For the alternative theorists:

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by paddoboy, Apr 2, 2014.

  1. humbleteleskop Banned Banned

    If the opposite forms are chemically incompatible that they indeed can not share the same food resources, then evolution can take care of it as you suggested and it is not a problem any more. Even a small imbalance, induced perhaps by sheer luck, could eventually propagate exponentially and turn the odds completely in favor of only one side. In any case chirality is not a factor in abiogenesis, any ratio will do.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. humbleteleskop Banned Banned

    You mean meteorites increased the number of left-handed amino acids? I find it insignificant and irrelevant. Abiogenesis doesn't need to wait for any particular ratio to begin doing its thing.

    I see. So there is truly no living thing on this planet that is built around right-handed amino acids, at all. That makes sense in the case of evolutionary genocide. So how about proteins found in oil and other stuff we suck out of the Earth, they are all made of left-handed amino acids, aren't they?

    Isn't it the point that they don't even exist in the first place?

    That's good, thanks.
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2014
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Thanks for the link. Very informative and instructive lecture on the origin of " cosmic molecular clouds", which can be scientifically demonstrated as a property of the earliest chemical interactions in several areas of the universe.
    It was the moment when everything happened all at once at the same place and then the cooling and ordering of natural laws to which THIS universe is bounded.

    We have been talkingh about living matter emerging from non-living matter.

    But before there was matter there was Energy. Raw Pure Energ (lke a stem cell) at every possible wavelength (string theory) combining to form more and more complex molecules through radiation.

    Actually, this function may have been used in the emergence of the "egg" as a fundamental protective cell in which life can develop undisturbed, which would be beneficial to egg layers (for awhile). Sea Turtles seem to have mastered a wonderful procreative scheme, which woked for millions of years. Then came the scavengers, and finally the predators. Now Tutrtles are a protected species. Still they cling to millions of years of family tradition that has served so well.

    It is a good thing we respect this communal tradition. All to often we do not.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. humbleteleskop Banned Banned

    So all our food is pretty much homochiral, fresh at least. What happens to chirality when the food is cooked or left to spoil?
  8. humbleteleskop Banned Banned

    So electrons and protons are molecules of energy, atoms are molecules of electrons and protons, molecules are molecules of atoms, cells are molecules of molecules, and organisms are molecules of cells. What is energy a molecule of?

    Or better question yet: what is the molecule of organisms? And do these "connectivity" chains ever stop or are there indeed some correlation even to a greater scale of the whole Earth, Solar system, and beyond? Is this is only abstract connection or actual?
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2014
  9. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

  10. humbleteleskop Banned Banned

    Would you say a human body is a symbiotic system of many different little organisms working together (for some reason)? What in the world they want from us, why are they doing it? Do we rule over cells in our body, or do they rule over us?
  11. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    @ Trippy,
    @ humbleteleskop,
    I hope that I am not "stepping on anyone's toes" by interjecting.

    The various specialized cells of the individual human body "work" in unison (the reason!) to maintain the viability of that individual human body.
    These various specialized cells are Not "different little organisms". They are produced by, and share the exact same DNA as most every other cell composing that individual human body.

    The human body has though, evidently through evolution, developed a "symbiotic relationship" with certain "little organisms" that aid in different processes that the human body utilizes to maintain it's viability.
    One example would be the bacteria(little organisms) that are present in the human digestive tract. They help to break down food and / or produce enzymes, that the human body does not produce by itself, that help with digestion. If my decrepit memory serves me correctly, they are mostly gram-negative Bacteroides.
    Incidentally, again if my decrepit memory serves me correctly, there are literally hundreds of different types(?) or species(?) of bacteria that are "hosted" by the respiratory and intestinal (as well as other) systems of the human body.

    Possibly/probably, "what they want" would be a place to call home.
    Possibly/probably, "why they are doing it" is the mutually beneficial continued existence of both members of that "symbiotic relationship".

    My personally biased, prejudiced and therefor predominantly Subjective opinion is that they "Rule over Us".
    My purely Objective opinion is that they "Rule over Us".

    If, and I repeat, If, we(as human beings!) "ruled over" the constituent cells of our body, we would theoretically have Zero problems with diseases, illnesses, infections, aging...etc.

    humbleteleskop, is not the ultimate aim of the Medical Sciences to usurp that "Rule"?

    Again, Trippy and humbleteleskop, I sincerely hope that I have not wrongly interjected my views into your discussion.
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    This is physics, so I would suggest to look up the definitions of electrons and protons and how "molecules" are formed.
    I think it is really neat that so many elements can be formed using just three components.
    This is chemistry: Organic molecules,

    But they seem to exist in cosmic "molecular clouds" before they "land on planets." Al the materials are already available in space. Assembly is just a matter of time.

    Read more at Buzzle:[/quote]
    There are physical limitations to the ability in which elements are able to combine into more complex structures by themselves. Usually a favorable environment must be present for chemical (re)action to be able to take place. Panspermia is based on that concept. Frozen comets delivering stabilized compounds, which then become activated.

    But I understand the question of universal connectivity with "communication at a distance" and all that connectivity stuff. Bohm speaks of a Holomovement.
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2014
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    No problemo!
    I naturally found it highly interesting, informative and scientifically objective.
    I've always been fairly optimistic with my views, and I do believe [despite your bible belt ratbags in the US] that overall most people will be swayed by science, the scientific method and the peer review system that governs it.
    Like that old adage about "empty vessels making the most sound", its also mostly true that sometimes minority groups, when backed into a corner, and seeing their beloved mythical dogma being torn down, will cry the loudest.

    Science, facts, truth and reality[or at least as close to the truth and reality as you can hope] will in the end prevail.
    Simply because it must.
    I was once told that science is not primarily interested in truth and reality per se. They formulate models based on observational evidence and other data. If in that process, the reality and truth of the Universe is revealed, all well and good.
    In that regard, I see Evolution and Abiogenesis as close to the mark.
    You raised the fact that before there was matter, there was energy. Spot on. Simply put, at one stage, matter just could not exist.
    It gives me the imputus to again raise Sten Odenwald's explanation below......
    " Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation."

    That just about sums it up.
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    I've made it quite clear, I am attracted to Panspermia, and like humbleteleskop I see it as a natural logical consequence that the Universe is full of life at various stages of evolution, due to the near infinite extent, the near infinite content, and the stuff of life being everywhere.
    The greatest miracle one could ever imagine, would be that we are indeed alone.
    Why hasn't contact been made? Simply put, time and distance.
  15. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Are you deliberately goading the readers, or did you flunk out of science? If you take a word like "molecule" which you should have learned in the 5th grade, and mangle it like this in a science thread, how do you expect people to react? Why not just use words in their plain meaning?

    You seem to be laboring over the concept of quantization. As you should know the quanta of energy are tied to the principal quantum number for the shell of the electron in question. If you don't understand that, just ask. There are plenty of people who encountered it in high school and/or first year college chemistry.

    You seem to mean "cell". But why are you speaking so obtusely on this well understood topic of science? Did you never go to school?

    That makes no sense. The reasons particles condensed in the first place has to do with the Big Bang. They are based on instrinsic properties of nature (such the principle quantum numbers and a veritible plethora of other physical laws). The reasons metazoans (multi-celled organisms) evolved from monocytes (independent single celled organisms) was because of principles like economy of scale. If you want to figure out how monocytes started living cooperatively I suggest you review Volvox (from high school Biology). I also suggest you investigate intercellular signaling which is the precursor to cooperation, and the evolution of new characters, such as cell specialization. But I guess that's all science, so it may bore you. But that seems to be the area of science you are questioning. Cells didn't start specializing because of a "grand plan". They do so as a matter of chemical interactions, and the benefits to adapt to the niche, as a systemic consequence of evolving such traits. But once that character evolved, it set the stage for the development of the huge diversity of life that emerged in the Cambrian explosion (another subject you should learn about).
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Just a tid-bit

    Time (duration) can only be recorded at the end (completion) of an event, so time is always running behind unfolding reality.
  17. leopold Valued Senior Member

    miller-urey already did that.
    they got amino acids, a racemic blend of them.
    it's impossible for life to arise under such conditions unless some kind of "filter" removes the offending acids.
    i am not aware of any other "simple" lifeform except the living cell.
    these other objects, like what is presented on the site you linked to, should be called "pseudolife" and/or "pseudocells"
    what is represented on the site does not portray what is found on earth.
    earth life is DNA based.
  18. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    no, think about this.
  19. humbleteleskop Banned Banned

    And so it would seem. But could it ever be any other way, what does it take? Solar system can never rule over it planets, it's the planets that define the solar system. Solar system may perhaps think it's ruling over itself and its planets, but it would be only an illusion.

    Stop that, it's distracting because it's unnecessary. Besides, it's more interesting when we all misinterpret and hate each other.
  20. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    I'm generally of the opinion that any individual is free to respond to any post regardless of whether or not it was directed at them. If you think about it, it's kind of a neccessity to encourage thread participation.

    For the most part, I don't disagree with anything you have said here, it's along the same lines of the response I was formulating.

    There are two things I would, however, add to what you have said here.

    1. The first one is that in recent years it has become increasingly recognized that we have an important symbiotic relationship with our bacterial biome and that our bacterial biome has evolved with us. I know this doesn't directly relate to the question as it was specifically phrased, but it seemed worth mentioning regardless that although the answer was no, the human body does maintain symbiotic relationships with single celled organisms.

    2. I'm fairly sure that there is a hypothesis that suggests that some of the specialist organelles in both animal and plant cells started off as single celled organisms that entered into a symbiotic relationship where one of the partners evolved towards specialization and the other evolved towards generalization. The hypothesis, I think, is that, for example, mitochondria and chloropasts were originally single celled organisms that entered into symbiotic relationships with other cells. The cells they entered into these relationships with evolved towards being plant or animal cells while they evolved towards becoming the specialized structures we observe today. An analog to this might be the relationship between male and female angler fishes (at least, I think it's angler fishes).

    I'm not sure I disagree with any of this either.
  21. humbleteleskop Banned Banned

    The question was indeed philosophical rather than related to physics, but the mechanics of it and interactions involved are obviously very physical, real and actual. Let me rephrase it. Laws of energy define what electrons and protons do, laws of electrons and protons define what atoms do, laws of atoms define what molecules do, laws of molecules define what cells do, laws of cells define what a human body does, and thus cells rule over us. It goes all the way down, so it's true that laws of energy rule over us, or we could say laws of atoms, or laws of molecules rule over us, it's always true.

    But it only goes one way. We can not say the laws of atoms define what electrons and protons do, we can not say laws of molecules define what what atoms do, we can not say laws of cells define what molecules, or atoms, or electrons, do. We can never say that a "collection" rules over its parts, it's always the parts that rule over its collective self. Could it ever be the other way around, and what does it take?
  22. leopold Valued Senior Member

    apparently belief would allow such a thing.
    the placebo effect is a prime example.
  23. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    They're not chemically incompatable, they're biologically incompatable. This is an important point to understand.

    Diasteromers are perfectly stable and the only limitation on their formation is steric hinderances, however, the same limitation applies to all molecules. Remember I gave you the example of Threonine?

    Right, but the problem is evolution permits the existence of mutually exclusive biomes. Chirality is a factor in abiogenesis, and solving the chirality problem is one of the areas of active research. One of the things you will learn as you progress your education in science is that sometimes the answer is "I don't know, but here are some likely possibilities consistent with the evidence."

    Part of the problem with discussing abiogenesis and evolution is that there are some questions we may never know the answer to because the evidence either was never preserved in the first place, or has subsequently been destroyed - the best we can hope for is that it simply has not been found yet. That it's still waiting on a geology student somewhere to pick up a rock and utter those infamous words "Huh, that's odd..."

    There are two ways that earth could have gained amino acids. The first one is they were formed locally, the second one is that they were formed remotely and delivered to earth in its remote past.

    The actual truth of the matter, in my opinion anyway, is that the truth is probably that earth was manufacturing its own amino acids, and there was a load delivered to the earth by meteorites and comets at the same time Earths supply of water was delivered. The evidence suggests that this mixture was heterochiral. Whether or not it was heterochiral enough to give rise to the homochiral biome we see today is a seperate question that needs to be addressed. We may yet find that there was a chiral substrate of some kind involved - quartz being an example of this.

    To the best of my understanding, your stance places you in opposition to the mainstream stance.

    More or less - some bacteria use right handed alanine in their cell walls to strengthen them - any of the ones IIRC that penicillin works on (eg E. coli), however, the handedness of their DNA and everything else is the same as ours.

    My recollection is that although oil contains biomarkers those biomarkers are not proteins. Proteins would denature under the conditions required for the formation of oil.

    The issue of chirality means they don't eat the same food because digestion involves enzymes and enzymes have a handedness, and even if they could the amino acids they extracted would be unusable.

    Digestion does not racemise amino acids. If it did we'd need to eat twice as much. Converting one enantiomer into another is a chemical rearrangement, not a physical one.

    Do you think that right handed DNA can combine with left handed DNA? And I suspect that if you injected yourself with blood based on right handed amino acids that your body would think it was foreign material and your immune system would react to it as such.

Share This Page