Billy Ray

Well written, thank you. I disagree when you say space is fundamental while time is not, I think they are both non-fundamental.

 

IMO the basic concept is an event (not necessarily motion as you seem to have). Two events may happen at the same time or one may happen after another and they may happen at the same point or they may happen separately. These are fundamental things while everything else, including space and time, are invented by man. One uses time to deal with events that happen one after another and space to classify events that do not occur at the same place.

 

Are space and time different? Sure. Is it 3+1 not 4? Yes. But is space any more fundamental than time? No, I don't think so. They are equally non-fundamental.

this arguement comes from a horrendous misunderstanding of probability.

Why do you think so? I think those guys are quite aware of what you said and still claim the probability is low.

 

I was pretty pleased with the approachability to the science of prebiotic life offered in the below article. You may want to check it out.

 

http://www.as.utexas.edu/astronomy/education/spring07/scalo/secure/BergBiochemEvo.pdf

 

Looks like a nice paper, I'll read it. Thanks iNow.

I think the papers were written by the experimenters rather than the lab, or the experiments.

Papers are published by the experiments, that is why everybody in the experiment gets on the author list and there are no first author papers. But I must admit you are right, papers are in fact written by actual people, not "the experiments"

 

 

 

You have no idea about how I type. For "stewardesses" I use my right hand on the "t" and "r"

Wow, you got me there buddy. Good job

Fermilab has created a sentient entity that can write and publish papers? Cool!

What do you mean? Fermilab has published hundreds of papers(well not Fermilab but its experiments).

 

And I just noticed in the paper mentined above they study e+ e- collisions not p+ p- so its not Fermilab. Sorry...

 

To stay on topic another cool fact: "stewardess" is the longest word you type with left hand only.

An article in the April 26, 1993 article of Physical Review Letters, titled:

 

"First Measurement of the Left-Right Cross-Section Asymmetry in the Boson Production by e+ e- Collisions",

 

had 417 authors, ouch

In large collaborations when any paper gets published everybody in that collaboration gets on the author list even though most of them have probably never even read it. That one was probably published by one of Fermilab's experiments.

Define "real cell". We will get a living cell. It will be made entirely of proteins without DNA or RNA.

 

The reason is due to the side chains of the amino acids in the proteins. Most amino acids have side chains that are "hydrophobic" or "water-hating". They are like oil and don't mix with water. Some side chains are hydrophilic or "water-loving" and mix with water. Think of soap with a hydrophobic tail and a hydrophilic head: they form small spheres with the tails in and the heads out with the water. Or think of oil droplets.

 

Proteins tend to fold so that the hydrophobic side chains are in the center and the hydrophilic ones on the outside. When there are lots of proteins together in water, they tend to aggregate so that the hydrophobic parts are together and the hydrophilic ones out. This ends up making a cell.

 

If you look at Figure 2 at http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html you can see cells forming as water hits proteins formed by dry heating of amino acids.

 

The cell membranes of modern cells are over 50% protein. So all you need is protein to make a cell membrane. And there is your cell! Proteins to form the cell membrane and other membranes inside the cell and some proteins dissolved in the water inside the cell -- serving as the cytoplasm. The cells 1) metabolize, 2) grow, 3) reproduce, and 4) respond to stimuli.

 

By metabolize I mean that they will break down molecules for energy and also make new proteins and DNA or RNA. They will even photosynthesize!

By real cell I mean a cell that can evolve into a human being(and everything else).

 

As I said I've read stuff which said the probability for the first cell assembling was basically 0 and I had some ideas(non-creationist) to still "explain" the emerging of life against all odds. But if the probability is in fact nonzero than my ideas are irrelevant.

The possibility of getting protocells by chemistry is VERY high: close to 1 or virtual certainty. The websites that claim very small possibility are making some very bad assumptions:

 

1. That amino acids are like playing cards and are thus interchangeable within a protein. That is, ALL amino acid sequences are possible. That simply isn't so.

2. That only ONE particular amino acid sequence will do the job. We know that isn't so because different organisms have different versions of the protein (different amino acid sequences) to do the same thing. Think of cytochrome c -- essential for using oxygen to "burn" food. http://members.aol.com/SHinrichs9/descent/denton.jpg

 

3. If you combine amino acids by chemistry, you don't have to get one particular protein. Instead, what you want are the odds of getting A biological activity. Not a specific one. And the odds of getting a protein with A biological activity = 1. You don't know which activity, but it will have one.

 

So those calculations showing a small probability are examples of GIGO: garbage in, garbage out.

 

Instead of low probability, DATA indicates that the formation of life by protein first would be very high probability.

But is it certain that if we have proteins we will definitely get a real cell?

The first life did not "evolve". Instead, it resulted from chemistry. Start here --http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html -- and we can discuss it further if you wish.

I want to discuss it further, this is something I've been wondering about.

 

So, I understand it resulted from chemistry, but what is the possibility of that? I googled a little and found some websites where it said the possibility is extremely small, is it really so? If it is then how come life still emerged?