Life from a petri-dish

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]Has this new info culminated in anything different, i.e. maize become something other than a hybrid of itself.

This is a strawman. Evolutionary theory does not claim that organisms stop being part of the group they originated from. Sure; the descendent of maize will be maize; likewise, the descendents of cells are cells, the descendents of ...[text shortened]... What's 'genetic information'? How would you know if there were brand new genetic information?[/b]

Sorry ATY, I forgot about this one. Just a couple questions for a start:

When organic molecules like these are placed in concentrated enough solutions, they spontaneously react to form more complex organic molecules, such as RNA.

How does this happen?

Also, this theory sounds great, but why hasn't it been replicated in the lab?

Originally posted by Halitose
Perhaps I should have defined my "intelligence" better. How about a non-random sorting-process, which directly decreases its own entropy? By that definition a Protozoan would qualify. I was anyway thinking more along the lines of photosynthesis and chlorophyll, a process/molecule that forms the base of our food chain - did the plants just live off nitric ...[text shortened]... develop chlorophyll?

Ammonia is poisonous - this would decrease the chances of creating life.

Hey dude,

Non-random sorting-process... ?!? hmm, not sure what you mean here. Settling out of sediments would lead to a more ordered system, especially in a river / stream system where you have different currents that allow differential sorting of particle size. Of course, the energy input is from the water. Decreasing the entropy of a system always requires energy from somewhere...

Did plants just live off nitric compounds for the millions of years it took to develop chlorophyll?

Well, first this makes an assumption that it took millions of years to develop chlorophyll. There was probably some form of 'proto-chlorophyll' which wasn't very good, but good enough. Chlorophyll is a very catch all term, because multiple chlorophylls exist out there, each with their own specific wavelengths of light that they use. Also, there are two 'types' of chlorophyll a and chl b. Now, I need to try and remember this properly cos I always get it wrong... chlorophyll b is what we term 'antenae' chlorophyll that captures light and shuttles it to chlorophyll a, the 'reaction centre'. Now, within the reaction centre there are two photosystems, photosystem II which splits water and energises the resultant proton (H+) (and produces oxygen) and photosystem I, that takes that proton and boosts the energy again, which allows the biochemical convertion of NADP -> NADPH. Now, energy is produced in both these photosystems (ATP by PSII and NADPH by PSI). It seems likely that PS II evolved first, and PSI evolved as an add-on to power a C fixing enzyme called Rubisco. Rubisco is big and contains lots of N, and I believe Rubisco initially evolved as a N store, and acquired it'C capacity to fix C later. Oxygenic photosynthesis may have been around since about 50,000 years after the beginning of life.

Amino acids (the components of proteins) are so called because of their amino group (NH2), not really a great distance from NH3 / NH4+. SO yes, I can imagine that little change taking place, where NH4 combined with a C chain to produce amino acids.

As for what early life lived on, it probably acquired chemical energy by metabolising simple sugars and organic acids within the primitive ocean. The original 'you are what you eat' scenario.

Ammonia id poisonous...

True it is nowadays, at least to mammals! If we look at primary nitrogen metabolism in plants we see that ammonium is the sole way that N can enter plants


Nitrate --> Ammonium --> Amino acids
NO3 NH4 NH2

Originally posted by Halitose
Sorry ATY, I forgot about this one. Just a couple questions for a start:

[b]When organic molecules like these are placed in concentrated enough solutions, they spontaneously react to form more complex organic molecules, such as RNA.

How does this happen?

Also, this theory sounds great, but why hasn't it been replicated in the lab?[/b]

I think i covered why it hasn't been done before (in the 'I want to know why...' thread, i think)

Originally posted by Halitose
Sorry ATY, I forgot about this one. Just a couple questions for a start:

[b]When organic molecules like these are placed in concentrated enough solutions, they spontaneously react to form more complex organic molecules, such as RNA.

How does this happen?

Also, this theory sounds great, but why hasn't it been replicated in the lab?[/b]

The same way it happens in organisms now, except that there is no RNA or DNA template or enzymes to position the molecules properly and thereby speed up the process. The oxygen in the 3' hydroxy group of one NTP attacks the alpha phosphate of another. It's much slower with no enzymes or templates because the molecules have to bump into each other with the right end hitting the right end, but it happens.

Why hasn't it been replicated in the lab? No one has bothered to fund it I imagine. I don't know if anyone is doing this sort of work; I certainly haven't heard of anyone who's tried it.

*After a bit of research on PubMed and Google I've found the following:

A simultaneous synthesis of peptides (2-5 residues) and oligonucleotides (3-9 residues) has been carried out on caolinite matrix using amino acids and aminoacyladenylates as substrates. The rate of oligomer synthesis on mineral surface is higher than that in solution. The mechanism of synthesis has been described. The data has been discussed in connection with abiogenesis of two major types of biopolymers, proteins and nucleic acids.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2347997&itool=iconabstr&query_hl=4

Polymers could grow in solution but hydrolysis would limit the size it could reach...in the laboratory polynucleotides and polypeptides containing about ~50 units have been synthesized on mineral (e.g., clay)surfaces.

http://www.ozh2o.com/h2origin.html

So it looks like people are doing the work and that they are succeeding.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
The same way it happens in organisms now, except that there is no RNA or DNA template or enzymes to position the molecules properly and thereby speed up the process. The oxygen in the 3' hydroxy group of one NTP attacks the alpha phosphate of another. It's much slower with no enzymes or templates because the molecules have to bump into each other ...[text shortened]... om/h2origin.html[/i]

So it looks like people are doing the work and that they are succeeding.

Good researching skills.

I did mention this whole thing in another thread, but not with the nice refernces you cite. Good stuff mate!

Originally posted by Halitose
Perhaps I should have defined my "intelligence" better. How about a non-random sorting-process, which directly decreases its own entropy?

So basically you are defining inteligence as a decrease in entropy. You are then claiming that due to the Second Law of thermo-dynamics and the fact that the universe is a closed system then the Universe contains no intelligence.

You also seem to imply that life=intelligence. This does not make much sense as life is only one example of decreasing entropy. As I have stated before, decreasing entropy is taking place all the time, all around us otherwise we would expect to live on a uniformly smooth ball of mud. Are you claiming that the entire earth is shaped by life ?

What I and others in this thread keep pointing out is that the Second Law of Thermo-dynamics only talks about the total entropy in a closed system going down. It says nothing about local changes to entropy.
There is nothing 'special' about life when it comes to changes to entropy.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So basically you are defining inteligence as a decrease in entropy. You are then claiming that due to the Second Law of thermo-dynamics and the fact that the universe is a closed system then the Universe contains no intelligence.

You also seem to imply that life=intelligence. This does not make much sense as life is only one example of decreasing entro ...[text shortened]... hanges to entropy.
There is nothing 'special' about life when it comes to changes to entropy.

So basically you are defining inteligence as a decrease in entropy. You are then claiming that due to the Second Law of thermo-dynamics and the fact that the universe is a closed system then the Universe contains no intelligence.

Strawman. You seem miss the difference between absolute scientific fact, and the evidence given for or against a theory.

As I have stated before, decreasing entropy is taking place all the time, all around us otherwise we would expect to live on a uniformly smooth ball of mud. Are you claiming that the entire earth is shaped by life ?

Please try and keep our timeframe to the supposed billions of years ago, when life "came from a petri-dish". You keep refering to current conditions, when current conditions are impossible for life to spontaneously emerge.

It says nothing about local changes to entropy. There is nothing 'special' about life when it comes to changes to entropy.

Okay, read through the following link and tell me if you still stand by your statement:

http://www.ldolphin.org/mystery/chapt8.html

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]So basically you are defining inteligence as a decrease in entropy. You are then claiming that due to the Second Law of thermo-dynamics and the fact that the universe is a closed system then the Universe contains no intelligence.

Strawman. You seem miss the difference between absolute scientific fact, and the evidence given for or against a theory ...[text shortened]... and tell me if you still stand by your statement:

http://www.ldolphin.org/mystery/chapt8.html[/b]

I'm afraid this website is itself a strawman as you like to put it.

This gives the possibility of fully functional life arising from a precursory situation which is neither like the way the world os now, or what it was like when life did evolve.

For example, the author notes how unlikely it would be to even draw out all the letters, let alone assemble them in the right order to spell the sentence 'how did i get here' or something similar (I don't remember exactly, and can't be bothered to look). I agree. Most unlikely. But this isn't the way evolution works. Fortunately it's a rather good example they've chosen so it makes my life easier.

The wonderful thing about words is that they can be arranged in so many ways. The can stand alone like this. 'What?' Or they can be part of a larger sentence. But be very sure on one thing, when the english language evolved, these words evolved seperately of each other. The sentence 'how did I get here?' did not evolve; it's just made up of parts that did. Likewise, the long DNA strands that we have today probably represent the consolidation of many many short stands during the evolution of life.

Let's do a little thought experiment. Let's take the simplest alive / dead thing there is, a virus. Now viruses fall somewhere between alive and dead. They have some, but not all the properties of being alive (proto-life?). They have a protein coat (made by their host cells transcription / translation machinery) and DNA, and that's about it. Modern viruses need a host cell to reproduce and to produce the protien coat. Now the protein coat essentially protects the DNA, and decreases the chances of the DNA being damaged. But do remember, these are modern viruses which have evolved along with the cells that they use as hosts. If we go right back to a pre-cell time those protein coats could not have been produced, and the virus DNA would simply be floating around in the media. It would not have anything to help it reproduce that DNA, but that's okay, because it lived in a hot environment where small stretches of DNA could replicate spontaneously. When cells came along, some of these DNA molecules learned the trick of using a host cells DNA replication systems for its own good, and out competed the old non-host utilising protoviruses. The protein coat came later, as it provided the benefit (from the DNA's point of view) of reducing mutation rates.

Before you ask, any stretch of DNA doesn't 'want' (I use the term loosely) to mutate, but it is those mutations that have allowed all the variation in nature you see today.

It says nothing about local changes to entropy. There is nothing 'special' about life when it comes to changes to entropy.

Okay, read through the following link and tell me if you still stand by your statement:

http://www.ldolphin.org/mystery/chapt8.html[/b]

Originally posted by Halitose
Strawman. You seem miss the difference between absolute scientific fact, and the evidence given for or against a theory.

Well if I have missunderstood your possition then please elaborate as you keep talking about the second law and the universe as a closed system but do not explain what that means if anything.

Please try and keep our timeframe to the supposed billions of years ago, when life "came from a petri-dish". You keep refering to current conditions, when current conditions are impossible for life to spontaneously emerge.

I can see no reason why life could not emerge in current conditions. Infact the conditions now could be better or worse but deffinately not impossible.

Okay, read through the following link and tell me if you still stand by your statement:

http://www.ldolphin.org/mystery/chapt8.html

Yes I still stand by my statement. I have looked at the link and it has a lot of false assumptions and very little science. It starts by discussing a definition of life which is completely different from most peoples definition.

Is this evolution in the clear, or what? Nature making selection through villain humans.

http://www.physorg.com/news5243.html

I was thinking about those chinese who ties dogs with barbwire and then start to skin the poor hound while it's alive to get good skin (apparently a skin with a bullethole in it doesn't sell as well). Will this lead to skinless dogs in the end? The poor things.

---

Oh, and before anyone starts blaming those horrible chinese for doing these things, I want to point out that the real villains here are those fat capitalistic pigs owning companies making money on creating clothes off these skins. The chinese worker does what he has to, to survive. The capitalist is only interested in a greater profit. And the dog has to suffer his last five or ten minutes of his miserable life. Yeah, the world is a good place to be in (unless you're not a capitalistic pig, that is).

[Edit: of course, in the end, the responsibility lies on the shoulders of the people buying those clothes.]

---

Oooops! Went a little off-topic here, eh?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I'm afraid this website is itself a strawman as you like to put it.

This gives the possibility of fully functional life arising from a precursory situation which is neither like the way the world os now, or what it was like when life did evolve.

For example, the author notes how unlikely it would be to even draw out all the letters, let alone asse hose mutations that have allowed all the variation in nature you see today.

Oh no! Did I miss out on the chance to lay the smack down on a IDiot/Cretonists special numbers problem?

This is where I think Hal and Col and the others can be pretty disingenious. Ihave demonstrated to them several times why examples like these cannot be a applied to an evolutionary process. I even think the last one dj2becker linked to actually had their math wrong!

Edit: Now that I've looked over the article, I don't think Hal was being disingenous at all. He may not have even realized that such a numbers game was embedded in the text. If you're not reading closely, you'd probably miss it.

Originally posted by stocken
[Edit: of course, in the end, the responsibility lies on the shoulders of the people buying those clothes.]

---

Oooops! Went a little off-topic here, eh?[/b]

Similarily, if there were ANY market for videos of, say, Chinese babies being beheaded, those making the video possible would be totally exonerated, as it was the capitalists who made them do it?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Similarily, if there were ANY market for videos of, say, Chinese babies being beheaded, those making the video possible would be totally exonerated, as it was the capitalists who made them do it?

Of course!

Just like a soldier is completely exonerated from mass-murder charges. It's the commando who gets punished. Here, the capitalist is the commando. (S)he has the power to change things, yet choose to make more profit on other peoples (and animals) suffering. There's no getting away from responsibility for the capitalist. The worker, I suppose, could say no to the work, but that would leave him and his family in total misery, leading to a gruesome death of starvation and cold. What would you do? Die? I'd admire that, but I find it hard to believe.

Originally posted by stocken
Is this evolution in the clear, or what? Nature making selection through villain humans.

http://www.physorg.com/news5243.html

I was thinking about those chinese who ties dogs with barbwire and then start to skin the poor hound while it's alive to get good skin (apparently a skin with a bullethole in it doesn't sell as well). Will this lead to skinless ...[text shortened]... ders of the people buying those clothes.]

---

Oooops! Went a little off-topic here, eh?

The dogs might end up with unpleasant, ugly, useless skin (to humans), but they'll have skin almost certainly!

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
The dogs might end up with unpleasant, ugly, useless skin (to humans), but they'll have skin almost certainly!

Well, then. No harm done. Guess the dogs will just have to learn how to sew their own clothes and all will be fine.

Actually the reason elephants without tusks are increasing is because man is shooting down those who carry the genes for tusks. Isn't there a japanese breed of dog without a furry skin (naked dog)? I think there is. So, those will be the only dogs left then? In China? Hmmmm...

Still, I consider this to be evolution in the making. Challenge me if you will or forever hold your peace.