For the alternative theorists:

Because, for what must surely be the thousandth time, that was the context of the point that humble teleskope was making!

I confirm. I am talking about intelligent extraterrestrial life, which I think the theory of abiogenesis implies as a very strong possibility, if not certainty.

Also, "intervention" implies intent, the word should not be used for natural phenomena like meteorites.
 
No, it states that homochirality is comon in biology, a point which I have already acknowledged. It's the fact that life on earth is largely homochiral but all we can make is racemic mixtures that is the problem in the first place.

Once again. Unless you use a homochiral substrate or a homochiral solvent, reaction products are racemic mixtures. Left handed DNA produces left handed enzymes and proteins, hence life is homochiral. In spite of what you may think that link supports my assertions, it does not contradict them.

I see what you are saying, that biological processes based on left-handed chirality will create left-handed chirality molecules as byproduct or intermediate product and so we see these left-handed amino acids floating around living cells. But look at the second sentence from that paragraph:

- "In biology, homochirality is a common property of amino acids and sugars. The origin of this phenomenon is not clearly understood."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homochirality

It sounds as if it is not really understood why would even biological reactions produce homochirality.
 
Never have , never would

But I don't past thinking , understanding etc. , as absolute either

river

Is that for all, or just giants of the mainstream?
Why I'm asking is that you seem enthusiastic about Plasma/Electric Universe theory and Hannes Alfven?
 
correct.
the life on this planet is DNA based, not RNA.
i think your model may be invalid.
and i've said this before, "creating life" may not be enough.
in my opinion there are 4 evolutionary milestones:
1. the arrival of cellular life.
2. the first "organized life", probably plant.
3. arrival of "animals".
4. humanoid intelligence appears.
the first 3 might not be related to the fourth.

I don't see what's the big deal. It's like someone was saying 100 years ago: "science has not yet invented computers, boo-yaaa!!". Ok, so what? We did not hit dead end and what we know so far fits very well. You are not complaining that something is wrong, you are complaining that it is not complete. You are just being impatient. I don't see you are making any point other than that.
 
Just to throw the cat among the pigeons when discussing what it means to be 'alive'.

Mimivirus
It is a virus.
It is as large as some bacterial species.
It's genome is as large as some bacteria.
It has genes coding for proteins that even some bacteria lack.

Perhaps this is similar to what early life looked like.

I think what we need to do here is "reductio ad absurdum". We ought to find the one that is the first step, the simplest possible one. We need to have very clear definition of what "alive" actually means, like this one: 1. Homeostasis, 2. Organization, 3. Metabolism, 4. Growth, 5. Adaptation, 6. Response to stimuli, 7. Reproduction. -- Let's start with Szostak's replicating vesicles. If they do not fully fit the description, then what exactly is it they are lacking to be called "alive"?
 
Last edited:
But A is not exactly equal to B If A is dependent on Left handed amino acids and B is dependent on right handed amino acids, then in a heterochiral world where left handed amino acids dominate then A will have access to more resources than B

So you are talking about the environment. You're basically saying A can not eat B's food and there was more B-food than there was A-food? Man, those meteorites must have been raining like crazy if they managed to offset the balance. If they were able to do it, then Earth turbulent childhood could have done it too, much more likely and on a grater scale. And we do see life even in the most inhospitable places we can find.


They have different biochemistries. One uses left handed amino acids, the other uses right handed amino acids. An organism dependent on right handed amino acids can not survive using left handed amino acids (and vice versa). This is one of the concerns with extra solar exploration, should such a thing ever become possible - what if we encounter a world that uses right handed amino acids as the basis for life?

Their world is our world, the right-handed amino acid based "aliens" live among us.

-"Over 90% of gastropod species have dextral (right-handed) shells in their coiling, but a small minority of species and genera are virtually always sinistral (left-handed). A very few species show an equal mixture of dextral and sinistral individuals."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality

So it's not impossible, the ratio can go up to 50-50%, and even more in favor of "evil-twin alien gene". But can they all eat the same food? It's enough their enzymes can break down chiral molecules to the point they loose chirality, and then they can be "consumed" regardless of what chiral form they originally came with. And I also must ask, can they have babies? Can they share their blood? Could it be possible there are some humans based on right-handed chirality, or why not?
 
maybe.
the complexities of DNA would seem to preclude randomness.

Maybe? What are you so mysterious about? What are you hiding? What in the world are you complaining about? Do you think something is wrong about abiogenesis theory? Do you think you know something we should be aware of in relation to abiogenesis? What is it?
 
My bad, Trippy.

I evidently misread, and/or misunderstood, leopolds intent, behind his Post #1615.
Accepted.

I sincerely apologize for any misunderstanding on my part, and for any and all discomfort or insult that you or anyone else experienced that was caused by my misunderstanding of leopolds intent.
I'm, not in the habit of banning or warning people for genuine misunderstandings.
 
I see what you are saying, that biological processes based on left-handed chirality will create left-handed chirality molecules as byproduct or intermediate product and so we see these left-handed amino acids floating around living cells.
Correct.

But look at the second sentence from that paragraph:

- "In biology, homochirality is a common property of amino acids and sugars. The origin of this phenomenon is not clearly understood."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homochirality

It sounds as if it is not really understood why would even biological reactions produce homochirality.
No, no and no!

The reason why homochiral reactants in homochiral solvents using homochiral catalysts and homochiral substrates is well understood.

What is not well understood is the mechanism by which a racemic mixture of amino acids became the largely homochiral life we observe today.

I don't know how many times and different ways I've tried explaining this over the last two or three days.
 
So you are talking about the environment. You're basically saying A can not eat B's food and there was more B-food than there was A-food?
Something like that.

Man, those meteorites must have been raining like crazy if they managed to offset the balance. If they were able to do it, then Earth turbulent childhood could have done it too, much more likely and on a grater scale. And we do see life even in the most inhospitable places we can find.
Do you understand yet why this is even considered a posibility? Or are you still trying to understand why it is thought that these meteorites bought earth its water?

Their world is our world, the right-handed amino acid based "aliens" live among us.

-"Over 90% of gastropod species have dextral (right-handed) shells in their coiling, but a small minority of species and genera are virtually always sinistral (left-handed). A very few species show an equal mixture of dextral and sinistral individuals."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality
This. Is not. The same thing.

Species with left handed shells share the same chirality of proteins as we do, it is only their shells that are special. Even there, within species that have predominantly right handed shells there are indviduals with left handed shells.

This is no more evidence than pointing out that left handed people exist.

So it's not impossible, the ratio can go up to 50-50%, and even more in favor of "evil-twin alien gene".
Yes, it is impossible. An enzyme that has evolved to couple to a left handed protein can not couple to a right handed protein.

But can they all eat the same food?
No.

It's enough their enzymes can break down chiral molecules to the point they loose chirality, and then they can be "consumed" regardless of what chiral form they originally came with.
No.

And I also must ask, can they have babies? Can they share their blood?
No.

Could it be possible there are some humans based on right-handed chirality, or why not?
Definitely not. Because, for the most part, our bodies interact poorly or do not interact at all with the wrong handedness - I mentioned drugs earlier. I mentioned Carvone, carvone isn't the only one. Ibuprofen tablets are a racemic mixture, they don't even try to make them enantiopure because it would just racemise in vivo anyway. Levoamphetamine and Detroamphetamine are both active, but have different effects, and affect different parts of the body.

Thlidomide One enantiomer is effective against morning sickness, the other is teratogenic - it was taken off the market not because enantiopure tablets could not be made, but rather because it behaves in the same way as ibuprofen and racemises in vivo.

Ethambutol One enantiomer is an effective tuberculosis treatment, the other causes blindness.

Naproxen One enantiomer is an effective analgesic, the other causes liver poisoning with no analgesic effect.

Penicillin Only one enantiomer works because it works by mimicing d-alanine.

Propranalol One enantiomer has a calming effect, interacting with the fight or flight system, the other does not.

Do you need me to go on? Or have I made my point. If you ate food that had the wrong chirality of proteins and amino acids, your body would not be able to process it, or would potentially poison itself in trying to do so. If the poison didn't kill you, the starvation probably would.
 
Back
Top