How could the first living cell have evolved?

page: 5
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Life is nothing more than a chemical process. Put the right ingredients in, and out comes life.




posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 



Any thoughts on this?


A book you may be interested in reading; titled: "Signature in the Cell" - by Stephen C. Meyer.

To be clear, the author makes the design argument for the origin of life from a standpoint of statistical analysis.

I know some people here will throw a fit over it - but the reality is that their best theories are incapable of ruling out the design hypothesis. Though how far one wants to take the design hypothesis with regards to the process of natural selection is a separate issue.

Basically, it boils down to statistics. I won't break it all down in the forum, but it includes a lot of work done by Bill Dembski - someone of prodigy in statistics.

The book is not a typical "design vs evolution" argument. It breaks down much of the biochemistry within the primary systems of a cell and the history (and controversy) leading up to these studies. It's as much a historical work as it is a proposition for the design hypothesis.

I would, honestly, recommend it as a read to anyone interested in biology or its related fields. Just like I recommend reading "The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature." - While not necessarily opposing views (the author of The Red Queen largely takes a pure-evolution stance - presumably to include the origin of life, while the author of Signature in The Cell makes the design argument largely for the origin of life). Both books are great reads and contain a lot of information along with interesting tid-bits of history and plenty of thought-provoking view-points.

Then read The Seven Daughters of Eve... that will really get your mind stirred up in a tizzy if you read it in conjunction with the other two.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by stolisGreece
 



Originally posted by stolisGreece
reply to post by bias12
 

DNA has something metaphysical in it. But before I refer to that, I want to say that, I believe that metaphysical is something physical which is not yet understood.

Now there was an experiment, which resulted in what is called the “DNA Phantom Effect”, in which, in essence, DNA demonstrates strange properties, the ability in essence to change reality itself after its removal.

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...


Now my friend, I hope that my point of view is correct in this healthy argument, not for my ego of course, but because if my point of view is correct, then every possibility is open, else we are just machines, created by accident, with the end coming rapidly and no chance for something more……




I'm not sure what this "article" is supposed to be proving, but it does not prove the ability of DNA to change reality after it's removal.

The article appears to be using photon correlation spectroscopy, a technique used to measure the size distribution of particles in a solution. This technique, as far as I am aware, could not be used to detect the "subtle energies" that authors claim are left after DNA is removed from the solution.

Also there is no methodology in the article apart from a sketch of photon correlation spectroscopy; the graph's x axis is used to measure both time and channel number separately, and amongst the references is a book called "Self Empowerment"

I'm not sure how this article relates to the topic, but I feel that given the body of evidence in the field of genetics and evolutionary biology we should seek evidence from peer reviewed, reputable sources and not from soviet era pseudo scientists.

For your future benefit, here is the wikipedia article for photon correlation spectroscopy;

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 08:41 AM
link   
There have been some good posts above. I'll try to expand on a few points that may have been neglected. I am not a biologist but I believe I have good basic understanding about these things.

There are many (gradual) evolutionary steps needed before cell. You'll first need self-replicating chemical processes and structures. There are certain chemicals and elements that make these self replicating processes happen with better probability like water and sun (or possible other sources of energy). When an sustainable self-replicating process starts, it can start evolving through traditional evolutionary processes like mutations (foreign chemicals introduced or structures changed due to environment) and elimination (changing environment "kills" processes that can't adopt to new environment). Eventually cell formed as it is very efficient self-replicating element. My example's may not be accurate, but the concept is the main point.

In my mind Conway's Game of Life demonstrates some of the concepts quite well. You set certain rules, put elements into random positions and some of them form patterns that move, rotate or replicate. Sure, those rules are designed to support life, but same concept applies to more complex physical rules of the world the probability is just a lot lower.
edit on 12-7-2012 by redbore because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Life is nothing more than a chemical process. Put the right ingredients in, and out comes life.


If this is so, why haven't we been able to replicate it? Has anyone been able to "put the right ingredients" (ALL NON-LIVING) together and come up with a living organism?



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by micmerci

Originally posted by masterp
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Life is nothing more than a chemical process. Put the right ingredients in, and out comes life.


If this is so, why haven't we been able to replicate it? Has anyone been able to "put the right ingredients" (ALL NON-LIVING) together and come up with a living organism?


We have been able to replicate it at various stages. Take a look at the work of Stanley Miller, a biochemist who demonstrated in experiments the ability of amino acids to form from inorganic compounds. Also check out Dr Sydney Fox's work on amino acids forming primitive proteinoids.
edit on 12-7-2012 by bias12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by masterp
 



Life is nothing more than a chemical process. Put the right ingredients in, and out comes life.


*cringe*

This is reminiscent of the Crystalline Protein model that was very popular up into the early 50s. The basis of it was that proteins were almost a defacto product of organic compounds - much like how crystalline structures actually grow, pulling like molecules into a regular structure.

Of course - proteins are anything but. They are massive folded chains of amino acids with little/no symmetry. They are developed by a complex process involving messenger sequences and transport 'flags (or operators).' We are really only beginning to understand the process by which proteins are made (it's not just what amino acids are linked together - it's also how they are later coaxed into folding correctly).

Saying it's "merely a chemical process" is an insult to the process - regardless of how you think it arose (chance, design, or whatever).



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by bias12
 



We have been able to replicate it at various stages. Take a look at the work of Stanley Miller, a biochemist who demonstrated in experiments the ability of amino acids to form from inorganic compounds. Also check out Dr Sydney Fox's work on amino acids forming primitive proteinoids.


Please educate yourself about the function of even the most primitive models of prehistoric prokaryotes and re-read your own statement in light of this new-found knowledge.

Generating amino acids from organic compounds and claiming it supports the spontaneous generation of life is akin to putting some potting soil on mars and peeking out the window each morning to see how your garden is doing.

It may be "what life is made of" - but there's a few critical missing components.

Creating lipids (your proteinoids) in a lab is not much different than showing you could create cellulose under the right conditions in a lab.

Woo.

You've only got about ten thousand more chemical compounds of varying complexity to generate in the lab and throw together with a prayer of their making something useful.

If you take biology seriously - you should not treat the biochemical processes involved in life so carelessly.

For example - it's not enough to just have all the right compounds in the right place. Even with basic RNA sequences - a number of key proteins are essential for it to properly replicate. The system for manufacturing proteins also relies on a few proteins behaving as intermediaries.

While RNA can (theoretically) replicate itself in a limited capacity in an optimal environment - there exists something of a problem. Life as we know it uses RNA that doesn't self-replicate - it constructs proteins to aid in that process (utilizing a number of intermediary proteins and compounds). I'll use a buzzword that people in the debate don't like: irreducible complexity. Even reducing the known system to its limits - you run into several components that would have needed to function together to create a self-sustaining system capable of evolving.

Which is a challenge to explain in terms of chance.

There are other examples of this problem.

Now - it's not my goal to try and convince you that things were designed (indeed - that poses more questions than answers). It's my goal to illustrate to you the magnitude of your own claims and the reality of the processes in question.

Knowing what we do about cellular biology - never should anyone look at the mechanics of cellular biology and not be challenged by the issue of "irreducible complexity."

The answer you personally arrive at is, for the time being, a faith-based one. You either have faith that random processes created what you see in front of you - or you have faith that some design process took place.

Neither one is within your current ability to describe, much less prove. The answer you arrive at is ultimately a faith based one.

I just expect people to be both informed of the issues and be aware that they are making a choice of faith in the issue (regardless of which position they take).



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Please re educate yourself about the function of even the most primitive models of prehistoric prokaryotes and re-read your own statement in light of this new-found knowledge.

The the ability to form organic compounds from inorganic materials is a fundamental stage of the physical process of spontaneous generation of life.

That in and of its self is not the whole story, there is more to be learned. Yet, it is whole load more scientific evidence than anyone will ever be able to show you for a designing hand or intelligent creator.

If you take biology seriously - you should not treat the biochemical processes involved in life with so much out-dated mysticism . The notion of irreducible complexity, and of intelligent design, is not falsifiable and therefore nor scientific.

There is no system, process or molecule which can be demonstrated to be irreducibly complex. There has never been a single peer reviewed article that can show any evidence of irreducible complexity.

Aim64C would have you believe that there is a choice of faith to be had in this discussion. There is not.

There is fact based, experimentally reproducible, evidence. Or, there is mysticism, blind leaps, witches and fairies.
edit on 12-7-2012 by bias12 because: (no reason given)
edit on 12-7-2012 by bias12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Life is nothing more than a chemical process. Put the right ingredients in, and out comes life.


That is not too far removed from the notion that rotten meat spontaneously produced maggots. That notion flies in the face of all scientific evidence we have so far. I will eat my words when scientists reproduce abiogenesis. Until then, the notion that life resulted from random chance is mere science fiction. For me it takes greater faith to believe that than to believe in an intelligent designer.
edit on 7/12/2012 by Sparky63 because: spelling



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by bias12
 


*sigh*...


The the ability to form organic compounds from inorganic materials is a fundamental stage of the physical process of spontaneous generation of life.


Except it has little bearing on the probability of those organic compounds developing into living systems.


That in and of its self is not the whole story, there is more to be learned. Yet, it is whole load more scientific evidence than anyone will ever be able to show you for a designing hand or intelligent creator.


Then let's see it. I want to see the evidence supporting spontaneous formation of Ribonucleic Acid. The ability of such compounds to reproduce is quintessential.


If you take biology seriously - you should not treat the biochemical processes involved in life with so much out-dated mysticism .


You're obviously confused.

The issue is that of plausibility, not that of mysticism.

You have a system composed of inter-dependent processes - without which, the system cannot continue to function and reproduce.

You either acknowledge this fact or you live in ignorance of it (perhaps even deliberate ignorance).

There are two possible processes by which this could have come to be. The first, and most intuitive, is that of design. The second is that it randomly occurred.

The problem is that multiple factors would have had to been randomly generated and existed under the correct conditions at the same time. In the case of RNA - both the proteins responsible for its replication and the code for constructing those proteins would have to have been in existence at the same time to lead to a functioning system of reproduction.

The statistical odds of that happening are well within the accepted rejection zone for chance description.

Reason to the Best Explanation leaves us with the design hypothesis, as chance is greatly insufficient to reasonably suspect it as the cause.

For this to change, it must be demonstrated through further research that the factors have changed - that larger proteins can self-assemble or that extinct organic systems could have existed prior to the ones we recognize as life (and given rise to these).


The notion of irreducible complexity, and of intelligent design, is not falsifiable and therefore nor scientific.


This is incorrect.

Historical science does not function in the same way as predictive science. Historical Science revolves around a concept known as Reason to the Best Explanation. Given what is known, one can reason what the most probable explanation is.

Example - you look outside and notice the driveway is wet. There are many possible causes for this. Other factors - such as the presence of clouds in the sky, the status of other surroundings (is the street wet?), and other points of interest (such as hoses or buckets of water) will also give you clues as to what is the most probable explanation for the observed.

In reality - you can't test what made the driveway wet.

However, you can demonstrate some theories to be false - or so far outside of probability that they cannot be reasonably accepted as plausible.

For example - your son suggests that the driveway is wet because it rained. Looking at the street and other yards, you notice they are dry. The probability of it raining on just your driveway is so remote that you would likely reject the notion.

Similarly - the concept of both design and chance can be evaluated for causal probability. You cannot demonstrate either to be correct - you can only demonstrate one or the other to be outside the realm of reasonable consideration. Just as you can never prove that a gambler isn't cheating - you can only reasonably eliminate the suspicion or chance (someone who wins five times in a row at roulette, for example, is going to draw considerable suspicion as the odds of that happening are 1:5^32nd).


There is no system, process or molecule which can be demonstrated to be irreducibly complex. There has never been a single peer reviewed article that can show any evidence of irreducible complexity.


aghunt.wordpress.com...

www.ideacenter.org...

The problem has been recognized since the 60s. You get to a point where you are left with a system that has several key components that simply have to be in existence together to function, and there's no clear possibilities for that system to have evolved from or spontaneously generated.

You can bury your head in the sand all you want to.

The problem is real.

The faith basis behind your views is no less present.

The difference between you and I is that I'm perfectly fine living in a world of the yet-to-be-known (or the impossible-to-know), and see no threat in the challenge posed.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by andy06shake
 


You are wrong about the complexity of the eye or the CNS.

I have written a thread which will be of much use to you, if you wish to further your understanding.
Cellular automata, geneti algorithms, and Rule 110

""A simple computation mechanism that, for example, changed the color of each cell on a grid based on the color of adjacent or nearby cells according to a transformation rule... The process involves repetitive application of a very simple rule. From such repetitive and deterministic process, one would expect repetitive and predictable behavior... There are two surprising results here"
its basically trying to model how plants build themselves.

There are 4 classes of cellular automata.

class 1 - produces basic checkerboard patterns.

class 2 - produces arbitrarily spaces streaks.

class 3 - starts to become more interesting as recognizable features such as triangles appear in the pattern in random order.

class 4 - the only example being Rule 110. This one however produced the "aha experience". and resulted in wolfram dedicating over a decade to this topic. Class 4 rules produce surprisingly complex patterns that do not repeat themselves. We see in them many different types of artifacts however the pattern is neither regular nor completely random; it appears to have some order but is never predictable.


(This pattern was made with a very simply binary rule that was just repeated over and over again. A deterministic process which produces apparently random yet organized appearing results.

Why is this important? Keep in mind we began with the simplest starting point: a single black cell. the process involves repetitive application of a very simple rule. From such a basic rule we see complex and interesting features that shows some order and apparent intelligence.
Localized structures appear and interact in various complicated-looking ways

Wolfram makes the following point repeatedly: "whenever a phenomena is encountered that seems complex it is taken almost for granted that the phenomenon must be the result of of some underlying mechanism that is itself complex. By my discovery that simple programs can produce great complexity makes it clear that this is not in fact correct. Furthermore, the idea tha a completely deterministic process can produce results that are completely unpredictable is of great important, as it provides an explanation for how the world can be inherently unpredictable while still based on fully deterministic rules. We also see these same principles at work with fractals, chaos, and complexity theory, and self-organizing systems such as neural nets, which start with a simple network but organize themselves to produce apparently intelligent behavior. at a different level we see it in the human brain itself, which starts with only about 30-100 million bytes of specification in the compressed genome yet ends up with a complexity that is about a billion times greater.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Well, from what I've read (which could be wrong, mind you), the first single-celled organisms were osmotic and formed in bodies of water, which suggests that maybe the first single celled organism was a precursor to algae. I cannot speculate on how all of the cell organelles came to be, other than by some fluke of nature, all of these elements that life is composed of came together in a way that was self-sustainable. How we went from that to opposable thumbs, though........good luck on that one lol. Even Darwin has been proven wrong.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by jiggerj
 


maybe the information aspect is within the laws of physics,, and the laws of elemental/chemical reactions obeying those physics...... and a lot of other laws,.,.,., also involved in this process is the constant warming and energizing and radiating sun..,.

maybe as the sun can coerce seemingly unintelligent plant life to dance toward its radiance, at one time this dance occurred with pools of chemicals and elements,.,,. its also thought the conditions on earth were much different,,,,, stuff about the atmosphere or lack there of,,,..,., lightning storms,,,, magnetic field,.,..,
edit on 11-7-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


Wow, it's going to take some time to wrap my pea brain around this. First thing comes to mind is, plant life reaches for the sun, moths fly to flame. I don't see why it would be impossible for elements to reach for sun when metal reaches for magnetism (or magnetism reaches for metal). Thanks, you just gave me a night's worth of pondering. Good stuff!


Here's your answer to that.


Originally posted by R3KR

Originally posted by phroziac

Originally posted by R3KR
To get the engine going maybe at one point there was some sort of frequency sound/electromagnetic being emitted from our galaxy that aligned everything. Once life got started it didn't stop. And maybe it always emits in other galaxies or solar systems as well. Point is the universe is to harbor life, what is the point of intelligent consciousness ?

Saw this after I posted but I guess we are thinking the same thing...

Originally posted by biggmoneyme
source field arranges the elements into complex patterns. life probably emerges everywhere
edit on 11-7-2012 by R3KR because: (no reason given)

Cosmic microwave background radiation?


Maybe.
This forms complex structures and its just sound...

Notice the higher the frequency, the more complex the structures. What happens to atoms when their resonant frequencies barrage them ?



Word! Sound is the WORD!

Here's another really good example of this process in action. Skip to the 2 minute mark to acoid the boring intro, skip to 6:56 minute mark to get your mind blown!




posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Well, from what I've read (which could be wrong, mind you), the first single-celled organisms were osmotic and formed in bodies of water, which suggests that maybe the first single celled organism was a precursor to algae. I cannot speculate on how all of the cell organelles came to be, other than by some fluke of nature, all of these elements that life is composed of came together in a way that was self-sustainable. How we went from that to opposable thumbs, though........good luck on that one lol. Even Darwin has been proven wrong.


The problem with that scenario is that amino acids, the building blocks of the proteins needed for cell construction are not stable in water. In order to be useful, amino acids have to combine into peptides. This process is called polymerization. Unfortunately, polymerization is virtually impossible in in the presence of water regardless of the temperature.

It is not often acknowledged, but in order for Millers amino acids to stay intact he had to create a trap for them and remove them from the very environment he engineered to create them.

This seems to rule out the prebiotic soup or even the idea that life originated at the hot thermal vents in the oceans. Don't forget that the genetic code also has to be protected in a protein based membrane that is itself an engineering marvel.

I know it customary to gloss over these irritating details and just say, "well it must have happened because, here we are!" But that is not intellectually honest.
edit on 7/12/2012 by Sparky63 because: spelling & added comment
edit on 7/12/2012 by Sparky63 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by xXxinfidelxXx
 


It's not so much that Darwin be proven wrong.

Darwin's hypothesis was that of natural selection being able to create hereditary differences so great as to generate entirely new species.

The process of natural selection is about as close to factual as you can get.

Now - I would imagine that the process of creating a new species is actually much more rapid than initially proposed by the theory. I would postulate that genetic variation would build up in a population over time - random mutations develop and propagate without any real benefit or detriment (spare for cases of sexual selection). When members of this species are then subjected to environmental shifts (be it external or due to migration), mutations that give benefits rapidly "collapse" into successful populations that leads to a genetically distinct species after a relatively short process (geologically speaking).

Though it doesn't really address cases of irreducibly complex cellular and organ structures that are difficult to imagine being evolved - it does provide a mechanism for some of the rapid changes we see in the fossil record.

The real issue comes in when you start getting into the origin of life and a number of the systems it currently operates off of. Many of these express a feature known as irreducible complexity (at some level). Even the 'simple' relationship between DNA and RNA (simple in that RNA can theoretically serve as the basis for simple life forms without DNA) is difficult to conceptualize as an evolutionary process.

Begin adding in metabolic factors as well as the supporting cellular structures - and you're presented with not merely a complex system - but an intricate system that is highly dependent upon key factors being in existence.

It is very well possible that forms of life existed before what we commonly identify as life - forms that metabolized sulfur, sodium, or other highly reactive compounds at an earlier time (and have since gone extinct). What we recognize as life could have been the product of a system that began long before the earth cooled, and is nearly impossible for us to envision; but none-the-less essential to resolving the issue of life's origins.

Or - hell - life could have started somewhere else (which only displaces the question of how it started in the first place) and somehow got transported here via meteor, comet, etc.

Or dimension-shifting aliens came and made life... or we made life by existing in the present (and the past is merely a product of super-position collapse - IE - no definite past, only an inferred possible past, the details of which unimportant to the fact that the current state exists).

Or one could make the argument that "the force" guides the universe in some way as to produce higher-than-statistically-expected rates of 'abiogenesis.'

Or that it all happened by pure chance (surely - amongst all the observable universe - even that remote possibility should happen somewhere, and our presence would argue that - if such is the case; we're where it happened).

I just like to be conscious of the fact that there's no definite answer. I really never will understand what it is with most people and needing concrete answers. I get harped on about that almost all the time - people love concrete answers to everything... especially things that inherently have a lot of 'play' in the subject. "Are you ready?" ... That's an answer best given in retrospect - I may believe I'm ready - but be demonstrated otherwise, and often convey this in the context of my answer (much to the frustration of people around me trying to get a solid answer).

Curious critters, people are.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Well Aim64C was a little all over the place there, but I'll fish through it and see if we can make sense out of this lot.

Firstly, I think one thing needs to be said for his benefit. The the fact that science at this point can not explain a phenomena does not mean it is supernatural or metaphysical.

The transition from organic molecules, amino acids and proteins to living cells is not understood. Up to this point organic compounds, amino acids and proteins have all been experimentally shown to be created through physical processes.

No one is claiming to have the answer as to how these molecules then evolve to a living cell. I'm fine with that, we'll get there eventually.

On the matter of plausibility, I question how one can find the notion of a supreme designer of all life more plausible than the origins of life being a physical process.

We know the building blocks of life form naturally, we don't know for certain how they become living cells.

I want to see some evidence/proof/theories about how this designer actually designed life. What process did they use? Did they make drawings, or just write down descriptions? What tools did they use to create life? Jars? Microscopes? Knifes and forks? Dilithium Crystals???

And where is this designer?! I want anyone to tell me where they think the great designer is right now. Is he in a spaceship or is he floating in another dimension?

What I don't understand is where people get the idea of a creator from.

I think that life is a physical process because I know all the bits that go in a cell, and what makes up those bits. I also know that the stuff that makes up all the bits can be made naturally, as a result of a physical process.

I think that life was designed by someone because...how would this sentence finish??? Please finish this sentence without saying "because you cant prove it wasn't" or "i cant explain how it happened therefore it must have been"


IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY

Irreducible complexity is an argument of ignorance. It asserts that a proposition (life being designed) is true because it has not yet been proven false.

Simply because we can't explain why something happens, is in no way evidence that it happens supernaturally.

Rather than using the argument of the lowest common denominator, use a positive argument. List the evidence in favor or your argument, don't simply say I can't prove mine.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Sparky63
 


Good food for thought. What if, however, these peptic sequences were formed on land somehow (like within a subterranean cave structure (there are many that are quite hot, like the Crystal Caves in Mexico) ) Is it not feasible that these protein structures could have polymerized into peptides within a high heat environment to an extent that they could create semi-permeable membranes, and then be dispersed by water somehow? (sorry for the run on sentence lol)



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by bias12
 


Actually, the idea of some omniscient being creating existence as we know it is now becoming more and more plausible scientifically, if not just mathematically. The odds of all this being real vs. being a simulation are a billion to one btw in favour of this being a "simulation" on some sort of "computer" (hope I'm not plagiarizing) Now with that in mind, what if "God" is really some sort of hyper advanced species that is using our "reality" to calculate the answer to some cosmic question, a la The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. I know it sounds out there, but math is the language of the universe, and I take the words of a theoretical mathematician over that of pretty much any other type of intellectual. Strangely enough, it mirrors the musings of David Icke and such, but it's too compelling to overlook.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
reply to post by Sparky63
 


Good food for thought. What if, however, these peptic sequences were formed on land somehow (like within a subterranean cave structure (there are many that are quite hot, like the Crystal Caves in Mexico) ) Is it not feasible that these protein structures could have polymerized into peptides within a high heat environment to an extent that they could create semi-permeable membranes, and then be dispersed by water somehow? (sorry for the run on sentence lol)


Well. the membrane would have to be able to protect it's contents from the water environment. In order to do that the membrane would need water repellant fats. But in order to form the membrane a protein synthetic apparatus, ie a protein synthesizer, needs to be functioning with complete and detailed instructions already contained in it's coded genes. The rub; none of this complex cellular machinery can function unless it is held together with a fully functioning membrane.
Once again we run into a catch 22 situation for which there is no satisfactory solution. The deeper we go down the rabbit hole the more challenging it is to rely on blind chance for the answers
edit on 7/12/2012 by Sparky63 because: spelling & added comment





top topics
 
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join