The of begining life on earth
- Thread starter yaracuy
- Start date
So, you are using what we call a “strawman” argument. You are claiming to debunk something that isn’t current dogma in the first place.
Wrong again. As an example, Sidney Altman and Thomas Cech won the 1989 Nobel Prize for Chemistry for their work on catalytic RNAs. These molecules pay fundamental roles in theories of abiogenesis. Chemists and biochemists feature prominently in such research.[/QUOTE]
...............
Sr.Do you mean this statement:
RNA can also act as a hereditary molecule, which encouraged Walter Gilbert to propose that in the distant past, the cell used RNA as both the genetic material and the structural and catalytic molecule, rather than dividing these functions between DNA and protein as they are today. This hypothesis became known as the "RNA world hypothesis" of the origin of life.
It is a nice Hypothesis , but it does not say anything how Avg length: 114.50 nucleotides of the RNA was put together or brought in, This poly nucleic acid is made of some monomers . Then next question becomes how do we get the monomers. I don't have any problem accepting once we have the templet,
Wrong again. As an example, Sidney Altman and Thomas Cech won the 1989 Nobel Prize for Chemistry for their work on catalytic RNAs. These molecules pay fundamental roles in theories of abiogenesis. Chemists and biochemists feature prominently in such research.[/QUOTE]
...............
Sr.Do you mean this statement:
RNA can also act as a hereditary molecule, which encouraged Walter Gilbert to propose that in the distant past, the cell used RNA as both the genetic material and the structural and catalytic molecule, rather than dividing these functions between DNA and protein as they are today. This hypothesis became known as the "RNA world hypothesis" of the origin of life.
It is a nice Hypothesis , but it does not say anything how Avg length: 114.50 nucleotides of the RNA was put together or brought in, This poly nucleic acid is made of some monomers . Then next question becomes how do we get the monomers. I don't have any problem accepting once we have the templet,
It really makes more sense that life come from an other planet with specie more intelligent ( advanced ) then we are , but the proposal of primordial soup in my opinion is a fantasy proposed by physicist or biologist , and i doubt it will be proposed by chemists.
How did that other intelligent species develop?
It's only reasonable that they would have had to develop on a rocky, water rich planet not too far from their sun.
Could we not think that there are some beings farther evolved then we are, Nasa is spending some money in trying to communicate with others beings in the universe ? If there are we could be an extension of them
But that only moves the issue one step backwards. If you admit that other species evolved, then it proves that we could have evolved. Why is it more likely things started evolving elsewhere? This is a perfectly good planet on which to evolve.
I believe we have evolved , but after the organism machinery put in place and is functioning, then we multiply , adjust to the environment and may change in shape provided survive .
Now let me ask : what happen when a cell burst , why the cell does not regroup itself and continue living , why does die ? All the chemicals are there , why life does not spring out right there ?
Because the DNA loses the cell machinery needed to produce what it needs to produce to sustain life. This question is the same as "why doesn't life arise from scratch now?", and the answer is that life already exists which can out-compete anything primitive, and also, the unique conditions in which life arose do not still exist. Without defense mechanisms, cells become food instantly.
Not all cells die when they get mashed up. There is a species of nematode worm, if I remember correctly, that has the capacity to reconstruct itself. You can put this little blighter in a blender, whizz it up, and as if by magic this little worm has magically re-constructed itself.
Platihelmintis it depend were you cut him will reconstruct , like a lizard it will reconstruct certain parts
Of the many reasons Nobel Prize winners Crick and Watson independently concluded life did not originate on Earth, was metal ores and non-metallic minerals.
The many organisms, most notably humans, require metals and non-metallic minerals in order to function. The most obvious is iron in human blood. Iron doesn't really pose a problem for two reasons, namely that it is very abundant and it is readily accessible.
It's the other metal ores and non-metallic minerals the human body requires that pose the problems. Some of those metal ores and minerals exist only trace amounts on Earth, or are locked deep in the Earth's crust and not accessible, or both.
So the question is how do you get access to something in trace amounts or that is deep in the Earth's crust (and often locked with other metals and minerals).
Crick and Watson concluded that life came from a planet where those metals and minerals were far more abundant and existed in greater than mere trace amounts and which were also readily accessible.
Crick supported panspermia. Link for Watson please.
The other question, of course is how did life/ we survive if these required minerals are "locked deep in the Earth's crust and not accessible"?
Surely it doesn't matter where life came from if the necessities for its continuation aren't readily accessible on Earth.
Mircea; Crick and Watson concluded that life came from a planet where those metals and minerals were far more abundant and existed in greater than mere trace amounts and which were also readily accessible.[/QUOTE said:It is interesting so far I have not had input in how to make nucleotide from organic chemicals, most people talk after the nucleotide were created or synthesized let say by God sense I don't hear other input.
Many trace elements we need are highly toxic in anything but minute quantities. I am thinking of Selenium, copper, bromine and iodine. A habitat rich in these would impart a speedy and unpleasant death.
The easest and cheapest way to produce nucleotides is to programme a cell such as a yeast cell to produce the specific nucleotides you want to produce. Doing it "By hand" through blending a chemical soup would be virtually impossible.
The easest and cheapest way to produce nucleotides is to programme a cell such as a yeast cell to produce the specific nucleotides you want to produce. Doing it "By hand" through blending a chemical soup would be virtually impossible.
It is reasonable to assume that neucleotides began simply and evolved into more complex structures over the millions and millions of years in the early history of life on Earth. It is possible that there may have been precursor neucleotide-like structures in much simpler organisms. How and why these evolved is open to speculation, but it seems likely the evolution of more complex neucleotides gave rise to significant survivability traits in the host. As life grew more fefined, more complex proteins and sugars would have become available for combination into more useful stuff and so-on. To me, the most interesting part of a cell is called the Golgi body. This is like the cells' mass-transport and post-office system, all in one incredible unit. Look it up, it's fascinating, and a cell simply couldn't do anything without it.
In the old times it was said they store fat, but now they say it have other functions , apparently proteine penetrate into Golgi body for some rearrangement.
Cow pox helped many milk maids avoid getting small pox.
Yes, but only as a side effect of the cow-pox infection. Of course anybody in thier right mind would rather get cow-pox than small-pox, but it's still an infectious disease, and it never meant to immunise anybody! Just our good fortune really.