For the alternative theorists:

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Does it say exactly that, or that primordial life was transported to Earth, and/or the ingrediants of the chemical soup, or some additive necessary to get life started was transported to Earth.
I see both being covered by the terminology.
Or are they both variations of Panspermia?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How is chirality a factor in abiogenesis? Both types of organisms can start to assemble under the same external conditions regardless of what is the ratio between L and D proteins in the environment, isn't that right? And didn't we already explain with evolution why we would only see left-handed amino acids in proteins of today?

It's not just that one population dies off more likely due to some initially small imbalance, it's that larger population produces more of their own chirality molecules as byproduct of their existence, thus magnifying the effect. The genocide of right-handed amino acids would have happened at exponential rate, pretty quickly in terms of thousands of years I'd guess.

Billions of tons of protein arrived to Earth riding on meteorites? C'mon, the Earth had everything it could ever wish for to create you and me having this conversation, and that's exactly what she intended to do, apparently. We are both just puppets, slaves to our cells, molecules and atoms. These little vampires are riding us from the inside, controlling us like a Nintendo.

Is there any question that abiogenesis can not with equal success assemble organisms of both chiralities? Is there any question that it could not have easily been the other way around so that right-handed amino acids won the battle over the Earth? In other words, do we expect that alien lifeforms on other planets similar to our planet would also use left-handed amino acids or do we believe the chance is really 50-50% for either one. Isn't there also a chance there could be mixed ratio of both chiralities on a single planet?

Can you really say there can not exist such enzyme that could break apart either chirality molecules and still continue to function as usual? What if there was an organism that utilized both chiralities in its design and functionality so it could live in either type of environment equally well? Or how about two organisms of different chirality forming a symbiotic relation and eventually merging into a single organism utilizing both chiralities?

But new left-handed amino acids are created from simpler molecules or atoms somewhere in consumption/digestion process, right?

I didn't know about it before you told me, and I couldn't imagine the effect would be so drastic, so I find it very interesting.

 

We did create life out of inorganic materials. It created itself to conserve the energy of the system, just usual action-reaction and paths of the least resistance. You just don't like it because it's artificial. But if we leave it there for a few millions of years who knows what kind of animals would come crawling out of there, with their claws and fangs, and eyes, heaps of eyes.

 

I'm not arguing that point, I agree.
I'm asking is the definition of Panspermia, more than just the possible transporation of life.
Does it also cover in the definition, the transportation of chemically reactive stuff to make life.
I wasn't sure.

 

I'm talking about general logic and semantics, about a definition, rather than anything practical or specific. "Interaction" is always action-reaction based type of recursive system, the whole trick is to be careful about circular logic and falling into self-referencing contradiction trap. We can indeed say molecules control what atoms do, but we must not forget what molecules do is just an effect of what atoms do. It is important to separate what is action and what is reaction, i.e. direction of causality. So in that sense we can not say molecules rule over atoms because the initial action always comes from those atoms, or from within them.

 

it doesn't say on the site how you solved the racemic separation problem, or did i miss it?

i don't know.
all the "organic material" i've ever sat on the curb soon rotted into a smelly pile of goo and soon disappeared.
i would imagine the same thing would happen with a bigger pile.

 

www.allaboutscience.org/chirality.htm
the following site is froim a creationist perspective:
https://creation.mobi/origin-of-lif...oblem-is-magnetochiral-dichroism-the-solution

 

I have two textbooks. Brock Biology of Microorganisms and Human Evolutionary Genetics. One of which is just sitting on my couch right now. Ask me questions, I may engage in conversion and it may help me remember the scientific information better.

You linked a creationist website, that's the only reason for this post.

:EDIT:

I also have General Chemistry, Fundamentals of Physics, University Physics, but I don't think you care about calculus or linear algebra or whatever.


A creationist website? You linked a creationist website?

:EDIT:

Oh yeah, and I did your post before it got deleted days ago, it was not very impressive... Are you intimated by me and want want to dominate me?

(Maybe the moderators don't this EDIT but I... need some catharsis too. And if I provoke -it may help learns scientific information in my textbooks!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

 

i wonder what trippy would have to say about what the site presented.
did you even look at it?

yes.
do you dispute anything it presents?

 

I wonder if Trippy will take the time.

No, actually I don't. I doubt he will take the time.

 

Both chiral forms are equally stable and equally reactive, both can assemble the same stuff (only mirrored) with equal probability given the same external conditions. There is no any racemic separation problem, it's initial conditions or evolution problem, for abiogenesis it's all the same.

They are not rotting, they are in conditions where they are multiplying.

 

I have...

But anyway.....
To the first question, yes and no. Both governed so to speak by Abiogenesis and Evolution.
To the second question, no, the laws of physics were governed by conditions at the BB.
But like I said, Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we don't know.

 

pan·sper·mi·a
panˈspərmēə/
noun
the theory that life on the earth originated from microorganisms or chemical precursors of life present in outer space and able to initiate life on reaching a suitable environment.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
One argument that supports the panspermia theory is the emergence of life soon after the heavy bombardment period of earth, between 4 and 3.8 billion years ago. During this period, researchers believe the Earth endured an extended and very powerful series of meteor showers. However, the earliest evidence for life on Earth suggests it was present some 3.83 billion years ago, overlapping with this bombardment phase. These observations suggest that living things during this period would have faced extinction, contributing to the idea that life did not originate on Earth.
http://helix.northwestern.edu/article/origin-life-panspermia-theory
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""


My own preferential method is in line with the following "or chemical precursors of life present in outer space and able to initiate life on reaching a suitable environment."
Keeping in mind, that the emergence of life via various chemical reactions is the difficult [though obviously not Impossible] part of the process. Once that has been done, life will in most circumstances adapt, survive, spread, and thrive.

 

do you dispute anything it has to say?