chinglu's version of evolution and abiogenesis

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by chinglu, Jul 2, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    Mod note: This is a split thread from here.

    Most life as normally defined is possible after some stars have gone super nova to make heavier elements (mainly in thier shock waves) So certainly, I was only consideriing the planets of later than second generation stars as possible locacations of first life


    What does this mean?

    Don't you have to prove a viable electron transport mechanism in order to perform cell chemistry?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 8, 2012
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    I agree with some that life could have and probably did start on Earth

    what always troubled me was , why does everyone think that life on Earth was started somewhere else ?

    why mars , comets , meteors , but the Earth its self couldn't produce life

    what is the fundamental problem that Earth couldn't , on its own ,encourage life to manifest
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    "Everyone"? Did we wake up feeling a tiny bit hyperbolic this morning?
    There is no fundamental problem. There is no groundswell of scientific opinion that life could not originate here. Considering that we have not cracked the mysteries of abiogenesis yet, it would be a little premature to assert today that the conditions on earth were not quite right to support it.

    There is simply an intriguing possibility that's worth investigating, if we ever invent the tools that will make that investigation possible.

    At this point the most conservative, scientific conclusion to draw from the discovery of earth-like organic compounds existing elsewhere than Earth, is that life may have also originated in other places: that there's nothing terribly unique about this place after all.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Buckaroo Banzai Mentat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    333
    As far as I know it's a minoritary view that life came from elsewhere, simply for the sake of parsimony.

    What I think that may be more widely accepted though is that some quantity of the life's early building blocks may have been originated in space. Other than that there's just people noticing that the fabrication of such building blocks is more widespread than one perhaps could imagine, making the origin of life on Earth itself seem less exceptional.

    "Radical" proponents of actual panspermia are quite rare and fringy as far as I know.
     
  8. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    That's odd, I was called a crackpot in this very forum for proving the sulfur vents could not be the location of LUCA.

    In fact, I proved and can do it again, that LUCA must have originated in a cool environment based on the evidence by the genome project. The gene necessary for the survival in extreme heat shows up later in the evolution rrna chain.

    But, then that provides an impossible problem of proving an electron transport mechanism implement by either a sulfur or oxygen redox cycle.

    Without a stable electron transport implementation, one cannot perform the necessary chemistry required by any life form.

    So, we have the impossible problem of proving LUCA/abiogenesis.
     
  9. Buckaroo Banzai Mentat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    333
    LUCA, the first life ever, and protobionts are different things, or at very least not likely to be the same things.
     
  10. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    I was responding to FR and his correction assertion that there is no algorithm to prove abiogenesis.

    If you can prove abiogenesis, then you have proven LUCA.

    The problem with this proof is the following recent evidence.

    The adaptation to optimal growth temperature (OGT) since the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) over the universal tree of life was examined, and it was concluded that LUCA was likely to have been a mesophilic organism and that a parallel adaptation to high temperature occurred independently along the two lineages leading to the ancestors of Bacteria on one side and of Archaea and Eukarya on the other side.

    http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/9/2661.abstract

    As we can see, LUCA must have been mesophilic which requires a temperate environment.

    What is the problem with that?

    Oxygen does not occur free in that environment meaning it only occurs as molecules.

    You must have an electron transport mechanism in order to perform life chemistry.

    Currently, with photosynthesis, a photo electric material is used to generate electrons and the electron transport mechanism is then valid.

    Without free Oxygen, one cannot move electrons.

    That is the problem

    In other words, life's evolution in cold climates is as likely as cold fusion.
     
  11. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    I'm not much of a biologist so I wasn't really saying that. I was speaking more broadly, to say that we don't even have the science to build that algorithm. Perhaps I'm wrong. But once the science is in place the algorithm can't be too far behind--now that we're living in what is predicted to be The Century Of Biology.
     
  12. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    ´My statement you made bold is very clear. Perhaps you do not know that no elements in periodic table beyond iron can be formed in stars by fusion. Also only the very heavy stars can have final fusion stage product as iron. I don´t think our sun can even fuse the He it is currently producing. If it can, it that second fusion stage will surely be it´s last.

    No, All mechanisms that exist now existed long ago, so no need to prove the existence of very common mechanisms.
     
  13. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    What's wrong with the ones in the books?

    Pick a stage in the algorithm. How about RNA?

    As opposed to what ? Two or more "last uncommon" ancestors? Anyway, didn't your source "prove LUCA"?

    That certainly doesn't overturn spontaneous production of RNA in the lab two years earlier. I doesn't say anything about probiotic chemistry either.

    Could be. Now we have to wonder what that means. 100-200 ft from an undersea geothermal vent could be just about right.

    What is the alternative? Free O[sup]2-[/sup]? I'd hate to be there when it detonated.

    First you need to clarify where you are in the algorithm for evolution of electron transport chains.

    Why do you say "valid"? If anything, this just shows an exception to the next statement:

    Which seems less valid a statement than the one about photosynthesis.

    You pit the probability of cold fusion against "likely to have been" in your source above?

    Compare with this:

    If there is such a thing as a "first cell', who is to say where it came to together - underground, underwater, perhaps in the vicinity of a vent, a cave, where neither air temperature nor prevalence of atmospheric oxygen may have had much to with the "algorithm" of abiogenesis.

    I think there are enough "habitats" quite alien to us and yet certain life forms thrive there. In that regard I would suppose that life originated in another world, just not another planet.
     
  14. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    Sure, I know that within a star. But, it is less than iron.

    So, the reason we have iron is supernovas.

    So what?

    What point are you trying to make?
     
  15. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    You are correct, there does not exist a viable electron transport mechanism in the theory to support the fundamentals of life.

    In order for life to sustain itself (food), it must create carbohydrates.

    But, do do this, one must crack water and CO2 in order to create free H, O and C to construct carbohydrates.

    To crack water, one needs electricity.

    That requires an electron transport mechanism.

    Since the current consensus is that life evolved not in the volcanic vents but on the earth, then that requires some type of oxygen redox cycle to implement the electricity needed.

    But, at the beginning of life, oxygen is not free and only exists as molecules.

    So, it is impossible to find a reliable source of an oxygen redox cycle.

    See the problem?
     
  16. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    I am not going to respond to all this primitive noise.

    You may absorb my links and then respond based on the current research.
     
  17. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I told you twice already (posts 18 & 21) - You must be a slow learned or even a non-learner.
    You still seem to need to be told that life could not have started earlier, before "modern space" existed. So I again explained that life as we know it could only have originated on a planet of a second generation star after some iron (and heavier elements) had been produced. - i.e. in "modern space" and not earlier in the beginning.

    If you now agree that life could not have started before the modern universe existed, i.e. back when there stars had not yet formed, then admit your prior error and I will retract the statement that you can not learn. In any case, this is the third and final time I will try to set you straight.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 6, 2012
  18. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    If you now agree that life could not have started before the modern universe existed,

    Can you explain exactly where I made this absurd claim?
     
  19. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    In your post 14, which I just re-quoted in my post 42, along with you silly claim (made red now) there that back then "there was less radiation"
     
  20. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    If it's in molecular form, it's free.

    That's completely incorrect.

    The levels of oxygen in the early atmosphere were almost zero, until photosynthesis evolved. Since life existed before then, electron transport existed without oxygen. That there are extant forms of life that can transport electrons anaeorobically shows the above claim is just wrong.

    No, it has to be able to exploit a source of energy, fundamentally. Carbohydrates (sugars and cellulose) are made by photosynthesising organisms.
     
  21. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    I have been looking at the possiblity of life in our solar system originating on Mercury. "Life first started on planet Mercury - looking for biological evidence support"
    http://www.physforum.com/index.php?act=Post&CODE=06&f=27&t=29842&p=494564

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. wlminex Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,587
    My take? . . .

    Life likely 'started' when emergent patterns from the quantum were impressed (re" via Casimir Effect) upon water and organics (e.g., H, C, K, O, P, etc) occupying negatively-charged interstitial layers (1 - 20 micron spacing ) within clay platlets. Voila! . . . . RNA . . . . DNA . . . etc. . . . then evolution of same . . . .

    wlminex
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2012
  23. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    The Casimir effect is very weak and ONLY exists in the space between conductive (metal) plates.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page