AngryZealot
King
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 770
Here's a great video on the origin of life (with a few more details). This is my favorite theory.
However, I find the mica hypothesis more likely... but not in isolation, of course![]()
Building programmable jigsaw puzzles with RNA.Chworos A, Severcan I, Koyfman AY, Weinkam P, Oroudjev E, Hansma HG, Jaeger L.
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9510, USA.
One challenge in supramolecular chemistry is the design of versatile, self-assembling building blocks to attain total control of arrangement of matter at a molecular level. We have achieved reliable prediction and design of the three-dimensional structure of artificial RNA building blocks to generate molecular jigsaw puzzle units called tectosquares. They can be programmed with control over their geometry, topology, directionality, and addressability to algorithmically self-assemble into a variety of complex nanoscopic fabrics with predefined periodic and aperiodic patterns and finite dimensions. This work emphasizes the modular and hierarchical characteristics of RNA by showing that small RNA structural motifs can code the precise topology of large molecular architectures. It demonstrates that fully addressable materials based on RNA can be synthesized and provides insights into self-assembly processes involving large populations of RNA molecules.
Seems like a lot of her work uses Atomic Force Microscope (first time I heard of that device)
This is completely unrelated to the original topic, but it is related to your post. BEHOLD, THE DNA SMILIESI did find one by Helen Hansma that looks like it might be interesting for RNA World:
1: Science. 2004 Dec 17;306(5704):2068-72. Links
They have a computer program that will generate the DNA sequence needed to fold into any arbitrary shape.
Anyway, we're getting very close to figuring this stuff out. I agree with El_Machinae; in the end, there's likely to be a dozen plausible abiogenesis theories, several of which are confirmed in the lab (ie, we make synthetic life through several different techniques), and we'll never truly know how it happened on Earth.
but the difference between that statement you said and my conjecture is that I used the logic that "nothing I see contradicts each other, and they both make sense.... they both must be right"Not necessarily - they may go hand in hand in one respect, but contradict in another. E.g. h-in-h socially (social sciences and church activities), but contradicting scientifically.
Non sequitur, see above. Also, you do not prove this.
There is a giant invisible massless teapot orbiting the sun between Mars and Earth.
What, you can't prove me wrong?
So there is a teapot.....
See where you go wrong?
either way, speculation or not, if you view it that way (which has no evidence against it) they both fit togetherNo, that is nothing but speculation.
the Word of Wisdom is often a piece of MY religion that is common knowledge among many people, often causing controversy with some... often leading to inquiriesHu?
what is that supposed to be?
Sorry, but I can't make head nor tail of this! You bring anecdotal evidence for something that certainly isn't common knowledge (Word of Wisdom), which AFAI can tell has nothing to do with either religion or science. Then, you proceed to make a series of generalized claims that are (mostly) false.
the Word of Wisdom was published well before it was common knowledge of the effects of alcohol and the importance of carbohydrates....EXAMPLES:
No, that was known long before.
No, grains have been the staple of normal human diet roughly since the neolithic revolution. Roughly 12,000 years ago.
I replied to those posts that were on the last page, rather than sort through all the reponsesYou replied to other posts. I was not, as you pretend, commenting on the temporal delay at all.
I never said you did. I was implying that seems to be the only logical way for those complex molecules to form.Total misrepresentation. Atoms do not think, nor do molecules.
Will you stop reading thigs into my posts that I never said?
atoms have no will. PERIOD. Go re-read my post, please.
in your process one... where do those complex molecules that catalyze reactions randomly appear from? How is it that IF they were to appear as if by random, that they just so happened to be what was required to catalyze that reaction. That's like pulling a random molecule out of the air, pulling a random enzyme from your body, and by chance having them be compatable.Finally you get it - but why do you read things into my posts that aren't there?
Here it is again, for those who have trouble with complex sentence structure:
PROCESS 1:
1) Molecules and atoms present in watery solution
2) molecules have chemical properties
3) so do atoms
so far, basic chemistry. No consiousness. You follow?
4) chemical properties mean non-random distribution
5) chemical properties mean chemical reactions between molecules and atoms
so far, still basic organic chemistry. No consiousness. You follow?
6) complex molecules catalyze other reactions
7) this generates more complex molecules
8) possibly, molecules are generated that cause reactions that create copies of themselves.
We achieved self-replication.
so far, still basic organic chemistry. No consciousness. You follow?
PROCESS 2:
1) 1) Molecules and atoms present in watery solution
2) molecules have chemical properties
3) so do atoms
so far, basic chemistry. No consiousness. You follow?
4) chemical properties mean non-random distribution
5) chemical properties mean chemical reactions between molecules and atoms
6) this lead to lipids (fatty molecules) forming a layer on top of watery fluids
so far, basic chemistry. No consiousness. You follow?
7) wave action can lead to droplets spraying about, folding lipid layer onto itself.
8) wave action can flip doubled lipid layer and film of water adhering to it into a tiny bubble.
We have now a double-lipid cell membrane
so far, basic chemistry. No consciousness.
Now have PROCESS 2 happen on water in which PROCESS 1 has been running. Presto, first basic cell......
As for your claim that complex molecules are different from 'simple' molecules such as rust: formic acid, e.g., is constantly being created in interstellar gas.
combining iron, oxygen, and water to form a simple compound is quite a bit easier than forming a series of nucleotides (not only themselves being more complex, but having several) that form together on a backbone of alternating phosphates and sugars to form a compound that reacts in such a way that it can self-replicate... I still fail to see how you can think otherwiseSo what do you think, how many atoms does a macromolecule need to contain, so that it cannot be created by nature by a simple process (like heating the constituent atoms enough), without any need for the atoms to be conscious?
all you're saying now is that "I don't agree with you" That seems to be what you're saying nowIf it was proved that God exists (which I think would be impossible, but let's assume that it happened), I would believe that he exists, yes.
I was talking about using the scientific method to prove a hypothesis and form a scientific theory - not pulling numbers out of your ass (which is what the bible code people do)
i not only think you can't do it - i don't think anyone could do it. you don't have a scientific hypothesis or theory on your hands, so.. you can't use the scientific process to figure out if you're wrong or not.
combining iron, oxygen, and water to form a simple compound is quite a bit easier than forming a series of nucleotides (not only themselves being more complex, but having several) that form together on a backbone of alternating phosphates and sugars to form a compound that reacts in such a way that it can self-replicate... I still fail to see how you can think otherwise
in your process one... where do those complex molecules that catalyze reactions randomly appear from? How is it that IF they were to appear as if by random, that they just so happened to be what was required to catalyze that reaction. That's like pulling a random molecule out of the air, pulling a random enzyme from your body, and by chance having them be compatable.
in your process 2, forming a simple phosolipid bilayer is one thing. When you talk about adding in other aspects of cells, like how did ATP synthase form, or other things that would have to randomly occur, such as that double layer folding in on itself and capturing a self-replicating molecule.
and that new cell of yours that just formed. How does IT replicate? It has self-replicating material inside of it, but does that molecule SOMEHOW by the STROKE OF LUCK just happen to ALSO react that it can form ribosomes, necessary for the production of proteins out of amino acids it just so happens to be able to obtain randomly? Life isn't as simple as you're making it
I met Richard Dawkins wednesday.
Just throwin' that out there.
No one has ever successfully refuted the Bible. Many mock the Bible but avoid challenging it point by point. No one who has done in-depth research, honestly examining the evidence for the Bible's inspiration and truthfulness, has been able to disprove the Bible.
The Bible is historically correct. No one has ever proved otherwise.
The more we learn of history, the more the Bible is validated.
Hundreds of statements in the Bible, which in times past have been held untrue by enemies of the Bible, have recently been proven true by archaeologists. The more that archaeologists find from the past, the more the Bible is proven accurate historically.
No archaeological discovery has ever disproved a biblical reference. The Bible is trustworthy and historically reliable.
but the difference between that statement you said and my conjecture is that I used the logic that "nothing I see contradicts each other, and they both make sense.... they both must be right"
I never said "I've proven that religion is right through science, therefore they are one in the same, to an extent"
Yeah, the fact is a fact and remains a fact, while logic can only deliver results as good as your starting assumption. If you fail to fact-check that, your entire logical construction fails.its one thing to use logic to assume something than it is to just randomly state a fact
False. Let's backtrack to the important and thus far unanswered point, which you now avoided again:either way, speculation or not, if you view it that way (which has no evidence against it) they both fit together
you said:In addition, by proving that science and religion go hand-in-hand, I prove that they don't contradict each other.
me said:You have not brought any evidence that
- science and religion do not contradict each other
- science and religion go hand in hand.
Care to finally explain what it is supposed to be? I fail to find any sort of explanation of what it IS! I do not, a this point, care what you think about it, what it may lead to, and who else knows it. TELL ME WHAT IT IS!the Word of Wisdom is often a piece of MY religion that is common knowledge among many people, often causing controversy with some... often leading to inquiries
Uh, when exactly? About.... 10,000 BC?the Word of Wisdom was published well before it was common knowledge of the effects of alcohol and the importance of carbohydrates....
Hm, trouble with reading comprehension, anyone?I never said you did. I was implying that seems to be the only logical way for those complex molecules to form.
In that, you said Abiogenesis wasn't random. Your implying that somehow, that atom thought it better to be in a molecule than in its own state. Somehow, those atoms willed themselves to join into a compound. Then, that compound somehow willed itself to recreate itself that it could do it all over again? Tell me... how does that work? Are atoms conscious?
Random chance.in your process one... where do those complex molecules that catalyze reactions randomly appear from?
oh, but that is not the case, don't you see? I tried to explain it before: there will be billions and billions of non-working molceules, but once one works, by pure chance.... off you go!How is it that IF they were to appear as if by random, that they just so happened to be what was required to catalyze that reaction.
Nope, that's exactly NOT what it is. Imagine playing the lottery - what's you chance of winning the jackpot? Now let the entire population buy 100 tickets each - what's the chance that someone, somewhere, WILL win?That's like pulling a random molecule out of the air, pulling a random enzyme from your body, and by chance having them be compatable.
Oh indeed - life TODAY isn't that simple. You fail to grasp the two main points I war trying to drive home earlier: first of all, a trillion chances makes 1 in a billion a rather likely event. Second, when life began it was in a totally different world than today, and life was totally different. Common logic does not work, because it is based on our experiences TODAY.in your process 2, forming a simple phosolipid bilayer is one thing. When you talk about adding in other aspects of cells, like how did ATP synthase form, or other things that would have to randomly occur, such as that double layer folding in on itself and capturing a self-replicating molecule.
and that new cell of yours that just formed. How does IT replicate? It has self-replicating material inside of it, but does that molecule SOMEHOW by the STROKE OF LUCK just happen to ALSO react that it can form ribosomes, necessary for the production of proteins out of amino acids it just so happens to be able to obtain randomly? Life isn't as simple as you're making it
Easier.... but not fundamentally different. it is a bit like winning $10 in the lottery compared to winning $1,000,000.combining iron, oxygen, and water to form a simple compound is quite a bit easier than forming a series of nucleotides (not only themselves being more complex, but having several) that form together on a backbone of alternating phosphates and sugars to form a compound that reacts in such a way that it can self-replicate... I still fail to see how you can think otherwise
Well, they're wrong. I guess there's no one to stop someone from being wrong on the internet.