Jump to content

How was protein synthesized from amino acids in the prebiotic world?


whoknows

Recommended Posts

He used words like 'probably'... he made no concrete claims of anything being impossible or not seeing as it is impossible to know with our current knowledge. We don't understand how it happened... but SOMETHING happened or we wouldn't be here. Probably it was some kind of evolution, as that is what everything else developed from.

 

The clay thing can be selective of molecular type as well as being able chiralise things. I don't think there is enough to draw any firm conclusion... but I can't think of any other ways it could have happened. The micelluar formation leading to early cells seemed convincing to me... and with the recent discovery that clays and meterorites can catalyse certain chain growths I would think we will develop in our learning over the next few decades. It hasn't been explained yet - doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

So which molecules do the clay "things" select? And what does that mean?

Does the clay attach to a specific molecule or does the clay only let specific molecules enter the clay? Which molecules would that be?

 

Does clay chiralise things? To what extent?

 

The micellular formation idea has exactly the same drawbacks as the idea that protein could have been formed by amino acids on early Earth. Energy added to molecules in the early atmosphere would not only form tiny amounts of amino acids, but also tiny amounts of carboxylic/fatty acids. Again: surrounded by thousands of other types of molecules. Not only amino acids but also carboxylic acids can only form chains in high concentrations of almost pure mixtures of the molecules needed to form the chain. This would prohibit formation of fatty acid vesicles.

Did you actually read it.

 

"The minerals which form carbonaceous chondrites are capable of synthesising carboxylic acids, amino acids and all the nitrogenous bases which form ribonucleic acid (ARN), considered to be the precursor of the first living organism."

 

(note: ARN is what we know as RNA)

 

"those minerals which reached the Earth's surface and were heated in the presence of both water and formamide would be able to reproduce the organic compounds fundamental to prebiotic chemistry."

 

What does a theoretical increase in the possibility of synthesizing smaller molecules have to do with the odds that any specific molecules will be selected for inclusion in a chain of molecules?

 

I don't see an answer to any of the questions I ask. All that is given are theories about how molecules could have been attached to one another in order to form chains. Nothing has to do with the way unneeded molecules would be eliminated from a complex mixture of thousands of diferent molecules.

No, but why do you think our laws are sufficient? Why do you think our science is far enough evolved to make valid assumptions about abiogenesis?

 

I don't state our laws would be sufficient. That's part of my points. Scientists explain abiogenesis using the laws we know. These laws (at least for now) reject the possibility abiogenesis could have occurred using the explanations given to date. Being life formed from simple chemicals under the conditions examined.

 

If current experimentation and observation rejects the idea. The idea should not be educated and we should be honest: Teaching people/children we don't have the slightest idea how abiogenesis occurred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If current experimentation and observation rejects the idea. The idea should not be educated and we should be honest: Teaching people/children we don't have the slightest idea how abiogenesis occurred.

It's the only game in town worth talking about and it fits in as a logical extension of current scientific knowledge. Any area in science is never complete and always a work-in-progress. Students get, and have always got, the prevailing wisdom in scientific knowledge as it stands at the time. There's nothing dishonest about it.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Teaching people/children we don't have the slightest idea how abiogenesis occurred.

 

 

And this is where you are being dishonest. Again.

 

We do have some good ideas about some of the possible mechanisms. Even if there are some parts that are not yet understood, that is not the same as not knowing anything. And one day, we may know more.

 

As you have no alternative, why not just let scientists get on with their research. And one day they may be able to answer some of your questions.

 

Your "it's impossible" attitude is just negative and unproductive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't state our laws would be sufficient. That's part of my points. Scientists explain abiogenesis using the laws we know. These laws (at least for now) reject the possibility abiogenesis could have occurred using the explanations given to date. Being life formed from simple chemicals under the conditions examined.

 

If current experimentation and observation rejects the idea. The idea should not be educated and we should be honest: Teaching people/children we don't have the slightest idea how abiogenesis occurred.

Which laws prevent abiogenesis from happening? And which experimentation/observation rejects abiogenesis?

Stop being that ignorant/dishonest. There is alot we do understand/know on how abiogenesis probably happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is alot we do understand/know on how abiogenesis probably happened.

To add to strange's post: That abiogenesis occurred is self-evident, based on what we know about evolutionary processes. It's a bit like reversing universal inflation back to the big bang: science slows comes to a stop but we know there's more physics to find. In the case of reversing evolution to abiogenesis there's more chemistry to find.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really baffled by the OP's repeated "but we can't answer these questions!" when we all know there are unanswered questions. So what is the point? Obviously not to propose an alternative. So, just a general complaint about the fact that science doesn't answer all questions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really baffled by the OP's repeated "but we can't answer these questions!" when we all know there are unanswered questions. So what is the point? Obviously not to propose an alternative. So, just a general complaint about the fact that science doesn't answer all questions?

 

 

I don't know about you but I am very tired of trying to answer PRATT, the OP is willfully ignorant, a short google search would have answered this post before it happened...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the only game in town worth talking about and it fits in as a logical extension of current scientific knowledge. Any area in science is never complete and always a work-in-progress. Students get, and have always got, the prevailing wisdom in scientific knowledge as it stands at the time. There's nothing dishonest about it.

 

If there were a logic explanation, why can't my simple and 100% valid questions (from a scientific perspective) be answered? My questions are derived from scientific logical thinking.

 

And is there any logic if it goes against all we know about basic Chemistry?

 

 

And this is where you are being dishonest. Again.

 

We do have some good ideas about some of the possible mechanisms. Even if there are some parts that are not yet understood, that is not the same as not knowing anything. And one day, we may know more.

 

As you have no alternative, why not just let scientists get on with their research. And one day they may be able to answer some of your questions.

 

Your "it's impossible" attitude is just negative and unproductive.

 

You are kidding me. You have no idea whatsoever how any of these can be explained:

​1) Formation of protein, carbohydrates, fatty acid vesicles under plausible prebiotic conditions.

2) The formation of any single component of a cell.

3) The formation of a cell and the interaction between the different parts of it.

 

So you've explained "everything" except for this. Tell me what is left. What has been explained according to you? And by explained I mean what can scientists create under plausible early Earth conditions?

Which laws prevent abiogenesis from happening? And which experimentation/observation rejects abiogenesis?

Stop being that ignorant/dishonest. There is alot we do understand/know on how abiogenesis probably happened.

 

So explain to me what has been experimentally created under plausible prebiotic conditions.

 

The basic starting point is the complex mixture of thousands of different molecules formed under simulated early Earth conditions. Please explain how we go from here. For this is your basic setting.

 

Quit the nonsense about ignorance/dishonesty for you don't have a clue how to go from here. Not a single clue. Prove me wrong and show me how we go from the complex mixture to a protein.

 

 

I'm not sure about "probably". It must have happened. Or we wouldn't be here.

 

Everybody agrees. I am just showing there is no experimentational evidence proving the way we got here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If there were a logic explanation, why can't my simple and 100% valid questions (from a scientific perspective) be answered?

 

 

Because you are asking questions that there is not yet an answer for.

 

 

You are kidding me. You have no idea whatsoever how any of these can be explained:

​1) Formation of protein, carbohydrates, fatty acid vesicles under plausible prebiotic conditions.

2) The formation of any single component of a cell.

3) The formation of a cell and the interaction between the different parts of it.

 

There are hypotheses for several of those.

 

 

Everybody agrees. I am just showing there is no experimentational evidence proving the way we got here.

 

And so ... ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't know about you but I am very tired of trying to answer PRATT, the OP is willfully ignorant, a short google search would have answered this post before it happened...

 

Don't give me this. Which of the questions in my opening post has been answered? Show me.

Who is more ignorant? The person answering a question or the person insisting the question has been answered, but who is unable to answer the question when asked?

 

 

Because you are asking questions that there is not yet an answer for.

 

 

There are hypotheses for several of those.

 

 

And so ... ?

 

So we agree we don't have an answer to any of the questions in my opening post? Finally. For this resets the starting point: We allready knew it is impossible to form protein under plausible early Earth conditions. But the lack of answers to my questions shows we don't even have a valid theory for how it could have occurred.

 

Which hypotheses exist for any (part) of the 3 points I made?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we agree we don't have an answer to any of the questions in my opening post? Finally.

 

 

I don't know if all of them are unanswered or not. I certainly don't know if there are plausible (or even implausible) hypotheses for some of them.

 

But that is irrelevant. You can highlight some questions that don't currently have answers. But that does not mean that there are no answers to any questions. Nor does it mean that it is impossible.

 

 

We allready knew it is impossible to form protein under plausible early Earth conditions.

 

No we don't.

 

And if it is impossible, how come they exist?

 

 

Which hypotheses exist for any (part) of the 3 points I made?

 

Well, a few seconds found these:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/336/6080/452

https://arxiv.org/abs/1305.5581v1

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00114-009-0602-1

http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/v7/n4/full/nchem.2202.html

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/358/1429/59

 

I'm sure there are thousands more. I assume you have read all of them? And can explain the flaws in every single one?

 

Again, what is the point of this thread apart from you repeatedly saying "there are unanswered questions" (Duh, really?) and "I think it is impossible" ?

 

And if it is impossible, how did it happen?

Edited by Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Don't give me this. Which of the questions in my opening post has been answered? Show me.

Who is more ignorant? The person answering a question or the person insisting the question has been answered, but who is unable to answer the question when asked?

 

So we agree we don't have an answer to any of the questions in my opening post? Finally. For this resets the starting point: We allready knew it is impossible to form protein under plausible early Earth conditions. But the lack of answers to my questions shows we don't even have a valid theory for how it could have occurred.

 

Which hypotheses exist for any (part) of the 3 points I made?

 

 

I can offer you a scientifically accurate video explaining the process, would you care to watch it? Here is a simple version, if you want i can provide you a lecture from a scientist who actually studies this stuff. Obviously offering you links to the information doesn't do it for you so check this:

 

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX8RpvQfjdupAKFWKjtMhTe

 

If you seriously want to know how this works check this series of videos explaining abiogenesis in detail:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Biologically functional (folded) protein from left-handed amino acids only. And there is no conceivable way how this could have been synthesized from simple molecules under prebiotic conditions.

...

It is only the case that no way has yet been conceived [by you at least], and concluding from this that no way is possible is a logical fallacy. People knew for millennia that consuming willow bark/leaves could soothe pain, but no one knew how to synthesize the plant's contained acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) until chemist Charles Frédéric Gerhard did so 1853. Scientific knowledge is a temporal manifestation. Be patient, and don't get you loin clot in a knot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Life "formed" by chemicals under early Earth conditions has nothing to do with my personal beliefs. The sum of Chemistry and statistics disproves it. This is something else.

 

Of course, I applaud experiments to see how life first began. But scientists will have to take a different approach.

 

 

Statistics has nothing to do with chemistry, chemistry is not a random process, chemical elements react in specific ways determined by physics. Is this so difficult to grasp?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The basic starting point is the complex mixture of thousands of different molecules formed under simulated early Earth conditions. Please explain how we go from here. For this is your basic setting.

 

Quit the nonsense about ignorance/dishonesty for you don't have a clue how to go from here. Not a single clue. Prove me wrong and show me how we go from the complex mixture to a protein.

 

 

Everybody agrees. I am just showing there is no experimentational evidence proving the way we got here.

You are not backing up your own claims....probably because you can't. :)

Which laws prevent abiogenesis from happening? And which experimentation/observation rejects abiogenesis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Don't give me this. Which of the questions in my opening post has been answered? Show me.

Who is more ignorant? The person answering a question or the person insisting the question has been answered, but who is unable to answer the question when asked?

 

So we agree we don't have an answer to any of the questions in my opening post? Finally. For this resets the starting point: We allready knew it is impossible to form protein under plausible early Earth conditions. But the lack of answers to my questions shows we don't even have a valid theory for how it could have occurred.

 

Which hypotheses exist for any (part) of the 3 points I made?

 

 

If you are really interested in finding out about abiogenesis this is a good starting point. If not then my judgement of your motives is probably true.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

 

 

Abiogenesis (British English: /ˌˌbˈɛnss, -ˌbə-/, /-ˌb-, -ˌbə-/[1][2][3][4]), biopoiesis,[5] \by-o-po-ee-sis\ or informally, the origin of life,[6][7][8] is the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.[6][7][9][10] Abiogenesis is studied through a combination of paleontology, laboratory experiments and extrapolation from the characteristics of modern organisms, and aims to determine how pre-life chemical reactions gave rise to life on Earth.[11]

The study of abiogenesis can be geophysical, chemical, or biological,[12] with more recent approaches attempting a synthesis of all three.[13] Life itself is dependent upon the specialized chemistry of carbon and water and is largely based upon five different families of chemicals. Lipids are fatty molecules comprising large chemical chains of hydrocarbons and play an important role in the structure of living cell membranes, actively and passively determining the transport of other molecules into and out of cells. Carbohydrates are sugars, and as monomer units can be assembled into polymers called polysaccharides, such as cellulose, the rigid chemical of most plant cell walls. Nitrogenous bases are organic molecules in which the amine group of nitrogen, combined with two hydrogen atoms, plays an important part. Chlorophyll is based upon a porphyrin ring derived from amine monomer units, and is important in the capture of the energy needed for life. Nucleic acid monomers are made from a carbohydrate monosaccharide a nitrogenous base and one or more high energy phosphate groups. When joined together they form either the unit of inheritance, the gene, made from DNA or RNA, which translates the genetic information into protein structures. The monomer unit of a protein is usually one of 20 amino acids, comprising an amine group, a hydrocarbon, and a carboxylic acid. Through a condensation reaction, in which the carboxylic acid of one amino acid is linked to the amine of another with removal of a water molecule, a peptide bond is formed. Polymers of amino acids are termed proteins and these molecules provide many catalytic metabolic functions for living processes. Any successful theory of abiogenesis must explain the origins and interactions of these five classes of molecules.[14]

 

 

The information is out there, easy to find, but not yet complete. The subject is extremely interesting and advancing rapidly, I doubt that we will ever be able to pour chemicals into a test tube and make bacteria but the natural processes do exist...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The basic starting point is the complex mixture of thousands of different molecules formed under simulated early Earth conditions. Please explain how we go from here. For this is your basic setting.

Your point is that laws prevent abiogenesis from happening and experimentation/observation rejects abiogenesis...which you are still not backing up.

 

And what does it matter we can't explain abiogenesis yet? There is a lot we can't explain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.