogenesis. Meaning, starting from ZERO!!!! Really ZERO!!!

Why restrict to amino acids? Chemistry can make so many other polymers...
How can you have any functional system if you are depended on something specific and rare?
Not taking in to account all the similar molecules that fly around in the primordial soup,
that would confuse any precise molecular mechanism.

One of the ways that natural selection functions, is that all components are useful to the organism at any given time.
Take the evolution of the eye or the bacterial flagellum as examples of that.
For abiogenesis, you need a system, that already works, with the little that is available.
And not much is available.
The primary or exclusive use of amino acids straight away, to make functional molecular machines in a similar way modern proteins are made, is very improbable.
The amino acid system, it self had to evolve from a predecessor.

In the system i propose.

Natural selection hasn't decided yet on what monomers to use.
It's not one type of lipids in the membrane, but a mixture of them.
We are talking about the primordial soup. Amino acids are rather rare and very diverse.
You can't have a system that depends on them straight away....
The use of amino acids as monomers, it self evolved.
The first generation molecular machine, were the clay crystals.
The crystals where crap as machines, yes.
But the "cells" competed with each other, they were all crap.
The "cells" them selves, were very fault tolerant.
They can survive a ridiculous amount of error.


Yes it's speculative....
It's beater then "God did it" or "We don't even have a speculative theory".

I believe that what i propose, is the best out there...
considering that all abiogenesis theories are speculation...

Show me one article where crystals were proven to accellerate certain chemical processes and you got yourself a plausibility.

Let us break your idea down, in order to better understand it.

Originally Posted by Quantum immortal

Yes, it's a personal theory. Since there isn't any standard abiogenesis theory.
I believe my very reasonable thread, has it's place in the biology thread.

If your personal hypothesis (I would not go as far as calling it a theory in the scientific sense of the word) has any merit, then this sub-forum will suffice.

Originally Posted by Quantum Immortal

1.some interesting properties of vesicles

vesicles are bilayers of simple lipids. They look like modern membranes.
The simple lipids however are much more fluid.
They switch layers, or completely leave a bilayer.
There is a dynamic equilibrium between the free floating lipids and the lipids in the membrane.
If the membrane is stretched. The lipids tend to add them selves to the membrane.

I have to nit-pick, you had better used the term phospholipids. Also, what is the numerical value of that dynamic equilibrium?
I am interested in an approximation, since free-floating lipids leaving the bilayer to end up in an aqueous solution does not sound plausible.

2.some interesting properties of clays.

Microscopically. Clays, are actually crystals.
They grow axially in columns.
They are very fragile however. They easily brake.
As the crystals grow, they replicate the previous layer.
Defects and shape of the cross-section are replicated.
When the crystal brakes. The two daughter crystals are very similar and can keep growing.
Essentially, information was replicated.
These crystals, can have certain catalytic properties.
So the process, duplicate catalysts.

Wikipedia states that "form flat hexagonal sheets similar to the micas". The claim that clay minerals are capable of replication, is not new.
It was already proposed by Graham Cairns-Smith a few decades ago. Perhaps you should look up some of his work.
Also, can you tell me something more about these "certain catalytic properties"?

Originally Posted by Quantum Immortal

*The little theory

(...)

A very long time later ..... boom humans evolve :P.

Few notes here:

1. Since vesicles are solely made out of lipids (since there were no proteins yet to form the modern, cellular membranes), hydrophilic substances such as sugars, salts and other small hydrophilic molecules, even water itself. So, water does not diffuse through the bilayer. So, you need to propose something by which water can get in.
2. I prefer the term "chemical selection" to denote your idea, since "natural selection" already has a precise meaning.
3. What is the evolutionary advantage of merging vesicles?
4. The feedback loop, I have doubts about that that were already expressed by member Zwolver in post #1.

Originally Posted by Quantum immortal

In the context of abiogenesis. Meaning, starting from ZERO!!!! Really ZERO!!!

Why restrict to amino acids? Chemistry can make so many other polymers...
How can you have any functional system if you are depended on something specific and rare?

(...)

Few notes here:

1. Of course it is not necessary to limit ourselves to amino acids as the building blocks for the first polymers, but amino acids were delivered to Earth via meteorites. Hence, they are not that specific and rare (Pizzarello, S. et al., 2010).
2. Perhaps you are interested in the Toy Model that Dyson describes in the third chapter of his book Origins of Life.
   There are parallels between what he describes and what you presented up to now.

Originally Posted by Zwolver

Show me one article where crystals were proven to accellerate certain chemical processes and you got yourself a plausibility.

They didn't do that in the context of primordial soup theory?
That various minerals accelerate reactions. In opposition of just having reactions in a glass jar....

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Let us break your idea down, in order to better understand it.

Originally Posted by Quantum immortal

Yes, it's a personal theory. Since there isn't any standard abiogenesis theory.
I believe my very reasonable thread, has it's place in the biology thread.

If your personal hypothesis (I would not go as far as calling it a theory in the scientific sense of the word) has any merit, then this sub-forum will suffice.

It's a conjecture, an hypothesis, speculation etc...

I was using "personal theory" more in line with the "personal theory" subforum.
Meaning, that this model hadn't been published as such.
I'm heavily influenced by other models.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Quantum Immortal

1.some interesting properties of vesicles

vesicles are bilayers of simple lipids. They look like modern membranes.
The simple lipids however are much more fluid.
They switch layers, or completely leave a bilayer.
There is a dynamic equilibrium between the free floating lipids and the lipids in the membrane.
If the membrane is stretched. The lipids tend to add them selves to the membrane.

I have to nit-pick, you had better used the term phospholipids. Also, what is the numerical value of that dynamic equilibrium?
I am interested in an approximation, since free-floating lipids leaving the bilayer to end up in an aqueous solution does not sound plausible.

If you mean phospholipids with two tails. They don't do that. Modern membrane lipids evolved to stay put as much as possible.
With certain single tailed lipids, you get much higher fluidity, exhibiting the above behaviour.

The above behavior was discovered in 2004 (i think). They made some vesicles with colourants inside, to see if they leak.
They noticed that the ones with colorands inside increased in size.
I disagree with the rest of their model however....

Depending what lipids you are using, you get different properties.
The properties are very diverse.

For more details, i would redirect you to lipid world theory.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

2.some interesting properties of clays.

Microscopically. Clays, are actually crystals.
They grow axially in columns.
They are very fragile however. They easily brake.
As the crystals grow, they replicate the previous layer.
Defects and shape of the cross-section are replicated.
When the crystal brakes. The two daughter crystals are very similar and can keep growing.
Essentially, information was replicated.
These crystals, can have certain catalytic properties.
So the process, duplicate catalysts.

Wikipedia states that "form flat hexagonal sheets similar to the micas". The claim that clay minerals are capable of replication, is not new.
It was already proposed by Graham Cairns-Smith a few decades ago. Perhaps you should look up some of his work.
Also, can you tell me something more about these "certain catalytic properties"?

I read his popular book in the early 90s when i was i little boy :P
I found the concept fascinating O_O
Basically it's a lot of speculation. Like all other abiogenesis ideas....
He couldn't push the idea further then, the heredity of the crystals, and that they can act on the environment.
He him self admited they were problems.

For their properties. I send you back to what Graham said.

If you expect exact numerical values and experiments, that doesn't exist.
As far as i know.

Hey, don't forget. The whole field is speculative.
We are still at the phase of making conjectures....

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Quantum Immortal

*The little theory

(...)

A very long time later ..... boom humans evolve :P.

Few notes here:

1. Since vesicles are solely made out of lipids (since there were no proteins yet to form the modern, cellular membranes), hydrophilic substances such as sugars, salts and other small hydrophilic molecules, even water itself. So, water does not diffuse through the bilayer. So, you need to propose something by which water can get in.
2. I prefer the term "chemical selection" to denote your idea, since "natural selection" already has a precise meaning.
3. What is the evolutionary advantage of merging vesicles?
4. The feedback loop, I have doubts about that that were already expressed by member Zwolver in post #1.

1. modern membranes are near impenetrable barriers. These are far more fluid.
If the molecules are small enough, they can get through
2. There is heredity in the crystals.
3. The same as sex, it accelerates evolution. At this point it doesn't really matter.
But you can see, that natural selection just needs, to build the system so that it preserves the merger as the cell get more complex.
They are a lot of theories of how sex evolved. Here, we start with it immediately.
4.I don't think Zwolver had understould what i meant initially. I edited it a bit. Depends what you think of the clay theory part.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Quantum immortal

In the context of abiogenesis. Meaning, starting from ZERO!!!! Really ZERO!!!

Why restrict to amino acids? Chemistry can make so many other polymers...
How can you have any functional system if you are depended on something specific and rare?

(...)

One of the ways that natural selection functions, is that all components are useful to the organism at any given time.
Take the evolution of the eye or the bacterial flagellum as examples of that.
For abiogenesis, you need a system, that already works, with the little that is available.
And not much is available.
The primary or exclusive use of amino acids straight away, to make functional molecular machines in a similar way modern proteins are made, is very improbable.
The amino acid system, it self had to evolve from a predecessor.

In the system i propose.

Natural selection hasn't decided yet on what monomers to use.
It's not one type of lipids in the membrane, but a mixture of them.
We are talking about the primordial soup. Amino acids are rather rare and very diverse.
You can't have a system that depends on them straight away....
The use of amino acids as monomers, it self evolved.
The first generation molecular machine, were the clay crystals.
The crystals where crap as machines, yes.
But the "cells" competed with each other, they were all crap.
The "cells" them selves, were very fault tolerant.
They can survive a ridiculous amount of error.

Few notes here:

1. Of course it is not necessary to limit ourselves to amino acids as the building blocks for the first polymers, but amino acids were delivered to Earth via meteorites. Hence, they are not that specific and rare (Pizzarello, S. et al., 2010).
2. [future comment, but requires source]

[/QUOTE]

1. Abiotic processes produce random crap. Usable amino acids in the modern way are rather rare. I'm not denying that abiotic process can produce the 20 amino acids we are using. It's just that you can't rely on them for abiogenesis. Technically, platinum is the best metal to make "aluminium" cans, in practice we use aluminium. Same logic here.
2. It doesn't matter. It's speculation remember. We are still at the phase of making conjectures. Shoot it...



Abiogenesis is all speculation.
Remember. At this point, it's what is less bad, not what is up to strict scientific standards.


For fun. We can further extrapolate. And use some random liquid, with coresponding ampiphiles and crystalls.
Like liquid nitrogen, liquid metals, molten glass, plasma etc....
With a coresponding chemistry.... At coresponding temperature and pressure...
It could be that life is very wide spread in the universe.....
I prefered not to put that in the op.

Originally Posted by Quantum immortal

It's a conjecture, an hypothesis, speculation etc...

I was using "personal theory" more in line with the "personal theory" subforum.
Meaning, that this model hadn't been published as such.
I'm heavily influenced by other models.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by Quantum Immortal

If you mean phospholipids with two tails. They don't do that. Modern membrane lipids evolved to stay put as much as possible.
With certain single tailed lipids, you get much higher fluidity, exhibiting the above behaviour.

The above behavior was discovered in 2004 (i think). They made some vesicles with colourants inside, to see if they leak.
They noticed that the ones with colorands inside increased in size.
I disagree with the rest of their model however....

This renders my initial criticism invalid, since i thought you were talking about phospholipids. Also, could you provide a source for that?

Originally Posted by Quantum Immortal

1. modern membranes are near impenetrable barriers. These are far more fluid. If the molecules are small enough, they can get through
2. There is heredity in the crystals.
3. The same as sex, it accelerates evolution. At this point it doesn't really matter.
But you can see, that natural selection just needs, to build the system so that it preserves the merger as the cell get more complex.
They are a lot of theories of how sex evolved. Here, we start with it immediately.
4.I don't think Zwolver had understould what i meant initially. I edited it a bit. Depends what you think of the clay theory part.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by Quantum immortal

1. Abiotic processes produce random crap. Usable amino acids in the modern way are rather rare. I'm not denying that abiotic process can produce the 20 amino acids we are using. It's just that you can't rely on them for abiogenesis. Technically, platinum is the best metal to make "aluminium" cans, in practice we use aluminium. Same logic here.
2. It doesn't matter. It's speculation remember. We are still at the phase of making conjectures. Shoot it...

Why can we not rely on amino acids for abiogenesis? You do not even need all 20 of them to kick-start polymerization.
Besides, amino acids could have been delivered from extraterrestrial sources, as pointed out by the paper I provided.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

This renders my initial criticism invalid, since i thought you were talking about phospholipids. Also, could you provide a source for that?

Originally Posted by Quantum immortal

1. Abiotic processes produce random crap. Usable amino acids in the modern way are rather rare. I'm not denying that abiotic process can produce the 20 amino acids we are using. It's just that you can't rely on them for abiogenesis. Technically, platinum is the best metal to make "aluminium" cans, in practice we use aluminium. Same logic here.
2. It doesn't matter. It's speculation remember. We are still at the phase of making conjectures. Shoot it...

Why can we not rely on amino acids for abiogenesis? You do not even need all 20 of them to kick-start polymerization.
Besides, amino acids could have been delivered from extraterrestrial sources, as pointed out by the paper I provided.

try these
Exploring Life's Origins: Fatty Acids
Jack Szostak (Harvard/HHMI) Part 1: The Origin of Cellular Life on Earth - YouTube

Hmm...
My bad...
i remember there was a criticism of the miller-Urey experiment.
That experiment is slightly over sold.
What i was remembering that most of the product was like tar.
But amino acids are still abundant.
So yea, my objection to amino acids was invalid.

I'm not a great fan of extraterrestrial source of bio molecules.
I think the atmosphere seams capable enough.

Originally Posted by Quantum immortal

Hmm...
My bad...
i remember there was a criticism of the miller-Urey experiment.
That experiment is slightly over sold.
What i was remembering that most of the product was like tar.
But amino acids are still abundant.
So yea, my objection to amino acids was invalid.

True. The Miller-Urey experiment showed how it did not occur, but it was a very important experiment nonetheless (cf. posts #2 and #5).

Originally Posted by Quantum Immortal

I'm not a great fan of extraterrestrial source of bio molecules.
I think the atmosphere seams capable enough.

Why do you think that the atmosphere at that time was capable enough of providing biomolecules to aid abiogenesis?

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

True. The Miller-Urey experiment showed how it did not occur, but it was a very important experiment nonetheless (cf. posts #2 and #5).

All these experiments were meant to be qualitative. There is a lot of guessing going on.
I don't think we should take them too seriously.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Why do you think that the atmosphere at that time was capable enough of providing biomolecules to aid abiogenesis?

How much of it actually fell?
How much survived the fall?
What was the half life of the compounds?
What about UV and other stuff that destroyed them?

I'm more inclined to believe, that there was a dynamic equilibrium, between creation and destruction of the molecules.
What ever the contribution of the asteroids, i expect that they didn't disturbed the equilibrium.

The immortal...

Why restrict to amino acids? Chemistry can make so many other polymers...

How can you have any functional system if you are depended on something specific and rare?
Not taking in to account all the similar molecules that fly around in the primordial soup,
that would confuse any precise molecular mechanism.

I guess you could also include “MAGIC” as confusing any precise molecular mechanism. If it is Magic it is not science.


As for the natural selection comment… natural chemistry is not natural selection, natural selection occurs after the eobiont (a hypothetical primordial life-form or chemical precursor to a living organism “a good dictionary”).

Originally Posted by Quantum immortal

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

True. The Miller-Urey experiment showed how it did not occur, but it was a very important experiment nonetheless (cf. posts #2 and #5).

All these experiments were meant to be qualitative. There is a lot of guessing going on.
I don't think we should take them too seriously.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Why do you think that the atmosphere at that time was capable enough of providing biomolecules to aid abiogenesis?

How much of it actually fell?
How much survived the fall?
What was the half life of the compounds?
What about UV and other stuff that destroyed them?

I'm more inclined to believe, that there was a dynamic equilibrium, between creation and destruction of the molecules.
What ever the contribution of the asteroids, i expect that they didn't disturbed the equilibrium.

I think member John Galt could step into the discussion about whether or not your hypothesis is valid.
He is in favor of extraterrestrial sources for bio-molecules and is more knowledgeable about that particular domain, so his criticisms (if he has any) ought to be more valuable than mine, since I cannot answer the questions you posed.

Originally Posted by GTCethos

The immortal...

Why restrict to amino acids? Chemistry can make so many other polymers...

How can you have any functional system if you are depended on something specific and rare?
Not taking in to account all the similar molecules that fly around in the primordial soup,
that would confuse any precise molecular mechanism.

I guess you could also include “MAGIC” as confusing any precise molecular mechanism. If it is Magic it is not science.


As for the natural selection comment… natural chemistry is not natural selection, natural selection occurs after the eobiont (a hypothetical primordial life-form or chemical precursor to a living organism “a good dictionary”).

You deny evolution it self. It's hard to have a meaningful discussion with that start.

The model is speculative, i don't deny that. If you take the assumptions made at face value, the "cell" can start evolving in complexity.
It's a creature, with some heredity that can act on it's environment.
You can have natural selection of favourable mutations, incrementally!

If i understand the creationist view correctly. You don't deny natural selection it self.
You recognise microevolution as been natural selection on genes that are alredy there.
You completely deny that a mutation can be beneficial some times.
This is just absurd. This is denial, nothing less.

here's a simplified simulation of evolution. Random mutations are introduced to creatures, then the best creatures are used for the next generation.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

I think member John Galt could step into the discussion about whether or not your hypothesis is valid.
He is in favor of extraterrestrial sources for bio-molecules and is more knowledgeable about that particular domain, so his criticisms (if he has any) ought to be more valuable than mine, since I cannot answer the questions you posed.

Don't take that stuff too seriously. You need to always remember, that there is a lot of speculation in these theories.

An example that i like a lot. Compt de bufon, was the first person to give a scientific estimate of the age of the earth.
He saw they were volcanoes, he saw the sun, so he assumed that the earth was completely molten at the beginning.
He took iron balls of various sizes, and put them in the fire. He measured how much time he took to be able to touch them.
He graphed the results, and extrapolated to the size of the earth.
He concluded, that the earth must have been at least 60.000 years old.

What i like, is he didn't know anything. He made some half arsed assumptions that seamed plausible.
He made a half arsed experiment, with what he had on hand. He even managed to practically use no math at all.
The result is terribly off from reality, but it's still the best for it's time.

I see the theories about the early earth and abiogenesis, in the same way we see the theory and experiment of Bufon.
I don't take what i say too seriously either, it's probably as flawed as Bufon theory/experiment.

You deny evolution it self. It's hard to have a meaningful discussion with that start.

The theory of evolution does not formally encompass the origin of life.

“evolution is a scientific theory that explains the emergence of new varieties of living things in the past and in the present; it is not a "theory of origins" about how life began.” NCSE | National Center for Science Education - Defending the Teaching of Evolution in Public Schools.

Before the new evolution synthesis and the Neo Darwin infusion you could talk about the “warm mirky pond”. As far as I know this thread has nothing to do with evolution.

Originally Posted by GTCethos

You deny evolution it self. It's hard to have a meaningful discussion with that start.

The theory of evolution does not formally encompass the origin of life.

“evolution is a scientific theory that explains the emergence of new varieties of living things in the past and in the present; it is not a "theory of origins" about how life began.” NCSE | National Center for Science Education - Defending the Teaching of Evolution in Public Schools.

Before the new evolution synthesis and the Neo Darwin infusion you could talk about the “warm mirky pond”. As far as I know this thread has nothing to do with evolution.

In the proposed model. The whole point of it, is to have a system as simple as possible. And yet to be able to evolve.
You need to see, that it's a reasonable assumption, that it can evolve!!!!
If you can't see that life evolved with the current huge mountain of evidence.
You'll never see that the model is reasonable with it's half arsed speculation!!!

Originally Posted by Quantum immortal

I'm not a great fan of extraterrestrial source of bio molecules.
I think the atmosphere seams capable enough.

How do you intend to exclude the extra-terrestrial biomolecules? Sure, amino acids could be produced in situ readily enough, but excluding extraterrestrial sources on a whim and without a mechanism weakens your argument: it looks subjective, not objective.

Plus, crash a nice mix of amino acids into the planet at the little fellows link up to provide polypeptides. Polypeptides are surely welcome in any abiogenesis plot?

(Thanks to Cogito Ergo Sum for the suggestion to contribute.)

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Quantum immortal

I'm not a great fan of extraterrestrial source of bio molecules.
I think the atmosphere seams capable enough.

How do you intend to exclude the extra-terrestrial biomolecules? Sure, amino acids could be produced in situ readily enough, but excluding extraterrestrial sources on a whim and without a mechanism weakens your argument: it looks subjective, not objective.

Plus, crash a nice mix of amino acids into the planet at the little fellows link up to provide polypeptides. Polypeptides are surely welcome in any abiogenesis plot?

(Thanks to Cogito Ergo Sum for the suggestion to contribute.)

It seam's to me that the planet can make far more biomolecules.
Abiogenesis been extremely inefficient, you would need a lot of stuff.
A lot of sruff, probably for at least a few million years...
Add to that that molecules aren't immortal....
Even if they fall from the sky, how much of it will get vaporized during the fall?
And UVs?
And corrosive stuff coming out of volcanoes?
Back then, natural radiation was a bit higher too, not sure how significant that was.
Simply the acidity of normal water?

For modern proteins, the intracellular environment is basically hostile.
They don't last long. The cell continuously replaces it's proteins.

If we take the example of titan. Most of the carbon based molecules came from asteroids that crashed billion of years ago?
If we take the example of the moon. The moon is very poor in carbon compounds. It doesn't seam that asteroids helped in any significant way in enriching it.

Taking all this in to account. I would say, that the dynamic equilibrium of the planet it self, seam more important then the asteroids.
And of course, don't forget that all this is not exact science, there's a lot of speculation in all the theories.
Its perfectly legitimate, to not be convinced by the asteroid theory.

In the proposed model. The whole point of it, is to have a system as simple as possible. And yet to be able to evolve.

You need to see, that it's a reasonable assumption, that it can evolve!!!!
If you can't see that life evolved with the current huge mountain of evidence.
You'll never see that the model is reasonable with it's half arsed speculation!!!

The entire point is that evolution (all mechanisms) are not viable in prebiotic chemistry…. Evolution as a theory gave up abiogenesis around the turn of the century…


You are beating a dead horse here. Evolution has nothing to do with the chemistry becoming biotic.


You must read the citation I gave you because it is clearly stated in the first paragraph.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Quantum immortal

I'm not a great fan of extraterrestrial source of bio molecules.
I think the atmosphere seams capable enough.

How do you intend to exclude the extra-terrestrial biomolecules? Sure, amino acids could be produced in situ readily enough, but excluding extraterrestrial sources on a whim and without a mechanism weakens your argument: it looks subjective, not objective.

Plus, crash a nice mix of amino acids into the planet at the little fellows link up to provide polypeptides. Polypeptides are surely welcome in any abiogenesis plot?

(Thanks to Cogito Ergo Sum for the suggestion to contribute.)

There are 8 amino acids found in asteroids… 22 are common to most life here on earth… Where are the other 14?
Space has its own special problems for life…

Originally Posted by GTCethos

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Quantum immortal

I'm not a great fan of extraterrestrial source of bio molecules.
I think the atmosphere seams capable enough.

How do you intend to exclude the extra-terrestrial biomolecules? Sure, amino acids could be produced in situ readily enough, but excluding extraterrestrial sources on a whim and without a mechanism weakens your argument: it looks subjective, not objective.

Plus, crash a nice mix of amino acids into the planet at the little fellows link up to provide polypeptides. Polypeptides are surely welcome in any abiogenesis plot?

(Thanks to Cogito Ergo Sum for the suggestion to contribute.)

There are 8 amino acids found in asteroids… 22 are common to most life here on earth… Where are the other 14?
Space has its own special problems for life…

Firstly, nobody says you needed all 22 to appear simultaneously, for a workable abiogenesis scenario. Secondly, 8 have been found in extraterrestrial sources, to date. This does not mean that others cannot also have come from extraterrestrial sources. Thirdly, nobody says that none of them could have appeared on the Earth itself. Indeed, if some are synthesised on extraterrestrial bodies it seems highly likely that similar processes on Earth could have done something similar.

Nobody claims to have a theory of abiogenesis, as there is insufficient evidence. The critical point it seems to me is that we have discovered that amino acids do indeed form in environments without life.

Firstly, nobody says you needed all 22 to appear simultaneously, for a workable abiogenesis scenario. Secondly, 8 have been found in extraterrestrial sources, to date. This does not mean that others cannot also have come from extraterrestrial sources. Thirdly, nobody says that none of them could have appeared on the Earth itself. Indeed, if some are synthesised on extraterrestrial bodies it seems highly likely that similar processes on Earth could have done something similar

For the 8 amino acids found in asteroids there is no evidence that you could construct a single operational protein known in life. Here is an example of a protein that could tolerate a reduction in the varieties of amino acids and still function. Although it had a reduction in verity of amino acids it still needs at least 20 amino acids to operate.

“The 213-residue Escherichia coli orotate phosphoribosyltransferase was subjected to 22 cycles of segment-wise combinatorial mutagenesis followed by 6 cycles of site-directed random mutagenesis, both coupled with a growth-related phenotype selection. The enzyme eventually tolerated 73 amino acid substitutions: In the final variant, 9 amino acid types (A, D, G, L, P, R, T, V, and Y) occupied 188 positions (88%), and none of 7 amino acid types (C, H, I, M, N, Q, and W) appeared. Therefore, the catalytic function associated with a relatively large protein may be achieved with a subset of the 20 amino acid.”http://www.pnas.org/content/99/21/13549.full

[QUOTE=GTCethos;591764]

For the 8 amino acids found in asteroids there is no evidence that you could construct a single operational protein known in life. Here is an example of a protein that could tolerate a reduction in the varieties of amino acids and still function. Although it had a reduction in verity of amino acids it still needs at least 20 amino acids to operate.

“The 213-residue Escherichia coli orotate phosphoribosyltransferase was subjected to 22 cycles of segment-wise combinatorial mutagenesis followed by 6 cycles of site-directed random mutagenesis, both coupled with a growth-related phenotype selection. The enzyme eventually tolerated 73 amino acid substitutions: In the final variant, 9 amino acid types (A, D, G, L, P, R, T, V, and Y) occupied 188 positions (88%), and none of 7 amino acid types (C, H, I, M, N, Q, and W) appeared. Therefore, the catalytic function associated with a relatively large protein may be achieved with a subset of the 20 amino acid.”http://www.pnas.org/content/99/21/13549.full

You are missing my point, which is that knowing 8 of them can form in the lifeless wastes of space makes it reasonable to think that others could form in similar conditions, either in space or on the early Earth.

And in any case, it seems unlikely that all these building blocks had to be simultaneously present at the start. There is no reason to suppose the first protein-like molecules had to look like the ones we see in organisms today.

Look, the whole thing about abiogenesis is we do not know how it all happened. Science has no real theory of abiogenesis yet, due to the absence of evidence about the steps involved. All we have are some tantalising clues and some speculative hypotheses.

Pointing out that there are the enormous gaps in our knowledge is merely stating the obvious: it does not allow any conclusions to be drawn about anything.

Originally Posted by GTCethos

There are 8 amino acids found in asteroids… 22 are common to most life here on earth… Where are the other 14?
Space has its own special problems for life…

This is an enormously misleading statement.
1. The meteorites found on the Earth have had over four billion years for loss of organic material.
2. The meteorites found represent only a tiny fraction of meteorites.
3. Not all meteorites have been tested for amino acids.
4. You imply, with no justification, that the first life needed more than eight.

Your statement is thus the equivalent of saying, "life needs twenty two amino acids. Meteorites have never existed with more than eight amino acids, therefore prebiotic chemistry made no significant use of amino acids from space".

[QUOTE=exchemist;591769]

Originally Posted by GTCethos

For the 8 amino acids found in asteroids there is no evidence that you could construct a single operational protein known in life. Here is an example of a protein that could tolerate a reduction in the varieties of amino acids and still function. Although it had a reduction in verity of amino acids it still needs at least 20 amino acids to operate.

“The 213-residue Escherichia coli orotate phosphoribosyltransferase was subjected to 22 cycles of segment-wise combinatorial mutagenesis followed by 6 cycles of site-directed random mutagenesis, both coupled with a growth-related phenotype selection. The enzyme eventually tolerated 73 amino acid substitutions: In the final variant, 9 amino acid types (A, D, G, L, P, R, T, V, and Y) occupied 188 positions (88%), and none of 7 amino acid types (C, H, I, M, N, Q, and W) appeared. Therefore, the catalytic function associated with a relatively large protein may be achieved with a subset of the 20 amino acid.”http://www.pnas.org/content/99/21/13549.full

You are missing my point, which is that knowing 8 of them can form in the lifeless wastes of space makes it reasonable to think that others could form in similar conditions, either in space or on the early Earth.

And in any case, it seems unlikely that all these building blocks had to be simultaneously present at the start. There is no reason to suppose the first protein-like molecules had to look like the ones we see in organisms today.

Look, the whole thing about abiogenesis is we do not know how it all happened. Science has no real theory of abiogenesis yet, due to the absence of evidence about the steps involved. All we have are some tantalising clues and some speculative hypotheses.

Pointing out that there are the enormous gaps in our knowledge is merely stating the obvious: it does not allow any conclusions to be drawn about anything.

Look, the whole thing about abiogenesis is we do not know how it all happened. Science has no real theory of abiogenesis yet, due to the absence of evidence about the steps involved. All we have are some tantalising clues and some speculative hypotheses.

You admit then that abiogenesis has no support in scientific orthodoxy? (I have never seen any such admission by secular scientists)

For John Gault…

It seems there is a real problem here… look at another finding by the Urey-Miller experiment…

“He obtained a “soup” that contained around 9 amino acids, 2% of the simplest, glycine and alanine, and traces of 7 others. (A number of other organic compounds were produced in small quantities but they have no significance in the origin of life scenario and could even hinder further progress by reacting with the amino acids).”

The Miller-Urey experiment

Could it then be that abiogenesis is only a creation story for abject materialism?

exchemist… This is one of the best well maintained websites I have visited… hats off to the UK.


The Miller-Urey experiment

What?!?!?!?

You admit then that abiogenesis has no support in scientific orthodoxy?

exchemist can speak for himself, but I pretty certain that is not what he means at all.

He says that science has no theory for abiogenesis. i.e. science has no thoroughly validated explanation of how the first life originated that is supported by experiment, observation, knowledge of chemical and biochemical behaviour, including well defined pathways. We have several entirely plausible hypotheses, one of which may very well evolve into a theory of abiogenesis.

Secondly, what conclusion, or argument are you seeking to derive from the Miller-Urey experiment? Your intent is shrouded in darkness and your argument is without form, and void.

Originally Posted by John Galt

What?!?!?!?

You admit then that abiogenesis has no support in scientific orthodoxy?

exchemist can speak for himself, but I pretty certain that is not what he means at all.

He says that science has no theory for abiogenesis. i.e. science has no thoroughly validated explanation of how the first life originated that is supported by experiment, observation, knowledge of chemical and biochemical behaviour, including well defined pathways. We have several entirely plausible hypotheses, one of which may very well evolve into a theory of abiogenesis.

Secondly, what conclusion, or argument are you seeking to derive from the Miller-Urey experiment? Your intent is shrouded in darkness and your argument is without form, and void.

by experiment, observation, knowledge of chemical and biochemical behaviour, including well defined pathways. We have several entirely plausible hypotheses, one of which may very well evolve into a theory of abiogenesis.

Would you wish to bring up one (this is not a challenge, I just can not find a reasonable experiment)? please.

[QUOTE=GTCethos;591773]

Originally Posted by exchemist

Originally Posted by GTCethos

For the 8 amino acids found in asteroids there is no evidence that you could construct a single operational protein known in life. Here is an example of a protein that could tolerate a reduction in the varieties of amino acids and still function. Although it had a reduction in verity of amino acids it still needs at least 20 amino acids to operate.

“The 213-residue Escherichia coli orotate phosphoribosyltransferase was subjected to 22 cycles of segment-wise combinatorial mutagenesis followed by 6 cycles of site-directed random mutagenesis, both coupled with a growth-related phenotype selection. The enzyme eventually tolerated 73 amino acid substitutions: In the final variant, 9 amino acid types (A, D, G, L, P, R, T, V, and Y) occupied 188 positions (88%), and none of 7 amino acid types (C, H, I, M, N, Q, and W) appeared. Therefore, the catalytic function associated with a relatively large protein may be achieved with a subset of the 20 amino acid.”http://www.pnas.org/content/99/21/13549.full

You are missing my point, which is that knowing 8 of them can form in the lifeless wastes of space makes it reasonable to think that others could form in similar conditions, either in space or on the early Earth.

And in any case, it seems unlikely that all these building blocks had to be simultaneously present at the start. There is no reason to suppose the first protein-like molecules had to look like the ones we see in organisms today.

Look, the whole thing about abiogenesis is we do not know how it all happened. Science has no real theory of abiogenesis yet, due to the absence of evidence about the steps involved. All we have are some tantalising clues and some speculative hypotheses.

Pointing out that there are the enormous gaps in our knowledge is merely stating the obvious: it does not allow any conclusions to be drawn about anything.

Look, the whole thing about abiogenesis is we do not know how it all happened. Science has no real theory of abiogenesis yet, due to the absence of evidence about the steps involved. All we have are some tantalising clues and some speculative hypotheses.

You admit then that abiogenesis has no support in scientific orthodoxy? (I have never seen any such admission by secular scientists)

For John Gault…

It seems there is a real problem here… look at another finding by the Urey-Miller experiment…

“He obtained a “soup” that contained around 9 amino acids, 2% of the simplest, glycine and alanine, and traces of 7 others. (A number of other organic compounds were produced in small quantities but they have no significance in the origin of life scenario and could even hinder further progress by reacting with the amino acids).”

The Miller-Urey experiment

Could it then be that abiogenesis is only a creation story for abject materialism?

GTC, please don't be tiresome. To acknowledge we do not know enough to be able to formulate a theory is obviously not at all the same as saying the concept has no support.

In any case, abiogenesis is a plain fact: once there was no life and now there is, so life came from non-life, by some process yet to be elucidated. That is all the concept of abiogenesis means.

Originally Posted by GTCethos

exchemist… This is one of the best well maintained websites I have visited… hats off to the UK.


The Miller-Urey experiment

Truth in Science is creationist claptrap from start to finish. As you well know.

Originally Posted by GTCethos

Would you wish to bring up one (this is not a challenge, I just can not find a reasonable experiment)? please.

You really need to write with greater precision if we are going to have an efficient discussion. Your question, in the present context, could mean any of the following:
1. Could you tell me of an experiment, like the Miller-Urey experiment, but one that yields meaningful quantities and qualities of amino acids?
2. Could you tell me of an experiment that could reasonably be said to duplicate a part of abiogenesis?
3. Could you tell me of an experiment that would convert hypothesis to theory?
4. etc.

And you still have not clarified what your attitude to the M-U experiment is. You are just posting vague observations that could mean almost anything. Please respond in an clear, objective manner.

Well, the model i'm proposing doesn't need any complicated proteins.
In this model, the first "protein" was some random crap, with only function to increase osmotic pressure.
A usefull property for the first "living cell".

Yea, it's speculative and stuff, like everything in abiogenesis.

Originally Posted by John Galt

What?!?!?!?

You admit then that abiogenesis has no support in scientific orthodoxy?

exchemist can speak for himself, but I pretty certain that is not what he means at all.

He says that science has no theory for abiogenesis. i.e. science has no thoroughly validated explanation of how the first life originated that is supported by experiment, observation, knowledge of chemical and biochemical behaviour, including well defined pathways. We have several entirely plausible hypotheses, one of which may very well evolve into a theory of abiogenesis.

Secondly, what conclusion, or argument are you seeking to derive from the Miller-Urey experiment? Your intent is shrouded in darkness and your argument is without form, and void.

John Galt my friend.
Your questions seem a bit obtuse to me… but I know they are not purposely obtuse, so I will help you out.

by experiment, observation, knowledge of chemical and biochemical behaviour, including well defined pathways. We have several entirely plausible hypotheses, one of which may very well evolve into a theory of abiogenesis (Ahhh. there is the one in question)…

Furthermore, U.M. gives you only 9 amino acids… The final frontier (space) gives you 8. To the point, meteor and U.M. amino acids are ineffectual.

Originally Posted by Quantum immortal

Well, the model i'm proposing doesn't need any complicated proteins.
In this model, the first "protein" was some random crap, with only function to increase osmotic pressure.
A usefull property for the first "living cell".

Yea, it's speculative and stuff, like everything in abiogenesis.

In this model, the first "protein" was some random crap, with only function to increase osmotic pressure.

First of all, what protein, containing “random crap”, of a variety of 9 different amino acids promotes osmotic pressure?


To the point, what is the protein and what is the membrane?


In science “it is the details that matter”.

Originally Posted by GTCethos

Originally Posted by John Galt

What?!?!?!?

You admit then that abiogenesis has no support in scientific orthodoxy?

exchemist can speak for himself, but I pretty certain that is not what he means at all.

He says that science has no theory for abiogenesis. i.e. science has no thoroughly validated explanation of how the first life originated that is supported by experiment, observation, knowledge of chemical and biochemical behaviour, including well defined pathways. We have several entirely plausible hypotheses, one of which may very well evolve into a theory of abiogenesis.

Secondly, what conclusion, or argument are you seeking to derive from the Miller-Urey experiment? Your intent is shrouded in darkness and your argument is without form, and void.

John Galt my friend.
Your questions seem a bit obtuse to me… but I know they are not purposely obtuse, so I will help you out.

by experiment, observation, knowledge of chemical and biochemical behaviour, including well defined pathways. We have several entirely plausible hypotheses, one of which may very well evolve into a theory of abiogenesis (Ahhh. there is the one in question)…

Furthermore, U.M. gives you only 9 amino acids… The final frontier (space) gives you 8. To the point, meteor and U.M. amino acids are ineffectual.

What do you mean by "ineffectual"?

Originally Posted by GTCethos

Originally Posted by John Galt

What?!?!?!?

You admit then that abiogenesis has no support in scientific orthodoxy?

exchemist can speak for himself, but I pretty certain that is not what he means at all.

He says that science has no theory for abiogenesis. i.e. science has no thoroughly validated explanation of how the first life originated that is supported by experiment, observation, knowledge of chemical and biochemical behaviour, including well defined pathways. We have several entirely plausible hypotheses, one of which may very well evolve into a theory of abiogenesis.

Secondly, what conclusion, or argument are you seeking to derive from the Miller-Urey experiment? Your intent is shrouded in darkness and your argument is without form, and void.

John Galt my friend.
Your questions seem a bit obtuse to me… but I know they are not purposely obtuse, so I will help you out.

by experiment, observation, knowledge of chemical and biochemical behaviour, including well defined pathways. We have several entirely plausible hypotheses, one of which may very well evolve into a theory of abiogenesis (Ahhh. there is the one in question)…

Furthermore, U.M. gives you only 9 amino acids… The final frontier (space) gives you 8. To the point, meteor and U.M. amino acids are ineffectual.

You have not clarified anything. I however shall:
1. I did not ask you questions, as you suggest, but a single question.
2. It was not the one you incorrectly identified, but the one with the question mark at the end.
3. Since when did putting a question mark at the end of a question become a way of making ones questions obtuse?

So, as far as I can understand your objection is that
A) The Miller-Urey experiment only produced nine amino acids.
B) Meteors have yielded only eight.
Therefore, where did the rest come from?

Now, here is a question. Pay attention. It will be followed by a question mark.
Which of these alternatives best describes your thinking behind the observations in the paragraph above?
1. We have identified at least two major sources for some of the necessary amino acids for life. We should carry out further investigation to identify further sources, or to identify additional amino acids that can be derived from these two existing sources.
2. Even together these two sources fail to yield all necessary amino acids, therefore there is something wrong with the entire concept.
3. Some other idea. (If this is the case please detail that idea.)

good

Originally Posted by GTCethos

Originally Posted by Quantum immortal

Well, the model i'm proposing doesn't need any complicated proteins.
In this model, the first "protein" was some random crap, with only function to increase osmotic pressure.
A usefull property for the first "living cell".

Yea, it's speculative and stuff, like everything in abiogenesis.

In this model, the first "protein" was some random crap, with only function to increase osmotic pressure.

First of all, what protein, containing “random crap”, of a variety of 9 different amino acids promotes osmotic pressure?


To the point, what is the protein and what is the membrane?


In science “it is the details that matter”.

Suggest you re-read the opening post, in which the vesicles are described. Regarding how proteins can affect osmotic pressure, try reading this: Oncotic pressure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since osmotic pressure is a colligative property (read here if you do not know what this is: https://www.boundless.com/chemistry/...ssure-409-466/) , the exact nature of the protein molecule is irrelevant.

Re "In science it is the details that matter", by your own admission (to me, on another thread) you do not have much grasp of chemistry. In your position I would avoid making remarks that look patronising, as that one does. It will just irritate people, which I presume (?) is not your intention.

Originally Posted by GTCethos

Furthermore, U.M. gives you only 9 amino acids… The final frontier (space) gives you 8. To the point, meteor and U.M. amino acids are ineffectual.

There were actually 22 amino acid products in the UM experiment:

Adam P. Johnson, H. James Cleaves, Jason P. Dworkin, Daniel P. Glavin, Antonio Lazcano, and Jeffrey L. Bada.
The Miller Volcanic Spark Discharge Experiment.
Science, Vol. 322, Issue 5900

Originally Posted by Zwirko

Originally Posted by GTCethos

Furthermore, U.M. gives you only 9 amino acids… The final frontier (space) gives you 8. To the point, meteor and U.M. amino acids are ineffectual.

There were actually 22 amino acid products in the UM experiment:

Adam P. Johnson, H. James Cleaves, Jason P. Dworkin, Daniel P. Glavin, Antonio Lazcano, and Jeffrey L. Bada.
The Miller Volcanic Spark Discharge Experiment.
Science, Vol. 322, Issue 5900

And there are more found in space too aren't there? I thought it was in the order of between 90 - 100 amino acids.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

And there are more (amino acids) found in space too aren't there? I thought it was in the order of between 90 - 100 amino acids.

That sounds incorrect. Are you sure you are not thinking of the number of different organic molecules that have been detected in interstellar space? That is well in excess of one hundred.

Originally Posted by Zwirko

Originally Posted by GTCethos

Furthermore, U.M. gives you only 9 amino acids… The final frontier (space) gives you 8. To the point, meteor and U.M. amino acids are ineffectual.

There were actually 22 amino acid products in the UM experiment:

Adam P. Johnson, H. James Cleaves, Jason P. Dworkin, Daniel P. Glavin, Antonio Lazcano, and Jeffrey L. Bada.
The Miller Volcanic Spark Discharge Experiment.
Science, Vol. 322, Issue 5900

The impact of the experiment continues to amaze me, even 60 years after Miller set it up.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

And there are more (amino acids) found in space too aren't there? I thought it was in the order of between 90 - 100 amino acids.

That sounds incorrect. Are you sure you are not thinking of the number of different organic molecules that have been detected in interstellar space? That is well in excess of one hundred.

Well I looked up the Murchison Meteorite again in Wikipedia:

Several lines of evidence indicate that the interior portions of well-preserved fragments from Murchison are pristine. A 2010 study using high resolution analytical tools including spectroscopy, identified 14,000 molecular compounds including 70 amino acids in a sample of the meteorite.^[15][16] The limited scope of the analysis by mass spectrometry provides for a potential 50,000 or more unique molecular compositions, with the team estimating the possibility of millions of distinct organic compounds in the meteorite.^[17]

So that brings it up to 70 at least.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

And there are more (amino acids) found in space too aren't there? I thought it was in the order of between 90 - 100 amino acids.

That sounds incorrect. Are you sure you are not thinking of the number of different organic molecules that have been detected in interstellar space? That is well in excess of one hundred.

Well I looked up the Murchison Meteorite again in Wikipedia:

Several lines of evidence indicate that the interior portions of well-preserved fragments from Murchison are pristine. A 2010 study using high resolution analytical tools including spectroscopy, identified 14,000 molecular compounds including 70 amino acids in a sample of the meteorite.^[15][16] The limited scope of the analysis by mass spectrometry provides for a potential 50,000 or more unique molecular compositions, with the team estimating the possibility of millions of distinct organic compounds in the meteorite.^[17]

So that brings it up to 70 at least.

How fascinating. I didn't know that.

Stand by for an objection that, er…..er…..er…..well…there are clearly far too many to be consistent with the fact that life today uses only 22.

What do you mean by “ineffectual”?

Proteinogenic amino acids. As we can only speculate about life forms based on other amino acids; science must stick to the ones we know by observation.
Short list of proteinogenic amino acids…


Amino Acids Alanine, Arginine, Asparagine, Aspartic acid,
Cysteine, Glutamic acid, Glutamine, Glycine, Histidine,
Isoleucine, Leucine, Lysine, Methionine, Phenylalanine,
Proline, Serine, Threonine, Tryptophan, Tyrosine, Valine

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

So that brings it up to 70 at least.

When you said "found in space" I foolishly thought you meant "found in space". i.e detected in space, not in something that we now have in the laboratory that was once in space.

You know good science is always accompanied by criticisms. Not to say I advocate this article but it is a real possibility I have grappled with in the past…

The Murchison meteorite, which fell about 100 kilometers (about 60 miles) north of Melbourne, Australia, in 1969, is one of the world’s most closely studied carbonaceous chondrites.

According to Engel, several lines of evidence indicate that the interior portions of well-preserved fragments from Murchison are pristine. Engel points to the array of amino acids Murchison contains and to isotope studies to bolster his position. Other scientists are equally convinced that the evidence proves the opposite: that Murchison is now thoroughly contaminated by terrestrial organic material.
(my emphasis)
- See more at: http://www.astrobio.net/news-exclusive/murchisons-amino-acids-tainted-evidence/#sthash.kNbj6LHb.dpuf

Originally Posted by GTCethos

What do you mean by “ineffectual”?

Proteinogenic amino acids. As we can only speculate about life forms based on other amino acids; science must stick to the ones we know by observation.
Short list of proteinogenic amino acids…


Amino Acids Alanine, Arginine, Asparagine, Aspartic acid,
Cysteine, Glutamic acid, Glutamine, Glycine, Histidine,
Isoleucine, Leucine, Lysine, Methionine, Phenylalanine,
Proline, Serine, Threonine, Tryptophan, Tyrosine, Valine

Well yes, no need to give me a list of them. But I'm still mystified: why do you say these proteinogenic amino acids are "ineffectual"? Or do you mean that the amino acids apart from these are the "ineffectual" ones?

But quite a number of amino acids other than the ones used in protein synthesis seem to have a biological role: Non-proteinogenic amino acids - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And my understanding is that both proteinogenic and non-proteinogenic amino acids have been found in meteorites and Miller's synthetic experiments.

So whichever way I read what you have written, I can't see what point you are trying to make. Can you clarify?

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

So that brings it up to 70 at least.

When you said "found in space" I foolishly thought you meant "found in space". i.e detected in space, not in something that we now have in the laboratory that was once in space.

I can't recall the number of amino acids detected in interstellar space.

PS: I nearly corrected that confusion too, for I had noticed I had said "in space" but then later I was talking about an object that had came from "Outer Space", my error.

exchemist...

Thank you but I did independently review this sometime yesterday.


To be perfectly clear “random crap” as so elegantly put by a participant is ambiguous and not accurate. At some level, some sort of order must be considered unless we are only talking about nonsense. If you look at all life relative proteins they are non racemic favoring the levo-rotary configuration (that is just basic organization #1).

Again I must ask what membrane and what protein?

Since osmotic pressure is a colligative property (read here if you do not know what this is: https://www.boundless.com/chemistry/...ssure-409-466/) , the exact nature of the protein molecule is irrelevant.

Unfortunately we are not talking about simple saline solutions or the like. In Biochemistry many of the proteins promote the movements of material in and out of a specific membrane ( the cell membrane). If it was by simple osmotic action why use a protein at all? And you could build a adequate model of a living cell using a simpler non organic membrane.

Membrane proteins perform a variety of functions vital to the survival of organisms:[3]

• Membrane receptor proteins relay signals between the cell's internal and external environments.
• Transport proteins move molecules and ions across the membrane. They can be categorized according to the Transporter Classification database.
• Membrane enzymes may have many activities, such as oxidoreductase, transferase or hydrolase.
• Cell adhesion molecules allow cells to identify each other and interact. For example proteins involved in immune response.wiki

Originally Posted by exchemist

....

Stand by for an objection that, er…..er…..er…..well…there are clearly far too many to be consistent with the fact that life today uses only 22.

Previously when I was considering abiogenesis my thoughts went along the line that since living tissues use only a specific number of amino acids, all of a certain rotation, whereas from natural formation there would be vastly many more and of both rotations, I predict that simple amino acids were formed by biological processes that subsequently evolved in complexity. Abiogenesis did not in the early stages use preformed (space derived) amino acids. Now is that a generally known fact or not? It was something I was going to explore at the time.

GTCethos, do you have any intention of addressing post #62, or do you just want me to piss off?

GTC, please don't be tiresome. To acknowledge we do not know enough to be able to formulate a theory is obviously not at all the same as saying the concept has no support.

In any case, abiogenesis is a plain fact: once there was no life and now there is, so life came from non-life, by some process yet to be elucidated. That is all the concept of abiogenesis means.

Sorry exchemist… you are being honest about abiogenesis and I respect that.


Now about the “life came from non life” thing. That is obviously true either from the materialistic explanation or from the creationist explanation. The only question posed to both paradigms is how?


It is my understanding that we are discussing the “how” by materialistic methods in this particular thread.


I am only proceeding with sound accepted scientific arguments and I am comfortable with that. Isn’t that the scientific tradition of testing hypothesis? Because a hypothesis or a theory for that matter can only be disproved.

GTCethos, do you have any intention of addressing post #62, or do you just want me to piss off?

Where would I be without a protagonist?

Originally Posted by GTCethos

To be perfectly clear “random crap” as so elegantly put by a participant is ambiguous and not accurate. At some level, some sort of order must be considered unless we are only talking about nonsense. If you look at all life relative proteins they are non racemic favoring the levo-rotary configuration (that is just basic organization #1).

Again I must ask what membrane and what protein?

Unfortunately we are not talking about simple saline solutions or the like. In Biochemistry many of the proteins promote the movements of material in and out of a specific membrane ( the cell membrane). If it was by simple osmotic action why use a protein at all? And you could build a adequate model of a living cell using a simpler non organic membrane.

Membrane proteins perform a variety of functions vital to the survival of organisms:[3]

in the model
the polymerizing molecules can be anything.
Aminoacids, non aminoacids, levo dextro etc etc etc....
This is a desirable property, since the first "cell" would be restricted in using what's naturally available.

About osmotic pressure. The nature of the molecules doesn't matter. It can be anything.
salts, proteins, sugars, lipids etc.....
When you have two compartments separated by a semi-permeable membrane.
With different concentration of molecules, then water flows from the least concentrated to the most concentrated.
In an attempt to equalise concentration.

We don't talk about membrane proteins/polymers. Just free floating polymers.
Proteins/polymers are used for the osmotic pressure because it's extremely simple.
The whole thing is simultaneously very simple and capable of evolving. (if you take the model at face value)
The desirable property here, is not efficiency, it's simplicity.

Membrane proteins for increasing the osmotic pressure is too complicated.
The proteins need to have a certain configuration. They have parts that must be hydrophyle and parts that are hydrophobe.
These proteins float, with there hydrophobe parts inside the membrane and their hydrophile parts in the water.
They need to be able to force a molecule or ion, to go through the membrane at the opposite direction of thermodynamic equilibrium. That requires the direct consumption of energy.
These proteins are hopelessly complex to be made in a prebiotic environment.
Further more, the membranes of the model are semi permeable, they let through litle molecules. Modern membranes evolved to be nearly impenetrable barriers in parallel with membrane proteins. So even if you had membrane proteins that could do the job correctly, they would be useless.

Natural selection will introduce later more and more complex machinery and adjust rotational symmetry and reduce the usable molecules to just 20 amino acids etc etc etc. The cells will gradually become "irreducibly complex". I see you are doing the "irreducibly complex" error.

Non organic membrane? You meant salts instead?

Originally Posted by Quantum immortal

Originally Posted by GTCethos

To be perfectly clear “random crap” as so elegantly put by a participant is ambiguous and not accurate. At some level, some sort of order must be considered unless we are only talking about nonsense. If you look at all life relative proteins they are non racemic favoring the levo-rotary configuration (that is just basic organization #1).

Again I must ask what membrane and what protein?

Unfortunately we are not talking about simple saline solutions or the like. In Biochemistry many of the proteins promote the movements of material in and out of a specific membrane ( the cell membrane). If it was by simple osmotic action why use a protein at all? And you could build a adequate model of a living cell using a simpler non organic membrane.

Membrane proteins perform a variety of functions vital to the survival of organisms:[3]

in the model
the polymerizing molecules can be anything.
Aminoacids, non aminoacids, levo dextro etc etc etc....
This is a desirable property, since the first "cell" would be restricted in using what's naturally available.

About osmotic pressure. The nature of the molecules doesn't matter. It can be anything.
salts, proteins, sugars, lipids etc.....
When you have two compartments separated by a semi-permeable membrane.
With different concentration of molecules, then water flows from the least concentrated to the most concentrated.
In an attempt to equalise concentration.

We don't talk about membrane proteins/polymers. Just free floating polymers.
Proteins/polymers are used for the osmotic pressure because it's extremely simple.
The whole thing is simultaneously very simple and capable of evolving. (if you take the model at face value)
The desirable property here, is not efficiency, it's simplicity.

Membrane proteins for increasing the osmotic pressure is too complicated.
The proteins need to have a certain configuration. They have parts that must be hydrophyle and parts that are hydrophobe.
These proteins float, with there hydrophobe parts inside the membrane and their hydrophile parts in the water.
They need to be able to force a molecule or ion, to go through the membrane at the opposite direction of thermodynamic equilibrium. That requires the direct consumption of energy.
These proteins are hopelessly complex to be made in a prebiotic environment.
Further more, the membranes of the model are semi permeable, they let through litle molecules. Modern membranes evolved to be nearly impenetrable barriers in parallel with membrane proteins. So even if you had membrane proteins that could do the job correctly, they would be useless.

Natural selection will introduce later more and more complex machinery and adjust rotational symmetry and reduce the usable molecules to just 20 amino acids etc etc etc. The cells will gradually become "irreducibly complex". I see you are doing the "irreducibly complex" error.

Non organic membrane? You meant salts instead?

Can you think of a scenario that doesn't involve amino acids or proteins due to the reasons given in abiogenesis -- clays in vesicules theory ?

Something that is replicator and molecular functionator* at the same time? (* "functionator", possibly a new word for the occasion.)

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by exchemist

....

Stand by for an objection that, er…..er…..er…..well…there are clearly far too many to be consistent with the fact that life today uses only 22.

Previously when I was considering abiogenesis my thoughts went along the line that since living tissues use only a specific number of amino acids, all of a certain rotation, whereas from natural formation there would be vastly many more and of both rotations, I predict that simple amino acids were formed by biological processes that subsequently evolved in complexity. Abiogenesis did not in the early stages use preformed (space derived) amino acids. Now is that a generally known fact or not? It was something I was going to explore at the time.

I'm a bit surprised that there hasn't been any comment about my logic re the topic. Does anyone think the above is a valid conclusion? It really starts to define the starting situation doesn't it! Basically if I was right, the UM experiment has no conclusive value, for it would mean the amino acids are formed by the replicators and are not initially the molecules that produce the replicators.

Originally Posted by GTCethos

GTC, please don't be tiresome. To acknowledge we do not know enough to be able to formulate a theory is obviously not at all the same as saying the concept has no support.

In any case, abiogenesis is a plain fact: once there was no life and now there is, so life came from non-life, by some process yet to be elucidated. That is all the concept of abiogenesis means.

Sorry exchemist… you are being honest about abiogenesis and I respect that.


Now about the “life came from non life” thing. That is obviously true either from the materialistic explanation or from the creationist explanation. The only question posed to both paradigms is how?


It is my understanding that we are discussing the “how” by materialistic methods in this particular thread.


I am only proceeding with sound accepted scientific arguments and I am comfortable with that. Isn’t that the scientific tradition of testing hypothesis? Because a hypothesis or a theory for that matter can only be disproved.

Indeed. The time has evidently come to have the discussion I knew we would have to have, eventually.

The insoluble problem you have is that no creationist explanation can be part of science, ever, simply because of the scientific method. "Science", which is short for "Natural Science" is the study of natural explanations, as opposed to supernatural ones. The defining achievement of natural science, at its birth after the Renaissance, was to exclude supernatural explanation and seek only natural ones, based on observation of nature.

A moment's thought illustrates that as soon as "God did it" is admitted as an explanation, we are back to mediaeval miracles and all further attempts to explain according to natural patterns and laws comes to a stop. The notion is a science-stopper. Whereas, the experience of applying the scientific method to the natural word has been served us well. It works. It is in fact a triumph of human civilisation over the last 300 years. For this reason, science simply is not interested, at all, in an "explanation" that involves abandoning the search for a natural pattern.

Science has coined the term abiogenesis to mean the natural process by which life is presumed (according to the scientific method, as used by all scientists since the Renaissance) to have come from non-life. The study of this process has yielded, and continues to yield, some interesting data, as discussed in this thread. However there is as yet no real explanatory theory, due to the difficulty in assembling evidence for such a complex process, from so long ago, under conditions so different from those we have today. But the undoubted fact that it is a difficult problem (one of the toughest in science today, in my view) is not evidence that supernatural intervention, to suspend the laws of nature, must have been involved. That is (a) not science, as per the above and (b) is simply the Argument from Personal Incredulity.