Origin of Life - A New Concept

Then what reason does anyone have to think you're anything other than a nut?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hey! some theories are simply great, on some theories greatness is thurst upon them (by virtue of the MAN who says it). My theory is great, no doubt. I feel funny how you miss the whole point

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"Origin" of life I think is a miss-leading Title.


Peace.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In science, until sufficient empirical evidence is generated, the correct term is 'hypothesis'. If you wish to present a hypothesis, then great. However, a scientific theory is elevated to one stage higher. A hypothesis only becomes a theory when it is used to generate testable predictions, which are tested by novel empirical experiment or observation, and manages to survive the challenge.

If your idea has not yet been so tested, then I suggest you call it 'hypothesis'.

 

Hi krishnagopal,
My biology is fairly amateur, and applied clinically rather than biochemically, but I can't shake the feeling that your grasp on this topic is even less advanced than my own, and some quick fact-checking on Wikipedia (I told you I was amateur) seems to support this notion.

If my amateur understanding is correct, the RNA World hypothesis is not a Metabolism-First model.
A metabolism-first model is really a pre-replication model that suggests that in the right conditions, some chemical reaction metabolic cycles we see shared by all organisms may occur in the absence of any enzymes or nucleotide coding chains.

The RNA world hypothesis, as I understand it, is that there were RNA strands that were self replicating without protein enzymes; that the RNA strands themselves were the enzymes that catalysed their own reproduction.

There are several natural inorganic sources of energy, mainly solar and geothermal.

Some polymerized macromolecules in the right energetic environment tend to undergo reactions that produce more of the same molecule.
If some (even just one?) such molecule forms by chance in the right environment, then the likely result is replication of that molecule, right?
What 'drive' is needed?

No. That's not a metabolism-first hypothesis at all.
A metabolism-first hypothesis means that out of genes, enzymes, and metabolism, metabolism came first. I.e. that the start of metabolism did not involve genes or enzymes.

The fundamental idea behind metabolism-first is the suggestion that perhaps metabolism does not need any guidance or 'driving force'.
It's just chemical reactions that occur in the right energetic environment.

 

What am I missing? You've written a book and you claim to be a Dr. As such you should know the central role evidence,and reason play in science and you should know how to do it. Yet when I ask you to provide some evidence you're not a nut you say I'm missing the point? You left a comment on my visitor's page saying that one day I might get it. I get science, I do science, I am a Dr too (not the medical kind). That's why I asked you to provide some evidence, some reason other than your say so. Instead you say something which I utterly disagree with :

No hypothesis, much less a theory, is great because of who said it. Newton's work on gravity wasn't great because Newton said it, it was great because he demonstrated it explained so many things. His work on calculus he put to real world use, further explaining what previously could not be explained. He also believed in bible codes and alchemy. By your logic they are great because Newton, possibly the greatest physicist ever, said them. They aren't great, they are nonsense.

Every single famous scientist has gotten something wrong somewhere in their career, it's the nature of being human. As such canonising them to perfection is idiotic.

In all cases the theories weren't great because someone said they were but because someone provided evidence demonstrating they were. I'm asking you for evidence and you can't provide. Not only that you demonstrate you don't understand the place evidence has in science.

Are you really a Dr? Medical or academic? What subject?

 

Medical, it seems.
According to his LinkedIn profile, he has an MBBS (a double degree, B.Med,B.Surg) and an M.Surg, from the Sri Venkateswara University of Medical Sciences.

I'm currently studying an MBBS at the University of Qld, and the molecular biology and biochemistry involved is no deeper (less so) than that found in a B.Sc (Biol). So any authority that Dr Krishnagopal has in this field doesn't come from his academic qualifications.

Google doesn't have any hits on his book, except for spam of this thread's OP in a few forums and blogs.

 

Dear Sirs, I am sorry to have said that 'my theory is great'. Among many things I should'nt have said, this is one thing. I regret the mistake. It is true that No hypothesis is great until it is tested and proved. And I do not pass any personal innuendoes, it is hardly my place. It is true that I am a surgeon (practising surgeon) and if you consider this a disqualification to discuss science and a new hypothesis I have nothing to argue.

Again I am presenting my hypothesis in brief: My hypothesis has two aspects: one is the concept, and the other is an evidence-based thesis. I am presently describing a concept wherein I am describing the three fundamental properties of life, namely, reproduction, metabolism and awareness, and laying foundation to the idea that awareness (or consciousness or adaptive irritability) is most primary characteristic feature. This needs a sort of explanation, which presently I am doing. I have suggested that this formed the guiding force for all other cellular processes.

Now is my theory (the experiment): I have mulled over the question of origin (or generation) of this awareness. There has to be a seat for it to arise, is it not. At this age of scientific advancement you can NOT say that ENTIRE cell is responsible for this phenomenon. We know what a genome does, what cytoplasm does and other such details. We are also aware that membrane potentials are generated by the ionic disequilibrium. I have argued that this creates awareness and is responsible for adaptation and 'irritability'. My natural deduction was that primordial membranes formed first on the earth which acquired membrane potentials and generated awareness (the ability to show adaptive irritability) which subsequently formed (and organized) other cellular architecture.

When I propose such elaborate theory I must substantiate. But if one does not even consider my hypothetical concept as a proposition, it is difficult to convince him of any theoretical part of it. If anybody is willing to go any further I can provide the details of my concept. Or anybody can read it in my website - originoflife.in

 

You'll want to try the "my life is originated from god" hypothesis and try to re-arrange a new concept of the meaning of that partiular. Theories, assersions, and otherwise bunk arguements in respect to the creationist attempt aren't easy to choose from.

My idea would be to replace "new idea on the origin" with "new idea of creation". This thread is total trash.

 

Surgeons generally refer to themselves as Mr, not Dr.

Except you have no evidence, so how can the second part exist?

Nothing but baseless assertions and supposition. No evidence, no experiment, just claims. You say "I have argued" but you haven't argued, you've just stated.

That isn't elaborate, it's a short paragraph where you've used some buzzwords but you haven't provided any evidence, anything more than "I don't know what explains X therefore Y". If you think using a few technical words makes for an 'elaborate theory' then you're just naive. And it's not a theory, its an hypothesis. The two are different things in science.

Why haven't you provided all of this stuff to a journal in the form of a scientific paper? That's what I'd do if I honestly believed I had something worthy of scientific attention, as it would freely review my work by relevant scientists and it is a necessary step in getting your work to the attention of said scientists. In fact, that is what I did do when I had such work. That's what academics and researchers do. So why haven't you?

 

I've been told that's a UK thing. I don't think it's common elsewhere.

 

No. I have nothing to do with any creationism

 

All living beings are characterized by the presence of awareness (or consciousness, response-to-stimulus, adaptive irritability). This property is also the MOST primary requirement of life. Where is it generated? In what physical form does it exist?

Plants, for example, do show 'phototaxis' and also respond well to the surrounding changes. The problem is the time-scale. Their response is measured in days, whereas in animals it is in secs and mins. Moreover, consider plants ability to exhibit a variety of contrivances for cross-pollination. Is it not awareness. And don't some bacteria have flagella and cilia? Do they not respond relatively quickly when you apply noxious stimulus to their surroundings? Does it not qualify to be called awareness? That ‘consciousness’ exists in ALL organisms, but is expressed in more and more complex form as we move up in phylogeny.

A seed in its dormant form is also conscious. Is it not? It has kept its genome and its metabolism in its dormant state for an indefinite period of time. But the consciousness (or let us call it awareness) IS working in the background ALL the time, otherwise how does it KNOW that the external environment is conducive for germination?

If you analyze, it becomes immediately obvious that the SEAT of this awareness is in the cell membrane. Genome and genes cannot show this property by themselves, neither is the cytoplasm with all its ‘fixtures’. This property is to be mediated by the cell membrane alone.

In what form is this expressed? It is expressed in the form of membrane potentials, generated across the cell membrane. Membrane potential is the SINE QUA NON of life.

 

How does an ice cube know when to melt? It sits in the Arctic for decades, even centuries, and then knows when to melt! Ice cubes are conscious!!

 

When an ice cube melts into water, it is increasing its entropy (ice crystals have more molecular order than in water), which is very much in accordance with the nature. ALL NATURAL, SPONTANEOUS PROCESSES (OR REACTIONS) TEND TO INCREASE ENTROPY.

The peculiarity in life's processes is that it tends to DECREASE the entropy. It is a property sometimes called Negentropy (negative entropy). Life's processes defy nature in this way. (But, it is a bit complicated to know that ULTIMATELY nature wins over and entropy finally increases. where and how is another subject). A growing plant (a germinating seed) increases the molecular order (negentropy) by several times, in defiance of natural tendancy to decrease disorder (increase entropy). AN ICE CUBE FOLLOWS THERMODYNAMIC PRINCIPLE; WHEREAS A GERMINATING SEED DEFIES THERMODYNAMIC PRINCIPLE.

And also, a germinating seed shows several features of ADAPTATION (can we call it awareness?), whereas an inert ice cube follows its fate without a struggle.

 

There is no defiance of thermodynamic principles on the part of life. If you feel there is please state clearly which principle is defied.

 

Except when they don't...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

All processes, including processes associated with life and consciousness, result in an increase in global entropy.

Local decreases in entropy can occur spontaneously, eg water freezing.

 

This isn't Bishadi with a grammar and spell checker is it?

 

A local decrease of entropy can occur, in non-life processses also. But when snow forms that is due to a process of convection of air mass going in cycles called 'fronts', where heat EXCHANGE takes place. ONE IMPORTANT THING: ENTROPY MAY DECREASE LOCALLY DUE TO LIFE OR NON-LIFE EVENTS, BUT IT ALWAYS (always) ACCOMPANIED BY AN EQUAL OR GREATER increase IN ENTROPY IN THE SURROUNDINGS (OR UNIVERSE). So, with any event the TOTAL entropy of the Universe always increases. This point is illustrated below, in connection with a prominent life process of ecological importance.

In photosynthesis light energy is 'taken in' and this energy is stored in the form of carbohydrates. For this to happen the exited electrons transfer energy to the CO2 molecules, reducing them to carbohydrates. There is a decrease in entropy in these events - CO2 is less order than carbohydrates, which is against the law of nature. But what we have to consider is the conversin of water (H2O) to oxygen, where the entropy is again increased. This is how O2 is liberated from plants. The end result is an increase of entropy only.

When a house is built, there is an increased order (decreased entropy) in the form of masonary work; but is accompanied by pulverizing the nearest mountain, which again is increasing disorder. Another commanplace example: when we we cool our rooms with air-conditioning we naturally heat-up the surroundings.

 

Hardly.
I think you're seriously confused.