chinglu's version of evolution and abiogenesis

[chinglu]

Mod note: This is a split thread from here.

You spoke of the early universe "in the beginning" and complained I was only considering the "modern space" here:Your now red text is the "ignorant nonsense"

For some time after the big bang there was only radiations, too hot for mater to exist. Then with the expansion of the universe, the temperature of that radiation steadly decreased and is only about 4 degrees Kelvin now.

You now have switched to claim that you were only considering stage with "stellar clouds"

Yes some organic molecules mmay have existed in them, but molecules are not life by any definition. Most life as normally defined is possible after some stars have gone super nova to make heavier elements (mainly in thier shock waves) So certainly, I was only consideriing the planets of later than second generation stars as possible locacations of first life.

Most life as normally defined is possible after some stars have gone super nova to make heavier elements (mainly in thier shock waves) So certainly, I was only consideriing the planets of later than second generation stars as possible locacations of first life


What does this mean?

Don't you have to prove a viable electron transport mechanism in order to perform cell chemistry?

 

[river]

I agree with some that life could have and probably did start on Earth

what always troubled me was , why does everyone think that life on Earth was started somewhere else ?

why mars , comets , meteors , but the Earth its self couldn't produce life

what is the fundamental problem that Earth couldn't , on its own ,encourage life to manifest

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

. . . . what always troubled me was , why does everyone think that life on Earth was started somewhere else ?

"Everyone"? Did we wake up feeling a tiny bit hyperbolic this morning?

why mars , comets , meteors , but the Earth its self couldn't produce life? what is the fundamental problem that Earth couldn't , on its own ,encourage life to manifest?

There is no fundamental problem. There is no groundswell of scientific opinion that life could not originate here. Considering that we have not cracked the mysteries of abiogenesis yet, it would be a little premature to assert today that the conditions on earth were not quite right to support it.

There is simply an intriguing possibility that's worth investigating, if we ever invent the tools that will make that investigation possible.

At this point the most conservative, scientific conclusion to draw from the discovery of earth-like organic compounds existing elsewhere than Earth, is that life may have also originated in other places: that there's nothing terribly unique about this place after all.

 

[Buckaroo Banzai]

As far as I know it's a minoritary view that life came from elsewhere, simply for the sake of parsimony.

What I think that may be more widely accepted though is that some quantity of the life's early building blocks may have been originated in space. Other than that there's just people noticing that the fabrication of such building blocks is more widespread than one perhaps could imagine, making the origin of life on Earth itself seem less exceptional.

"Radical" proponents of actual panspermia are quite rare and fringy as far as I know.

 

[chinglu]

"Everyone"? Did we wake up feeling a tiny bit hyperbolic this morning?There is no fundamental problem. There is no groundswell of scientific opinion that life could not originate here. Considering that we have not cracked the mysteries of abiogenesis yet, it would be a little premature to assert today that the conditions on earth were not quite right to support it.

There is simply an intriguing possibility that's worth investigating, if we ever invent the tools that will make that investigation possible.

At this point the most conservative, scientific conclusion to draw from the discovery of earth-like organic compounds existing elsewhere than Earth, is that life may have also originated in other places: that there's nothing terribly unique about this place after all.

That's odd, I was called a crackpot in this very forum for proving the sulfur vents could not be the location of LUCA.

In fact, I proved and can do it again, that LUCA must have originated in a cool environment based on the evidence by the genome project. The gene necessary for the survival in extreme heat shows up later in the evolution rrna chain.

But, then that provides an impossible problem of proving an electron transport mechanism implement by either a sulfur or oxygen redox cycle.

Without a stable electron transport implementation, one cannot perform the necessary chemistry required by any life form.

So, we have the impossible problem of proving LUCA/abiogenesis.

 

[Buckaroo Banzai]

LUCA, the first life ever, and protobionts are different things, or at very least not likely to be the same things.

 

[chinglu]

LUCA, the first life ever, and protobionts are different things, or at very least not likely to be the same things.

I was responding to FR and his correction assertion that there is no algorithm to prove abiogenesis.

If you can prove abiogenesis, then you have proven LUCA.

The problem with this proof is the following recent evidence.

The adaptation to optimal growth temperature (OGT) since the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) over the universal tree of life was examined, and it was concluded that LUCA was likely to have been a mesophilic organism and that a parallel adaptation to high temperature occurred independently along the two lineages leading to the ancestors of Bacteria on one side and of Archaea and Eukarya on the other side.

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/9/2661.abstract

As we can see, LUCA must have been mesophilic which requires a temperate environment.

What is the problem with that?

Oxygen does not occur free in that environment meaning it only occurs as molecules.

You must have an electron transport mechanism in order to perform life chemistry.

Currently, with photosynthesis, a photo electric material is used to generate electrons and the electron transport mechanism is then valid.

Without free Oxygen, one cannot move electrons.

That is the problem

In other words, life's evolution in cold climates is as likely as cold fusion.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

I was responding to FR and his correction assertion that there is no algorithm to prove abiogenesis.

I'm not much of a biologist so I wasn't really saying that. I was speaking more broadly, to say that we don't even have the science to build that algorithm. Perhaps I'm wrong. But once the science is in place the algorithm can't be too far behind--now that we're living in what is predicted to be The Century Of Biology.

 

[Billy T]

Most life as normally defined is possible after some stars have gone super nova to make heavier elements (mainly in their shock waves) So certainly, I was only considering the planets of later than second generation stars as possible locations of first life


What does this mean?

Don't you have to prove a viable electron transport mechanism in order to perform cell chemistry?

´My statement you made bold is very clear. Perhaps you do not know that no elements in periodic table beyond iron can be formed in stars by fusion. Also only the very heavy stars can have final fusion stage product as iron. I don´t think our sun can even fuse the He it is currently producing. If it can, it that second fusion stage will surely be it´s last.

No, All mechanisms that exist now existed long ago, so no need to prove the existence of very common mechanisms.

 

[Aqueous Id]

I was responding to FR and his correction assertion that there is no algorithm to prove abiogenesis.

What's wrong with the ones in the books?

If you can prove abiogenesis,

Pick a stage in the algorithm. How about RNA?

then you have proven LUCA.

As opposed to what ? Two or more "last uncommon" ancestors? Anyway, didn't your source "prove LUCA"?

The problem with this proof is the following recent evidence.

The adaptation to optimal growth temperature (OGT) since the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) over the universal tree of life was examined, and it was concluded that LUCA was likely to have been a mesophilic organism and that a parallel adaptation to high temperature occurred independently along the two lineages leading to the ancestors of Bacteria on one side and of Archaea and Eukarya on the other side.

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/9/2661.abstract

That certainly doesn't overturn spontaneous production of RNA in the lab two years earlier. I doesn't say anything about probiotic chemistry either.

As we can see, LUCA must have been mesophilic which requires a temperate environment.

Could be. Now we have to wonder what that means. 100-200 ft from an undersea geothermal vent could be just about right.

What is the problem with that? Oxygen does not occur free in that environment meaning it only occurs as molecules.

What is the alternative? Free O[sup]2-[/sup]? I'd hate to be there when it detonated.

You must have an electron transport mechanism in order to perform life chemistry.

First you need to clarify where you are in the algorithm for evolution of electron transport chains.

Currently, with photosynthesis, a photo electric material is used to generate electrons and the electron transport mechanism is then valid.

Why do you say "valid"? If anything, this just shows an exception to the next statement:

Without free Oxygen, one cannot move electrons.

Which seems less valid a statement than the one about photosynthesis.

That is the problem . In other words, life's evolution in cold climates is as likely as cold fusion.

You pit the probability of cold fusion against "likely to have been" in your source above?

Compare with this:

Some prokaryotes can use inorganic matter as an energy source. Such organisms are called lithotrophs ("rock-eaters"). Inorganic electron donors include hydrogen, carbon monoxide, ammonia, nitrite, sulfur, sulfide, and ferrous iron. Lithotrophs have been found growing in rock formations thousands of meters below the surface of Earth. Because of their volume of distribution, lithotrophs may actually outnumber organotrophs and phototrophs in our biosphere.

The use of inorganic electron donors as an energy source is of particular interest in the study of evolution. This type of metabolism must logically have preceded the use of organic molecules as an energy source.

If there is such a thing as a "first cell', who is to say where it came to together - underground, underwater, perhaps in the vicinity of a vent, a cave, where neither air temperature nor prevalence of atmospheric oxygen may have had much to with the "algorithm" of abiogenesis.

I think there are enough "habitats" quite alien to us and yet certain life forms thrive there. In that regard I would suppose that life originated in another world, just not another planet.

 

[chinglu]

´My statement you made bold is very clear. Perhaps you do not know that no elements in periodic table beyond iron can be formed in stars by fusion. Also only the very heavy stars can have final fusion stage product as iron. I don´t think our sun can even fuse the He it is currently producing. If it can, it that second fusion stage will surely be it´s last.

No, All mechanisms that exist now existed long ago, so no need to prove the existence of very common mechanisms.

Sure, I know that within a star. But, it is less than iron.

So, the reason we have iron is supernovas.

So what?

What point are you trying to make?

 

[chinglu]

I'm not much of a biologist so I wasn't really saying that. I was speaking more broadly, to say that we don't even have the science to build that algorithm. Perhaps I'm wrong. But once the science is in place the algorithm can't be too far behind--now that we're living in what is predicted to be The Century Of Biology.

You are correct, there does not exist a viable electron transport mechanism in the theory to support the fundamentals of life.

In order for life to sustain itself (food), it must create carbohydrates.

But, do do this, one must crack water and CO2 in order to create free H, O and C to construct carbohydrates.

To crack water, one needs electricity.

That requires an electron transport mechanism.

Since the current consensus is that life evolved not in the volcanic vents but on the earth, then that requires some type of oxygen redox cycle to implement the electricity needed.

But, at the beginning of life, oxygen is not free and only exists as molecules.

So, it is impossible to find a reliable source of an oxygen redox cycle.

See the problem?

 

[chinglu]

What's wrong with the ones in the books?


Pick a stage in the algorithm. How about RNA?


As opposed to what ? Two or more "last uncommon" ancestors? Anyway, didn't your source "prove LUCA"?


That certainly doesn't overturn spontaneous production of RNA in the lab two years earlier. I doesn't say anything about probiotic chemistry either.


Could be. Now we have to wonder what that means. 100-200 ft from an undersea geothermal vent could be just about right.


What is the alternative? Free O[sup]2-[/sup]? I'd hate to be there when it detonated.


First you need to clarify where you are in the algorithm for evolution of electron transport chains.

Why do you say "valid"? If anything, this just shows an exception to the next statement:


Which seems less valid a statement than the one about photosynthesis.


You pit the probability of cold fusion against "likely to have been" in your source above?

Compare with this:



If there is such a thing as a "first cell', who is to say where it came to together - underground, underwater, perhaps in the vicinity of a vent, a cave, where neither air temperature nor prevalence of atmospheric oxygen may have had much to with the "algorithm" of abiogenesis.

I think there are enough "habitats" quite alien to us and yet certain life forms thrive there. In that regard I would suppose that life originated in another world, just not another planet.

I am not going to respond to all this primitive noise.

You may absorb my links and then respond based on the current research.

 

[Billy T]

... So what? What point are you trying to make?

I told you twice already (posts 18 & 21) - You must be a slow learned or even a non-learner.

{post 14}… space today is very different from the solar system as it was in the beginning. There was less radiation and matter had not yet condensed into sun and planets...
Your argument seems limited to modern space... not intended to cover all the changes the stellar system goes through from beginning to end.

{post 18}You spoke of the early universe "in the beginning" and complained I was only considering the "modern space" Your now red text is the "ignorant nonsense"

For some time after the big bang there was only radiations, too hot for mater to exist. Then with the expansion of the universe, the temperature of that radiation steadily decreased and is only about 4 degrees Kelvin now. ...

You still seem to need to be told that life could not have started earlier, before "modern space" existed. So I again explained that life as we know it could only have originated on a planet of a second generation star after some iron (and heavier elements) had been produced. - i.e. in "modern space" and not earlier in the beginning.

If you now agree that life could not have started before the modern universe existed, i.e. back when there stars had not yet formed, then admit your prior error and I will retract the statement that you can not learn. In any case, this is the third and final time I will try to set you straight.

 

[chinglu]

I told you twice already (posts 18 & 21) - You must be a slow learned or even a non-learner.
You still seem to need to be told that life could not have started earlier, before "modern space" existed. So I again explained that life as we know it could only have originated on a planet of a second generation star after some iron (and heavier elements) had been produced. - i.e. in "modern space" and not earlier in the beginning.

If you now agree that life could not have started before the modern universe existed, i.e. back when there stars had not yet formed, then admit your prior error and I will retract the statement that you can not learn. In any case, this is the third and final time I will try to set you straight.

If you now agree that life could not have started before the modern universe existed,

Can you explain exactly where I made this absurd claim?

 

[Billy T]

If you now agree that life could not have started before the modern universe existed,

Can you explain exactly where I made this absurd claim?

In your post 14, which I just re-quoted in my post 42, along with you silly claim (made red now) there that back then "there was less radiation"

 

[arfa brane]

Oxygen does not occur free in that environment meaning it only occurs as molecules.

If it's in molecular form, it's free.

Without free Oxygen, one cannot move electrons.

That is the problem

That's completely incorrect.

The levels of oxygen in the early atmosphere were almost zero, until photosynthesis evolved. Since life existed before then, electron transport existed without oxygen. That there are extant forms of life that can transport electrons anaeorobically shows the above claim is just wrong.

In order for life to sustain itself (food), it must create carbohydrates.

No, it has to be able to exploit a source of energy, fundamentally. Carbohydrates (sugars and cellulose) are made by photosynthesising organisms.

 

[Robittybob1]

As with the last one, discussions of the unearthly origin of life are not appropriate for the Bio & Gen Forum. Thread has been reported, to be moving to a more apporpraite forum, or, even better closed as a duplicate of this thread: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=114053&page=2

I have been looking at the possiblity of life in our solar system originating on Mercury. "Life first started on planet Mercury - looking for biological evidence support"
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?act=Post&CODE=06&f=27&t=29842&p=494564

 

[wlminex]

My take? . . .

Life likely 'started' when emergent patterns from the quantum were impressed (re" via Casimir Effect) upon water and organics (e.g., H, C, K, O, P, etc) occupying negatively-charged interstitial layers (1 - 20 micron spacing ) within clay platlets. Voila! . . . . RNA . . . . DNA . . . etc. . . . then evolution of same . . . .

wlminex

 

[Billy T]

My take? . . . Life likely 'started' when emergent patterns from the quantum were impressed (re" via Casimir Effect) ...wlminex

The Casimir effect is very weak and ONLY exists in the space between conductive (metal) plates.