Abiogenesis: Life before evolution

Originally posted by nj2day
Are you serious? You're going to have me do cause and effect all the way back to the big bang?

you answered a question with a question though... in essence, you deflected my question by asking one of your own...

Q: Where did this rock come from?
A: I chipped it off the big boulder, at the center of the village.
Q: Where did the boulder come from?
A: It probably rolled off the huge mountain that towers over our village.
Q: Where did the mountain come from?
A: The same place as all stone: it is the bones of Ymir, the primordial giant.
Q: Where did the primordial giant, Ymir, come from?
A: From the great abyss, Ginnungagap.
Q: Where did the great abyss, Ginnungagap, come from?
A: Never ask that question.

Semantic Stopsigns

The notion of semantic stopsigns is interesting.

Aside: Hey R., hope you're well!

Hope you and yours have a great Xmas.

As Aristotle said, we have to stop.

My understanding of the question what is life is that we have to establish, create the answer. We will not find it in nature. In nature, as we observe it, all goes so smooth and we cannot see a definite border between living and dead matter.

What is important to know is that most theories are not 100% accurate. Still, science uses those theories as long as they are operational. That is the key to answering the big question.

It is possible, and probably the best, to use several definitions of where life begins, depending on what aspect we want to examine.

So, if we want to define mono cellular life, the closest comparison will be with the viruses - look for differences, the answer is somewhere there.

Intelligent life, here we might use more philosophical approach or we will get lost in looking for materialistic (chemical or genetic) causes of psychological or creative behavior.

... Realizing I have taken this thread horribly off-topic (apologies, nj2day):





Here's the abstract:

Charles A. Lewis, Jr. and Richard Wolfenden: Uroporphyrinogen decarboxylation as a benchmark for the catalytic proficiency of enzymes. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences; PNAS, 2008, 105: 17328-17333; published ahead of print November 6, 2008;


The magnitude of an enzyme's affinity for the altered substrate in the transition state exceeds its affinity for the substrate in the ground state by a factor matching the rate enhancement that the enzyme produces. Particularly remarkable are those enzymes that act as simple protein catalysts, without the assistance of metals or other cofactors. To determine the extent to which one such enzyme, human uroporphyrinogen decarboxylase, enhances the rate of substrate decarboxylation, we examined the rate of spontaneous decarboxylation of pyrrolyl-3-acetate. Extrapolation of first-order rate constants measured at elevated temperatures indicates that this reaction proceeds with a half-life of 2.3 × 109 years at 25 °C in the absence of enzyme. This enzyme shows no significant homology with orotidine 5′-monophosphate decarboxylase (ODCase), another cofactorless enzyme that catalyzes a very slow reaction. It is proposed that, in both cases, a protonated basic residue (Arg-37 in the case of human UroD; Lys-93 in the case of yeast ODCase) furnishes a counterion that helps the scissile carboxylate group of the substrate leave water and enter a relatively nonpolar environment, stabilizes the incipient carbanion generated by the departure of CO2, and supplies the proton that takes its place.

Yet another obstacle. Seems to me that abiogenesis, whatever that ends up meaning, didn't happen on Earth. Further, happening 'without a plan' seems exceedingly improbable, either/or but, especially if Earth was the site of abiogenesis... but maybe that's just me.



(edit)Hey, J.! Thanks, same to you and yours.

[edit on Tue Dec 16 2008 by Rren]

[edit on Tue Dec 16 2008 by Rren]

Originally posted by DangerDeath
As Aristotle said, we have to stop.

My understanding of the question what is life is that we have to establish, create the answer. We will not find it in nature. In nature, as we observe it, all goes so smooth and we cannot see a definite border between living and dead matter.

We have done pretty well so far. Although semantic stopsigns are an interesting idea, perhaps we could better see them as a placeholder.

I prefer the good old reliable 'don't know'.

What is important to know is that most theories are not 100% accurate. Still, science uses those theories as long as they are operational. That is the key to answering the big question.

Most certainly. Standing on the shoulders of giants - we keep asking questions and empirically searching for answers.

Intelligent life, here we might use more philosophical approach or we will get lost in looking for materialistic (chemical or genetic) causes of psychological or creative behavior.

I think some of the problem is that we get stuck asking the wrong questions, and I think that applies to consciousness. But time will tell.

[edit on 16-12-2008 by melatonin]

Found a blog post by Larry Moran on the paper I linked in my last post [here]


Two commenters seemed to disagree with the methodology (or, at least that's the impression I got but, it's over my head) I think the critique is along the lines of the ol' 'there's lies, damn lies, and then there's statistics'

Any thoughts, Melatonin?

reply to post by melatonin

I think some of the problem is that we get stuck asking the wrong questions, and I think that applies to consciousness. But time will tell.

The biggest problem imho is the way scientific data is interpreted. That one is often under pressure from political ideology.

I've noticed something I really don't like, a tendency to interpret human behavior as a direct function of a particular gene.
This kind of interpretation has a terrible effect because it deprives us of any freedom of choice and opens the door to classifying people from the moment of birth and putting them in specific social function. Very dangerous.

Things like: there is a gene for ethics, there is a gene for womanizing behavior, gene for thievery, gene for mathematics, gene for musicality, etc. Everything you do is predictable and can be neutralized in advance. Welcome to the world of Minority report!

reply to post by nj2day


Here we go...the standard response that evolutionists use to avoid how life developed from lifeless. "It's not evolution, it's abiogenisis." News Flash! The THEORY of evolution is fundamentally reliant on the factuality of abiogenesis, so like it or not, they are inextricably linked. You cannot have one without the other. Otherwise it's akin to explaining how dragons breathe fire without proving the existence of dragons.

Originally posted by DangerDeath
The biggest problem imho is the way scientific data is interpreted. That one is often under pressure from political ideology.

Don't really agree. I agree that scientists are humans who generally try their best to be objective. I think science works well, and it's not a major problem.

I've noticed something I really don't like, a tendency to interpret human behavior as a direct function of a particular gene.
This kind of interpretation has a terrible effect because it deprives us of any freedom of choice and opens the door to classifying people from the moment of birth and putting them in specific social function. Very dangerous.

Things like: there is a gene for ethics, there is a gene for womanizing behavior, gene for thievery, gene for mathematics, gene for musicality, etc. Everything you do is predictable and can be neutralized in advance. Welcome to the world of Minority report!

True, to a degree, thinking complex behaviours can be completely explained by single genes would be a mistake. However, behavioural genetics is a promising area in explaining individual differences. Thus, it appearsthat emotion regulation is underpinned by serotonin transporter genes. And for womanising, we could look to studies in voles about the genetics of vasopressin et al.

I'm sure there's more to the issue, of course, as we are a product of genes and environment.

Anyway, get yo asses back to abiogenesis, lol. I just wanted to say hi to Rren.

[edit on 16-12-2008 by melatonin]

We can as well be a dim picture in a rusty mirror.

Just poetry, sorry...

Found this in a folder I'd forgotten about

This is an interview of Jack W. Szostak discussing his latest paper: "Template-directed synthesis of a genetic polymer in a model protocell". It was published online by Nature, 4 June 2008.

doi:10.1038/nature07018
(.pdf) (Template-directed synthesis of a genetic polymer in a model protocell)

reply to post by speaker


No.. you are mistaken...

Evolution shows how biodiversity happens...

Abiogenesis shows how life came into existence...

I think its quite obvious life exists... and that is the only assumption needed for evolution to work... Are you going to suggest life doesn't exist?
zs
If we want to use this logic though... you're idea of creationism is reliant on a supreme being... care to prove that he exists? and how he came into existence?

two can use infinite regression..




[edit on 16-12-2008 by nj2day]

Originally posted by Rren
Any thoughts, Melatonin?

OK, years since I've thought about Kinetics, heh.

From what I gather, to measure the effectiveness of enzymes they need to compare the spontaneous and enzyme-catalysed reaction for a particular biochemical process. The enzyme-catalysed part is easy enough - they are pretty fast, and so it is easy to get reaction rates.

However, because some spontaneous biochemical reactions can take a long long time, they speed them up in the lab by performing the reaction at high temps. And then use Arrhenius kinetic equations to extrapolate down to normal temperatures.

So, this study has done this, but the problem the commentators appear to be miffed about is the extrapolation back to 20'C - it uses some assumptions (linearity) which may or may not be suitable.

The issue with the standard deviations might have allowed some insight into the variance for the extrapolation, which could highlight problems with the assumptions, I guess.

Finally, the first dude also points out they are making assumptions about taking data from a functional part of a particular molecule, rather than the complete molecule itself. Perhaps the complete molecule acts rather differently, perhaps not.

As he also notes (dude 1), even taking the compound as a suitable model and the method as acceptable, it isn't even that great an enzyme.

The second dude points out that it's more a case of a slow spontaneous reaction, rather than a fast catalysis. So, from that baseline, it looks more impressive than it really is.

Hope that helps.



[edit on 16-12-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Rren
You seemed to imply that there already was an "a)" which there isn't and I didn't argue anything like "b)".

We have a general idea of the way in which the brain functions, the specifics have yet to be worked out and the idea of consciousness is part philosophy anyway. Once it's actually defined succinctly we can set about explaining it.

Thanks for the link. Although, I don't see what it does to show that...
Which was what I commented on.

Simply to show that there's nothing supernatural or mysterious about the actions of the brain.

[edit on 16-12-2008 by SamuraiDrifter]

reply to post by DangerDeath

What I am saying is that "mind" is that force (which is knowledge) and that mind, or force, or God if you please, is what gives meaning and logic and rules,

"I want to know God's thought...the rest are details." - Einstein

"Nothing exist until it is measured."

Niels Bohr

Wow! It didn't take long at all for this thread to wander WAAAAAY off topic! I've only been gone a day! So much for abiogenesis! Everyone's so wrapped up in philosophical questions, the Big Bang, and the definition of consciousness that I don't know if anyone even remembers the original topic! Why aren't we discussing Strecker synthesis or the merits and flaws of PNA vs RNA/TNA/GNA? What about the significance of plate tectonics and tidal flux? Chemical gradients? Anyone? Can't we just ignore the distractions and carry on with a serious discussion here? (If there was a "shaking head" emoticon, I would use it here).

reply to post by X-tal_Phusion


Life before evolution - that is the topic.

How do you explain life?
How do you define life?

Can we attribute feeling of control to life?
God wasn't here for one day and everything turned to disorder.
God was absent, the result was chaos.
Does that ring the bell?

What was missing to spark the life?
A chemical compound?
Depending on the law of probability?
The idea of isolated system?
The idea of osmosis?
The little Demon picking his choice?
Is it present in matter?

Explain, please.

reply to post by DangerDeath


You forgot to mention Abiogenesis in the topic up there...

This is a topic on Abiogenesis and different theories on how that happened.

Theoretically, this shouldn't include religion at all...

Abiogenesis is a scientific discipline...

I thought "Life before evolution" was Abiogenesis...
Sorry if I was wrong.

If you think the problem can be solved without introducing our full abilities as humans, then I don't know. Maybe.

I have clearly identified God with the force or the metaphysical WITHOUT historical/social agenda usually attached to this symbol-word, which commonly causes repulsion.

In my opinion, the matter of life cannot be solved if we deprive force of sentience. If we do that, where do we look for sentience?

[edit on 17-12-2008 by DangerDeath]

reply to post by DangerDeath


Scientists get closer to creating a protocell in lab experiments with every major discovery they make...

They've done this all using the Scientific Method... No need to assume at this point that it won't happen... or that we need to add a creator to the equation.

Granted, it is going to take a while... We're talking about a process that may have taken a billion or more years... Getting as far as we have in just a few decades is moving along swimmingly IMHO.