Chemical Evolution in the Early Ocean

I brought this subject up on another thread and present it here in an expanded form.

In order for life to form there must be large oceans of water upon the planet. This is a necessity for chemical evolution. Once there were large oceans upon Earth with small stable molecules dissolved in them, like dissolved carbon dioxide, et al, the sunlight falling upon the molecules would energize them by exciting an electron to an upper orbital; thus making them able to form more complex molecules by combining together in spite of their entropic tendency to fall apart or become oxidized. As more and more complex molecules formed in the vast oceans (which were shallower and more expansive in the early part of Earths history), by pure chance forms that could absorb light with higher and higher efficiencies and catalyze reactions that formed molecules that were precursors to themselves formed. The “pure chance” of this necessitated large oceans so the chance of this happening would be likely. Once such light absorbing catalyzing chemicals formed, they multiplied forming their precursors and mutually supplying each other the lesser molecules to form the higher molecules. In effect the entire ocean become like a giant primitive cell. At one point porphyrin rings formed and were the most successful of this type of self replicating molecule. Porphyrin rings complexes became more and more advanced until self contained cells formed with porphyrin rings as the light absorber. At this point it was every cell for itself and classical evolution began. Porphyrin rings are found in all forms of cellular life. Porphyrin rings are our most ancient ancestor, the most notable example being chlorophyl. This process of chemical evolution necessitates a large ocean of water. Any life in the universe must be carbon based and it must have chemically evolved in a large ocean of water. Any planet with life upon it must be a watery planet like our own.

Continuing with the subject of early evolution, light absorbing porphyrin rings became encased in molecules that are hydrophobic on one end and hydrophilic on the other. Such molecular groups are called micelles. Amino acids incorporated into the wall of the micelle. Again they are a chance occurrence of photon-catalytically created molecules. Amino acids are polar and easily combine into the wall of a mycell. In the next step of chemical evolution, these amino acids became peptides associated with the energy absorption of the porphyrin ring and helped to catalyze chemical reactions. Gradually they evolved into the protein enzymes we know today. As these porphyrin-protein micelles evolved, ribonucleic acid (RNA) became involved and became the catalyst for the formation of proteins. And, it evolved into the genetic material of these early cells. At one point all cellular life in the early oceans was RNA genetically based. As the presence of ribonucleic acids increased in the oceans, deoxyribonucleic acids occurred by chance (Please remember chancy occurrences are the foundation of evolution.) and slowly found a place in the evolving RNA cells as their templates. And as you can see, it slowly replaced RNA in the information bearing role of RNA to become the genetic material of life. At this point we leave the realm of chemical evolution with a grand ocean of cells that evolved into the life of today.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Entropy is not a "tendency to fall apart". And what does oxidation have to do with entropy?

"Chance" is not a factor in chemistry. A given set of reactants, under a given set of conditions will give a highly predictable set of products.

Why are you stuck on light only? What about other energy souces, such as electrical discharge?
And what has efficiency got to do with it?

What the hell are "molecules that were precursors to themselves"? Are you your own grandfather?

Are oceans really necessary? Hasn't evidence of "chemical evolution" been found on mereorites?
And chance is not a factor.

Gibberish.

WHAT??

(By the way, stick to a more civilized font/size/color. The scream-at-the-top-of-your-lungs approach doesn't reinforce your position.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Erring Flatley sent me this private message:

"Hello Sideshowbob, The mafia consider me an enemy and have done their best to destroy my life. Your actions are an example of how they have worked to destroy my intellectual efforts. You are one of them and are doing their bidding. Have a pleasant Holiday season. Mister Flatley" ​

I am not, in fact, a member of the Mafia.
I invite Mister Flatley to defend his views in public instead of making false accusations in private.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

He's obviously read some books about the chemical origins of life, but doesn't have a firm grasp of the more peripheral scientific principles that were presumably involved.

Too bad he decided to make his post huge and blue.

 

The fact is self evident. We will have to agree to disagree on the subject.

 

That's so surreal! Sideshowbob, I bet that's the strangest accusation you've ever faced.

 

And so out-of-the-blue.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It's not like we're arch-enemies. I've never responded to a post of his before.
Does he send a similar PM to everybody who disagrees with him? (Are there a lot of Mafiosi on sciforums?)

Erring Frequently:

Is that what sciforums is about? You preach and we listen? You make false accusations about anybody who disagrees with you? Is that the best you can do?

Get some balls and back up what you say.

 

Continuing on the subject of chemical evolution in the early ocean: When the ocean was at the stage of having a popuation of porphyrin rings, it was populated not by one species of porphyrin, but many. Each had an ability to enhance differing forms of chemical reactions. And, since how well it enhanced the formation its own building blocks influenced its own existence, there was selective pressure for evolution. But, other species of porphyrins used these building blocks as well. Many porphyrins were mutually enhancing in the chemical building blocks they made, while some were mutually distructive. Some porphyrins were capable of gaining energy by the oxidation of the organic compounds other porphyrins were producing. Selective pressures pushed for mutually enhancing porphyrins to physically stick together. Some groupings of porphyrins gained their energy from sunlight; some gained their energy from oxidation of organic compounds. It was at this juncture that we see the first distinction between the plant and animal kingdoms. The biochemistry of cells is dotted with porphyrin rings. The groupings of porphyrins in the separate species that we see today, is a reflection of the grouping of porphyrins that happened in the early ocean.

 

Erring, could you please answer the questions that I asked above? There's no point in going on and on when you haven't adequately explained the basics yet.

(By the way, stick to a more civilized font/size/color. The scream-at-the-top-of-your-lungs approach doesn't reinforce your position.)

 

(Dear Bob, I know you are a professional hecker for organized crime. You know you are a professional heckler for organized crime. And, the people who read this thread know you are a professional heckler for organized crime. Science is not advanced by heckling. It is destroyed by heckling. Please have a happy holiday. Sincerely, Mister Flatley)

 

>>>> And, the people who read this thread know you are a professional heckler for organized crime.

i didn't know that!

;-)

 

There doesn't seem to be a stampede of discussion on this thread, so I don't know if anybody else is reading it. If they are, I'm sure they can tell who's a "professional heckler" and who needs to adjust his medication.

Science is advanced by asking questions and by answering questions. If you can't answer simple questions, you probably just don't know what the @#$% you're talking about.

Thanks, but we had our Thanksgiving more than a month ago. We're way ahead of you Yanks.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(By the way, stick to a more civilized font/size/color. The scream-at-the-top-of-your-lungs approach doesn't reinforce your position.)

 

(Hi Boris, I debated with myself whether I should have used "most of" in that, but I thought I will use the high validity noncontinuous generality, since most of the people who use the site will understand it. Would anyone like to discuss formal logic in another thread? Much of the heckling in this thread has been over my choice of typography. I have chosen the typography I use because it is easier to read, not only for myself, but by the young who visit this site. Most of the writing here is within the grasp of an eighth grader and a type form that is more readable and more appealing to the young is appropriate.
We are being distracted from the designated discussion, which is what heckling is all about. May we return to the discussion of science?)

 

Erring,
Please forgive my insensitivity to your vision problems. I was not aware, and since you were posting in a normal font on Advanced Physics Forums a month ago....
I withdraw my objections to your font.

On the other hand, if you think anything you have written is within the grasp of an eighth grader, you're blind in other ways too.
Please dumb it down for the rest of us.

One of my teachers used to say, "If you can't explain it to an eight-year-old, you don't understand it." I suspect that that is the case with you.

Please answer my questions (you don't have trouble reading my font, do you?).

 

Hey, yeah, out of the blue, I got an email from Flatley, and contained this in it:

 

At least with a name like "Roman", you sound more like a Mafioso than I do.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(It's a good thing I changed my name from "SideshowVito".)

So what's the deal? Has he got a Rain Man thing going on, or something?

 

But I'm Polish....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Well that, and most of Middle Europe

 

Small world. My grandparents came from East Prussia - before the Allies made Germany give it back to Poland.

I guess we must be the German/Polish Mafia.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Shit yeah. Let's cockblock science.

 

Sideshowbob, et ErringFlately.
For a quick post I must inform Erring Flately that mainstream evolution theory has a much different picture, which doesn't make it correct. According to the mainliners it all started with one single identifiable organism that formed in some proverbial soup. For all that to occur to end up like it has is immpossible to determine, pick your own mathemtician. Think about how all the parameters would have to have been near perfect, whatever that is and the survival conditions woild also have to be perfect for a long, long time. There isn't enough time for this senario to occur. Prove it you may demand? No you prove it. My truth-proof modality here does require proof in thye way you may demand. Like I said, pick you own mathematician.

I can see a much more likely scenario that is, process wise, identical to te standard models. Billions of trillions of chemicals that sparked billions of times over where a pool of DNA type cjemicals were formed and, to make a story short, we look like mpmkeys, not from a common ancestral train, but from a long parallel but incompatible for mixing chain. Thee are enough molecules that are common to a huge numberr of species, monkey's and us diffee by what, a C-cytoo....?. Again, parallelism confined as it has to the limited number of species is best explained by millions of organisms form the get go, not just one, that is the root of modern evoluionary understanding.

A search backwackward through "chemical scxience" lenses confines analysis that will ultimately blind, one, which is always a problem unless your mafia benefactor has an excellent health care plan, which mine does by the way..

We must necessarily throw our scrutiny probes to the wind and see which one boomerangs a return with soemthing usefull. One intersting focus of attention is the Sumerian Civilization that made an explosive growth (circa 5000BC) at least from e condition of little mere spear chuckers with scabs on their feet, to a modernised empire with cities, educational institutions, law, medicine, religion , astronomy, (12 planets, including the moon and sun) and more. The increase was so rapid that those poor saps thowing rocks at fish in the river could not have, and would not have ever made it to the level of "sophistication" that it did by a process of evolution. At this date a mee 5000 years would have made no imperssion on the history books had the Sumeians were left to their own natural devices.

Modern genetic evolutionary models leave much to be desired, when certain "jumps" are being explained (but this isn't directly related o a justification for Sumerian cultural acceleration). Anyway, fruit flies from the same family were kept in identical environments exept for a fairly large temperature difference. After a few generations of fruit flies the ones living in the elevated temperature were found to be 20% + lower in body weight than those flies raised in more batual suroundngs. This was attributed to "genetic" variations in a way to justify periodic spurts of evolutionary acceleraton. After a few generations of the low weight fruit flies were in exstence the flies were returned rom the moree natural temperature spectrum, where in a few generation (each generationis approximately 1 year) the flies began growing in body weight each suceeding generation. An objection I have is the claim that the increase in body weight was "genetic" , which was aposite to central DNA dogma which claimed that DNA changes were not induced my feedback from their product proteins, so it make little sense to me that the genetic structure is so sensitive to temeperatue that the only observable change was a lowering of body weight.

Thee are at least two schools of thought that are being grossly avoided by our "top down" education system. (1) The records of the Sumeriasn which are pressed into millions pf clay tablets is strikingly close to some religeous writings of more modern time. The Sumerian tale has the basic configuration of near term explosive growth being coincidental with the arrival of alien colonists, one of which is quoted in the OT, saying:"Let us make man in our image." The use of the plural cannot be covered up with some concocted father, son an holy ghost scenario, as the speaker just refererd to was the one who ordered moses to take the land o Si'hon for his people, where moses, the leader, was ordered to kill every "man , woman and litlle child"., which qualifies that akien genetic manipulator for processing through a wood chippe, and (2) when one sees the sheer impossibility of human existence , referring here to only the birth process, is impssible when acountability is resticted to chenistry and biology etc as we eknow it. From the instant of conception there is no observed force structure that can in any way describe how the human oganism comes into the world as a formed and geometrc identical organism The odds favor, if anything, the arrival of a sack of birhting goo in a plastics bag. Some morphiccally resonant forces are apparently afoot. Quantum mechanical theory is beginning to look into, slowly, very slowly, 'locql/nolocal' interfaces where the unobserved meet the observed the nonlocal mixes with the local, PFM if you ask me, this is probably the source of the worlds oldest scientific question: what is the sound of one hand clapping?

Vito, a representative of my "benefactor" for something that she said was important, and isn't that just the way they always tell us why this and that has to be done?

Geiskiesel