Jens

The famous Carl Woese (see the corresponding wikipedia page) has a similar argumentation. He thinks that every life is looking alike because it had to evolve into one single precise genetic code (even if started differently from mutliple unprecise codes). I personally do not follow this argumentation, but I can point you to the corresponding publications and also some counter publication, if you are interested. (or see the reference list on the wiki page). {Note that "genetic code" in science (and not in some popular publications, where it stands for the DNA itself) means the exact translation of the RNA triplets to the corresponding amino acid.}

(I agree to Ophiolite) To your question about textbooks in foreign languages: I have read both German and American textbooks in the area of Biology, Biochemistry, Genetics. At least for those American textbooks which are sold also in Germany (mainly in English, rarely translated) I find the authors of the American textbooks have invested much more work in making things interesting to read and easy to understand. There is clearly more effort to make science more attractive than can be found on average German textbooks. So at least from my experience you cannot expect more from foreign textbooks than from the good American ones (those which are also sold in other countries). Read two different books on the same topic, if you really have the feeling that the authors only provide a view from one side.

If I remember properly there was this case (in latin america) where a big group of deaf children where basically left alone (besides receiving something to eat and drink). They invented a new sign language. And you should also consider: The human brain is quite adaptive.

(You have not used the "reply" to another statement function, so that is why I have not received an email that you are actually adressing me. This is why I only answer now and not earlier.) I do not try to skirt anything. I just did not want to repeat what has already been said (e.g. by CharonY). So back to your original question. The answer is: No. (since you asked, if origin of life is still happening on Earth today and not anywhere in the universe. I hope this is a clear answer ) (As already mentioned:) The existing life makes it impossible for life to start again (because it is using the same resources and already optimized for several billions (in the american english meaning) of years. If the reasoning above would be wrong, we would be able to find life forms with a fundamentally different genetic code (in its scientific sense), or life forms using another set of amino acids (or L-sugars, or ....). So as CharonY has already mentioned: All exisiting life is coming from one source. About you claiming that I am using "intuitive" arguments: The current understanding of how life can start gives a probality of life to start, which is to low to happen even once in our galaxy (see my tiny stupid calculation) not talking about happening again on Earth today. So only because we exist, we know something is obviously wrong with this understanding. That is not going to "intuitive" arguments, that is using the current status of science. So calculation is pointless at the moment. (The same way I could ask to you: Can you give an exact calculation of how probable it is that the theory of dark energy is right? And if you answer "no", I will assume the theory of dark energy is wrong, because that is my gut feeling , despite what the experts say.) But most important: Your question is about, if something is happening today (so historical events) and not about a natural law. So the approach to answer this question is not calculation but detective work. (see the second bullet point in this text above). By the way, how do you expect to calculate this, if we cannot even calculate all the properties of one amino acid out of the laws of physics (quantum mechanics) ab initio today? Not talking about protein folding.... Sorry, I did not want to be negative about physicists in my statements and I agree one should try to quantify things, if possible (of course). However, I think it is fair to state that the origin of life is a historical event and a biochemical event. Research in history and biochemstry is often using other tools than calculations (because often science has not the means yet to calculate). This does not mean it is no science. what do you think? (actually I appreciate the discussion ) The issue is more that we understand a lot and it still looks impossbile. So obviously we are missing something . To the fractals: Yes that can be seen as analogous to evolution. So once life started, there is a convincing explanation of how it gains more and more complexity. And the rules of evolution are simple compared to the complexity of the life forms. However, we are talking about abiogenesis, exactly the steps you need for evolution to start. So the simple rule is still missing here despite all the knowledge we have. We are all humans and our brain is optimized by evolution to search for rules and causes everywhere (so by default we all believe that there is such a rule), this does not mean nature is working like this (see the statistical behaviour of quantum mechanics for example, ... if even the Nobel laureate Feynman states, that he does not like it ).

An outside view (I am living in Germany) on the USA and short memories about the US foreign politics: The short memories are very dangerous from my point of view, because they make it easier to follow an "against" (or fight US enemies) politics of foreign affairs instead of a "for" politics. Since people in other countries are more used to a long term view this can quickly lead to bad opinions about the US: To fight against the soviets US gave money to the taliban in Afghanistan (the very same which protected Osama Bin Laden). ...and there was a "surprise" that the educated Kabul did not wanted to be "liberated" by the taliban. And now the US are fighting against them. I have even seen a film proudly showing the Afghanistan Liberation from the Soviets after September 11, without the slightest comment on who actually defeated the soviets. To fight against Iran US supported Sadam Hussein in Irak. Only to fight against Saddam Hussein a few years later. To fight against communism (or to protect US oil companies) the US invested to throw over a (nearly) democratic system in Iran to introduce the Shah. Same years later people were so unhappy with the Shah, that Khomeni could make a revolution. Just imagine you are living in one of those countries above (and are not able to leave).... I think especially in foreign affairs of the biggest power in the world it is important to have long memories. Leading also means creating trust (and the leading country is always regarded very close by all others). Creating trust is only possible with long term strategies. For example: The long term US help strategy and engagement in Germany in the years directly after the second world war was never forgotton in the generation of my parents and still holds for me and partially in my generation (I know quite different stories from the American zone and the Soviet zone from my parents). However, it will have no effects on the generation of my kids.

You are right. Since you are living in Switzerland and I am not, you know it better. I was just making a joke Another case where the EU fought against corruption -- even in Germany : The German mainly publicly hold bank WestLB: Several years ago the bank got public real estate from the German region worth roughly 2 000 000 000 Euro for nothing. And the competing banks where claiming at the EU that the WestLB should pay for it, and the EU decided that they should pay a big percentage to the German Region. The German region insisted to not receive this money (yes, I am not kidding). What was not in the reportage, but what was most likely the reason behind: The boss of the bank convinced the politiciens that he is a ingenious investment banker and will make much more money out of this the the region will benefit from this because it holds the majority of the bank (actually interesting to see who held the rest of the bank... and what was the exact bonus system of the former boss of WestLB...). The German politicians made it happen that the EU decision was not applied. Unfortunately he was not a genius....and then came the bank crash... The people of this German region lost all of this money. So who is more bureaucratic?

I am not sure what your question was: In case you wanted the term to be explained: Actually in most other languages the system is called AB0 (a zero) and not ABO (an O). Humans have either the A antigen, the B antigen or no antigen (this is why it is called zero in most other languages). So the term "O-positive" is a bit strange (means you positively have nothing ). In case you wanted to know why the majority has O: I do not know , but maybe somebody else in the forum knows...

In principle yes but there are (at least) the following issues: 1) If the animal gene contains introns you have to remove them since introns are not managed at all in bacteria 2) If the protein you want to have is only functional with post-translational amino-acid modifications (which is actually not so rare with structural proteins you are talking about) it will most likely not work, since they are not carried out at all (or at least not the same way) in Bacteria. 3) The fiber proteins you are talking about are most likely either to short if expressed in a bacteria and difficult to combine to longer fibers artificially later. For the same reason the protein might actually kill the bacteria before you have reached concentration levels which are useful for industry. so it is not straight forward....

CharonY has answered your questions. In case you are interested in more details, why exactly these amino acids, here some additional thoughts: Facts: - The published list of essential amino acids is Val, Ile, Leu, Thr, Lys, Met, Phe, Trp, His. This means that humans cannot synthesize them. The other 11 amino acids can be synthesized. - There is no amino acid storage in the human body (besides usage in proteins). - All proteins usually contain all amino acids. Only Trp makes up about 1% of the used amino acids. So in nearly 100% of all proteins you find at least 19 different amino acids. This means if you do not eat proteins, your body need to degrade other proteins to synthesize any protein. Question: What is the sense of beeing able to synthesize 11 amino acids, if you cannot synthesize a single protein with this capability? Answer: Actually for 9 of the 11 other amino acids the human body just is able to synthesize them by pure chance, because the enzymes for this are needed for other purposes any way. The only exceptions are Pro (proline) and Asn (asparagine). Question: Why is it important for the human body to synthesize Pro (proline)? Most proteins have a roughly standard distribution of the usage of the amino acids. This means if you eat proteins from plants they are very well suited to reconstruct human proteins out of the amino acids. But there is one big exception: collagen is quantitatively the most important protein in animals. Collagen has a very special amino acid composition. Pro and Gly are highly over-represented, because they are needed to form the quite unique secondary structure of collagene. So the synthesis of Pro is crucial for survival, if you eat only plant proteins (they do not have collagen). Question: Why is it important for the human body to synthesize Asn (asparagine)? No idea yet. Summary: Actually it makes no sense to learn the essential amino acids by heart. With the exception of proline they are essential by pure chance, because the enzymes for there synthesis are not needed in any other pathways. I hope this provides more insight. Jens

For detailed information I recommend RNA worlds. In this collection there is an article Noncoding RNPs of Viral Origin that contains a chapter about viral micro RNAs (chapter 5). However, it might be difficult to read (depending on the level you have reached already. -- I am not used to the US education system so "msc" does not mean anything to me )

You should not forget, that it is very easy for local politicians to blame the EU for every thing they do not like. Any proof that the EU is actually more bureaucratic than a government of a country, or a region within a country? The pattern goes as follows: The french government insisted to protect their caribean islands against bananas from Brazil. Via the other governments they insisted for having this law introduced at an European level. (so you have a point about undemocratic structures, that's right). Afterwards everybody is blaiming the EU for it (and not the french government). How many consumer protection regulations (actuall it is anti-fraught regulations, from a moral point of view -- not from a legal one) which really affect the daily life have been done at EU level or at country level: - EU stopped the fee ripp-off for cross country phone calls (obviously the free market did not work at all). - same for bank transfer fees (same for the free market) - stopped the completly weird system in Germany for the official monopol of chimney sweepers (which obviously the local government was not able to. Of course all the chimney sweepers (which risk to have competition now) will make their best to convince everybody that the new regulation is just a bureaucratic monster. - similar thing for the mafia-like system controlling many of the harbours in southern Europe (also here the local government and the free market did not work) - .... of course it is not perfect. By the way: How long do you think it will take before the french speaking and italian speaking "Kantone" in Switzerland will fall apart? I have heard there are a lot of arguments and the central Swiss Government is a very bureaucratic organization

@Manfromzurich This is off topic. If you like, we can open up a personal conversation about this. (just send me an email via my profile) Ein paar Vorschläge, Was ich an Deiner Stelle tun würde: - Ich würde versuchen, mich zu akzeptieren wie ich bin. Wenn man sich selber nicht mag, dann besteht die Gefahr, dass man auch anfängt, andere zu hassen und schlecht zu behandeln. - Es ist gut, sich selbst zu reflektieren. Aber Selbstkritik, die schon Selbstzerstörung ist, würde ich nicht üben, da mich deshalb auch niemand besser behandeln würde. - Ich würde den Kontakt mit Leuten abbrechen, die mich nicht so akzeptieren können, wie ich bin. Falls das wegen einem Arbeitsverhältnis nicht geht, dann würde ich -- zumindest äußerlich -- Leute eiskalt ignorieren, die versuchen mich zu verletzen. Man darf in keiner Weise erkennen lassen, dass man verletzt wurde (weil das die Täter nur noch mehr anstachelt weiterzumachen). Ich weiß, das ist schwer, aber es hilft. - Ich würde mir Bekannte suchen, die keine Probleme damit haben, homosexuell zu sein und von ihnen lernen. In einer Universitätsstadt sollte das möglich sein.

Are you sure it is the aromatic hydrocarbons and not the different nitrogene oxides and SO2? Maybe this helps: Study The best way is probably to choose plant species which are resistant: e.g.: http://suite101.com/article/pollution-tolerant-plants-a48179

Given the complex process of sexual orientation it is fair to assume that variations from the most common case can appear at multiple different steps with different effects -- means there are probably different causes. I think it is plausible to assume you (dmaiski and manfromzurich) are both right and what we see in the statistics is a mixture of multiple completly different causes for homosexuality. A) If an "error" in programming the male brain occurs (which is of course also possible at multiple levels) this very well could result in with some aspects female brain in a male body with usual male hormone levels. Assuming that in this situation the imprinting is also not perfect but works in the other sense to be attracted with high probability by males. B) If for other individuals an "error" occurs in the imprinting determination factors so that it becomes random (but still completly without any choice by the individual) you end up in a 50% probability of attraction by males or females, but still fixed. C) If for other individualy an "error" occures in storing any imprinting result, they become bisexual with no preference. (Of course all intermediate situations can also appear) Only individuals in category C have the choice. Those in A and B not. ... and it is absolutelty pointless to condemn those in type A or B claiming they have made a wrong choice (as a lot of religous fundamentalists try to do --- This is actually nearly no topic in Germany but it seems to be one in the USA) ... and it is intolerant (they do not harm anybody) to condemn those in Type C. And a last speculation : I find the roughly 4% of homosexuals quite a high percentage for something which at a first glance looks extremely disadvantagous from an evolutional point of view. So maybe in prehistoric times having individuals with the strength of male bodies but with some of the social capabilities of females (or in simple words: being a bit less egocentric ) which were neither focussing on their own children nor on competing/killing actually might have been an advantage for the group. This is why I have put "error" in double quotes above. ... by the way: I am heterosexual and I have definitely not made a choice.....

I guess the same as with the 2009 flu pandemic. It has been noticed in April 2009 and was at peak some months later (in autumn on the northern hemisphere) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_flu_pandemic

Maybe it was bended at time of cutting (so it was already longer) because somebody or an animal walked over it, and a few days after it was upright again.

In addition to what Moontanman has written... YY is 100% deadly. Some more details: X and Y chromosomes are nearly not related. The Y chromosome is not a short version of the X chromosome. In contrast to the X chromosomes the Y chromosome has nearly no genes. So YY means you miss the genes of one chromosome completly. This is always deadly. The human body is so fine tuned that it cannot even support having 2 active X chromosomes in one half of the population (the female half) and 1 active X chromosome in the other half (the male half). This is why one of the two X chromosomes in females is always completly deactivated (The one chosen is random). This means both men and women have only one active X chromosome and the men just have very few additional genes on the X chromosome.

I have found the following reference: Crystal Structure of Methyl Conzyme M Reductase So yes, the proposed reaction mechanism is via a methyl radical probably bound to an Ni atom (of coenzyme F430). If the last electron transfer fails two of those methyl radicals can combine to ethan (but might very well react with H2 present in the environment (note there is never O2 in evironments in which there is methanogenesis). In the literature it looks more that ethane is produced if human-made halogenated 2-carbon compounds are in environments where methanogens live. So assuming that extraterrestrial life always must produce ethane to me still seems too far fetched: - it does not seem to be proven that ethane it is always produced on earth as a side reaction (unless your collegue has more input) - Even if this is true, another coenzyme used in extraterrestrial life forms might actually prevent methyl radical release (or the reaction with another substance so that no ethane is released).

A more general statement for your topic: In biochemistry the enzymes are typically very specific and side products are quite rare. However, if the molecules become very small and uncharged, differentiation becomes more difficult. So there might actually be cases in which all life forms even, if evolved completely independent run into similar issues and similar side products: The best example is probably the nitrogen fixation. The enzymes making NH3 out of N2, have a severe problem, if O2 is present: N2 and O2 are very close to each other in size and charge distribution and O2 is very reactive while N2 is the exact opposite. This means any form of enzyme will have this issue and probably similar side reactions. Back to the original question: There is a point I have not seen in my last post: The CH3CH3 side production in question probably goes as follows (CoM = Conzyme M): CoM-S-CH3 gets only one electron transferred (dissociation of the methyl group before it is reduced to methane) and lead to CoM-SH + .CH3 Two of those radicals formed combine to CH3CH3 . So in case this is a chemically very difficult issue to transfer both last electrons to form methane, it might actually be a point. I can check this out in more detail on saturday.

Back to the initial question. Of course as the others have stated for all practical means the answer is a clear no. Even if you eat pure fat, you are not gaining this amount of weight (since you need to burn other materials to pay for the energy of digestion and transformation into human fat with the correct fatty acid composition). The answer is only yes, if you consider drinking softdrinks or beer not as consumption (But that is a bad definition of consumption of course). A more detailed biochemical consideration: Considering mass: The human body has the following input: - liquid food (mainly water) - solid food - Oxygen (There are actually a few reactions in which CO2 is incorporated, but they can be ignored) Output (roughly sorted by amount) - Water loss through breathing and sweating (This is what boxers are using to loose some grams to get their fighting weight) - urine (mainly water) - excrements - CO2 loss through breathing - Lost surface proteins (hairs are falling out every 8 years, dead skin, ...) So if we consider liquid food and solid food as consumption, theoretically you can gain weight, if there is a food substance that is converted to a human substance by consumption of oxygen without immediatly releasing CO2. However there is no such substance, because humans cannot convert fat (no matter if it is human body fat or eaten fat) into into carbohydrates (which have much more oxygen linked to the carbons). Some plants can (like the coconut palm). And just consider you are eating and drinking easily about 2 kg and more a day. Gaining 2 kg per day means you are dead before half a year is over. Considering energy / calories and ignoring water (the long term view): Body weight before lunch and after lunch is much dependent on the amount of water you drink. However, at the end of the day (so to speak, even literally ) water does not count since all superflous water is quickly lost via the urine, it makes more sense to look at the energy value (or "calories"), since all usable energy which is more than the body consumes is eventually transformed into body fat as a reserve (unless you are a body builder and build up muscle protein). So the difference of the calories you take up (eat+drink) to the calories you burn gives a good hint of how many weight you can gain in form of fat, since the human metabolism can transform all major substances in the food (fat, sugars, proteins) into fat. So now again assuming you eat 100g of pure pork fat (which is close to human fat). And we will not count for water input or output (since it has no long term effect). You wil not gain 100g in weight because: - The time you need to eat and digest you already burned fat to CO2 and H2O, (because you cannot turn of your brain for example). - The fat is hydrolized in the gut. The enzymes and the bile for this need to be produced. The enzymes are digested themselves and need to be reconstructed. This all leads to burning fat to CO2 and H2O. There is a loss in bile. - Not all fat is resorbed (partially also due to some microorganisms in the gut) - In the liver the components of the fat need to be reassembled again (again energy consumption, which equals to burning fat to CO2 and H2O.) - all the fat needs to be transported and incorporated into the fat tissues. So it is impossible to gain 100g of weight with 100g of fat. And I doubt that even when you do not count water you drink as input and still count the water in the fat tissue as weight (considering that body fat tissue roughly only has 70% of fat and the rest are water and proteins) you can gain more than 100g fat tissue out of 100g fat+proteins in food. And a hint: Avoid the fatty fast food. It is unhealthy mainly because for most individuals it has a bad relationship between calories and stopping hunger. This is why over time many indiviuals constantly gain weight. The human hunger regulation system is not tuned for this kind of food -- at least in many cases. And it is hard to fight against the hunger regulation. So from a subjective point of view people (your mother?) are right: They have the impression that they are gaining more weight than they are eating.

(In addition to all that have been said before...) The biochemical pathway from CO2 to methane directly reduces the single carbon molecule step-by-step with aid of different specific coenzymes to CH4. So it is a complete one carbon pathway. Only electrons are transferred from H2. It is not a cyclic pathway with involvement of tow-carbon compounds. Reduction of CH3OH or other methyl compounds uses the same pathway. Even CH3COOH is transformed into CH4 and CO2. Only one carbon is reduced and the same one carbon pathway is used. This means there is no obvious reason why all methanogens should produce CH3CH3 on earth. It looks quite the opposite. And definitely there is no reason whatsoever, why a CH4 producing pathway of life on another planet should always produce CH3CH3.

This letter was on Auction on Ebay Since the provided translation was not complete and also changed, here a complete translation. (I hope I have the English prepositions right. I am a German native speaker) Bold: Missing from the translation of the auction Bold Italics: Corrected Translation Strikout Wrong Translation Numbers: My Comments about the translation Princeton. 3.I.54 Dear Mr Gutkind! Inspired by repeated incitation through Brouwers ... I read a great deal in the last days of your book, and thank you very much for sending it to me. What especially struck me about it was this. With regard to the factual attitude to life and to the human community we have a great deal in common: Our - personal - ideal with the aim of liberation from I-centric wishes, the aim to beautification and ennoblement of the existence with emphasis on the pure human, in which the lifeless thing has to be seen just as means, which should not be granted a dominant function. (It is especially this attitude, which unites us as 'unamerican attitude'1.) However, without the incitation of Brouwers I never concerned myself with your book, because it is written in a language which is not accessible for me. The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still amply primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish2. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish primitive2 superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I am deeply adhered have a deep affinity3 have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them. In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a human4 and an internal one as a Jew. As a human4 you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic concepts interpretations of the religions of nature5 are in principle not annulled by monopolization. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary. Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in our intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each other in essential things, i.e; in our evaluations of human behavior. What separates us are only intellectual 'props' or and 'rationalization' in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each other quite well if we talked about concrete things. With friendly thanks and best wishes, Yours, A. Einstein 1 In the German letter the English words 'unamerican attitude' are used (in this exact spelling). The whole sentence deleted from the translation is a quite complicated German (but clear to understand), so maybe I have some grammar errors in the english translation. 2 There is no usage of the word 'childish' in the text at all. The German word 'primitiv' has the same meaning as 'primitive' in English. 'primitive Legenden' might also mean 'barbaric legends' but definitely not 'childish' legends. 3 The German word 'verwachsen' does not really mean that you like something like 'affinity'. It means much more that you have grown up with it and therefore linked with it (but it has no negative touch). 4 The German word 'Mensch' is a daily life word which means 'human' or 'human being' and not 'man'. So even though 'man' might be a good translation with regards to writing style, 'human' is the precise meaning. 5 The German word 'Naturreligionen' is an often used word used for all religions considered to be primitive, which typically have gods related to nature. Since Einstein is also talking about his view on ethics, I thought this is worth mentioning. Obviously the organisator of the auction deleted the sentence with 'unamerican' in it, since this might lower the price and has added the word 'childish' two times, maybe to increase publicity and hence the price (a behaviour definitely not supported by Einstein as written exactly in the deleted part of the letter ) And the German text for reference: Princeton. 3.I.54 Lieber Herr Gutkind! Angefeuert durch wiederholte Anregung Brouwers habe ich in den letzten Tagen viel gelesen in ihrem Buche, für dessen Sendung ich Ihnen sehr danke. Was mir dabei besonders auffiel war dies. Wir sind einander inbezug auf die faktische Einstellung zum Leben und zur menschlichen Gemeinschaft weitgehend identisch: unser- persönliches - Ideal mit dem Streben nach Befreiung von ich-zentrierten Wünschen, Streben nach Verschönerung und Veredelung des Daseins mit Betonung des rein Menschlichen, wobei das leblose Ding nur als Mittel anzusehen ist, dem keine beherrschende Funktion eingeräumt werden darf. (Diese Einstellung ist es besonders, die uns als „unamerican attitude" verbindet. However, without the incitation of Brouwers I never concerned myself with your book, because it is written in a language which is not accessible for me. Trotzdem hätte ich mich ohne Brouwers Ermunterung nie dazu gebracht, mich irgendwie eingehend mit Ihrem Buche zu befassen, weil es in einer für mich unzugänglichen Sprache geschrieben ist. Das Wort Gott ist für mich nichts als Ausdruck und Produkt menschlicher Schwächen, die Bibel eine Sammlung ehrwürdiger, aber doch reichlich primitiver Legenden. Keine noch so feinsinnige Auslegung kann (für mich) etwas daran ändern. Diese verfeinerten Auslegungen sind naturgemäss höchst mannigfaltig und haben so gut wie nichts mit dem Urtext zu schaffen. Für mich ist die unverfälschte jüdische Religion wie alle anderen Religionen Incarnation des primitiven Aberglaubens. Und das jüdische Volk, zu dem ich gerne gehöre, und mit dessen Mentalität ich tief verwachsen bin, hat für mich doch keine andersartige Dignität als alle anderen Völker. Soweit meine Erfahrung reicht ist es auch um nichts besser als andere menschliche Gruppen, wenn es auch durch Mangel an Macht gegen die schlimmsten Auswüchse gesichert ist. Sonst kann ich nichts „Auserwähltes" an ihm wahrnehmen. Überhaupt empfinde ich es schmerzlich, dass Sie eine privilegierte Stellung beanspruchen und die durch zwei Mauern des Stolzes zu verteidigen suchen, eine äussere als Mensch und eine innere als Jude. Als Mensch beanspruchen sie gewissermassen eine Dispens von der sonst acceptierten Kausalität, als Jude ein Privileg für Monotheismus. Aber eine begrenzte Kausalität ist überhaupt keine Kausalität mehr, wie wohl zuerst unser wunderbarer Spinoza mit aller Schärfe erkannt hat. Und die animistische Auffassung der Naturreligionen wird im Prinzip durch Monopolisierung nicht aufgehoben. Durch solche Mauern können wir nur zu einer gewissen Selbsttäuschung gelangen; aber unsere moralischen Bemühungen werden durch sie nicht gefördert. Eher das Gegenteil. Nachdem ich Ihnen nun ganz offen unsere Differenzen in unseren intellektuellen Überzeugungen ausgesprochen habe, ist es mir doch klar, dass wir uns im Wesentlichen ganz nahe stehen, nämlich in den Bewertungen menschlichen Verhaltens. Das Trennende ist nur intellektuelles Beiwerk oder die „Rationalisierung" in Freud'scher Sprache. Deshalb denke ich, dass wir uns recht wohl verstehen würden, wenn wir uns über konkrete Dinge unterhielten. Mit freundlichem Dank und besten Wünschen Ihr A. Einstein.

Hi. As promised I read through the second link you provided. But unfortunately also in the written details there is not really more than in the film: How can the authors talk about metabolism first without mentioning Wächtershäusers work? which is also based on the reverse citric cycle some years older and much more founded than what we read here. In the section "Selection Begins" besides retorics there is not a single hint, how selection actually could work on a metabolic pathway (in contrast to Wächtershäuser) or what chemical selection actually is. So the real problem is not even theoretically addressed. The "stranded electron" problem is nothing more than to tell that the system is not in equilibirum and there is free energy. The analogy example of of a pond sitting in top of a hill producing channels is just explaining positive feedback loops. But a positive feedback loop is not life. Chemical positive feedback loops are rare but not new. If somebody wants to explain life the next step from the positive feedback loop more into the direction of life needs to be explained. However, I do not see any input how you can come from a positive feedback loop to a system on which Darwinian evolution can start. But that is exactly the question to answer (or at least guessing) for all metabolism first theories. The "paradox" treated in the section about thermodynamic and the solution to it is nothing more than the gibbs free energy: Yes, systems can go to lower entropy, if the same time energy is given to the environment (so that the overall entropy is actually always increasing). This is why the gibbs free energy was invented. So finally all that is described are positive feedback loops like crystals, deepening river channels, flashes. And a claim that given a high energy starting point a chemical positive feedback loop (called channel) is enough to inevitably start life. That is not much. (Note: Fire is also a chemical positive feedback loop, a TNT explosion, too). ....so for the topic "metabolism first" I recommend reading Wächtershäuser (even if it is obviously much less entertaining ) greetings, Jens

Even though I am in favor of a definition of life which includes viruses (see the Topic "definition of life" ) I agree this looks very much like PR only and does not make viruses more "alive". The title should have been "First case of a virus being a parasite to another virus." That is interesting enough.

I agree. Sorry for my very unprecise wording. Let me try it with other words: Sexual reproduction makes it possible to combine successful genes in one organism, which have evolved independently in seperate chains of individuals. Bacteria do not have sexual reproduction. But they also have a way to combine successful genes in one organism. They use transfer of genetic information facilitated by specifc proteins. So lateral gene transfer is obviously more common in bacteria.