How was protein synthesized from amino acids in the prebiotic world?

[Argent]

I believe the notion of Abiogenesis here on earth with no extra stellar seeding is as credible and as scientifically proven as is astrology.

I would not rule out panspermia. In its favour is the comparatively short time between the formation of the Earth and the appearance of the first life. However that could also be considered evidence for the ease with which life begins if the conditions are right. We do not, in my opinion, have sufficient data to distinguish between the two possibilities.

 

That said, regardless of where life began, we have several plausible mechanisms for all, or part of the process. If the next half century produces the same scale of advances in analytical techniques, field data and software simulation as the last half century I would be surprised if we had not got a fairly secure answer.

 

I think it unwise to use the present gaps in out knowledge for definitive speculation. By that I mean your proposal of deliberate seeding of the Earth with primitive cells by some sentient beings is plausible as a speculation, but sufficiently unsupported to be viewed as the most likely speculation.

[whoknows]

 

 

Are you ashamed of being a Creationist, then?

 

 

As I said, there is no point.

 

 

I didn't make either of those claims. So more dishonest Creationist tactics. Well done.

 

 

Yes.

 

 

You haven't mentioned any abiogenesis hypotheses, apart from Cretinist caricatures and straw man arguments.

 

And gaps does not mean "wrong".

 

The whole "I'm just asking" trick that people like you use is pretty dishonest.

 

All kinds of retoric in order to conceal the fact that you don't have an answer to any of my questions? Check!

 

That's the mirror I am holding up to you. I really don't care how you feel about me showing the assumptions we have regarding the appearance of protein on Earth need a lot of requirements. Every single requirement never observed on its own. Let alone the sum of these.

 

 

If the conversation had continued you would just have said "Well I have this book" Were you there, damn.. just damn... where you there? Was anyone there? How do you know... oh you have a book..

 

Are you clairvoyant? Then you are doing a horrible job. I have little else than scientific books and comics.

 

What does all this have to do with the questions I ask except show us you don't have an answer?

Oh, I have the ability to imagine all sorts of scenarios for Abiogenesis, thank you. Just as the atheist biologists who still have no theory on it. It's all speculation. As I said before. Nice try on accusing me of committing a logical fallacy of argument from incredulity, though. But it doesn't work, does it? Only works when you have a viable theory. You do not. You have not even a hypothesis for Abiogenesis. And....Sigh..I explained all this before to you in my OP. Which he nothing in it you can refute, btw.

 

I am happy to see at least some others who are able to see through the unscienfitic assumptions regarding the regular theory. Cheers!

[Strange]

 

All kinds of retoric in order to conceal the fact that you don't have an answer to any of my questions? Check!

 

 

 

So what? "I don't know" does not prove that your god did it.

 

 

 

Every single requirement never observed on its own.

 

Not true.

[whoknows]

 

A few pointers, simple peptides have found to have enzymatic reactions (less effective than large proteins but still) the same goes for RNA. There are various publications that speculate how relatively simple chemistry could lead to replicating molecules (such as e.g. Huber et al. 2003 Science). In that regard I have to ask, do you know the difference between peptide and proteins? And that enzymatic reactions are not exclusive to the latter? Other models include the formation of a peptide nucleic acids (see e.g. Nielsen 2007 Chem Biodivers)

 

Do you understand that having a dominance of one isomer over another is just because of selective processes (potentially before the first protocells were formed) and therefore is unlikely to be relevant at the earliest stages where both forms are likely to exist? You seem to be under the impression that only one form can lead to life, but that is clearly not the case. Or in other words, if in early stages there were both isomers, what would have precluded the development of replicating systems? Sure, we do not not with certainty how it happened, but I do not see a model that postulates that it must have started exclusively with one or the others. If you have evidence, feel free to present it.

 

And no, I do not need to present a complete model of all steps that may or may not have happened. Rather I would like to see that you propose something that has more explanatory power than we currently have. At least that would be educational.

 

 

"There are various publications that speculate how relatively simple chemistry could lead to replicating molecules"

 

I am not asking for speculations. I am asking for observations in nature and result from experimental studies in chemistry. Scientific attempts have failed.

 

Chemistry is unable to create protein from the molecules thought to have been available in the prebiotic atmosphere. Only amino acids and tiny amounts of simpler peptides have been found.

 

No protein.

No explanation for chirality/racemic mixtures of amino acids.

Than there's the protein folding problem.

 

 

 

"Do you understand that having a dominance of one isomer over another is just because of selective processes".

 

What is unavailable cannot be selected. Chemistry can only create racemic mixtures of amino acids under plausible prebiotic circumstances.

 

I am no asking about isomers and whatever theory you have about them or about peptides. Protein is what we observe so protein is what needs to be explained. Irrelevant at what stage of life/early Earth you assume it would have been present.

So assume your theory would be correct. There was simple peptide built from D and L-isomer amino acids. How could this have led to biologically functional protein built from L-isomer amino acids?

 

 

 

"Sure, we do not not with certainty how it happened"

 

Sorry, but we don't have an idea what happened. That's something else! Not knowing with certainty what has happened means there are several possible scenarios we have to choose from. There is zero scenario. Let's be honest about that.

 

 

 

"And no, I do not need to present a complete model of all steps that may or may not have happened. Rather I would like to see that you propose something that has more explanatory power than we currently have. At least that would be educational."

 

Agreed, you do not need to present a complete model of all steps that may or may not have happened. But science should have a large set of possible plausible scenarios based on both observation and experimentation.

What I want to make clear, is that there is no model. Experiments fail. Observations fail. Is there a theory or even a hypothesis when science fails?

I don't have an idea about how it could have gone as well. How could I?

 

 

Thank you for your time to give me a serious answer instead of the religion finger from people that get a Pavlov reaction when someone even thinks about showing them the flaws in their theory.

 

 

So what? "I don't know" does not prove that your god did it.

 

 

Not true.

 

 

"So what? "I don't know" does not prove that your god did it."

 

Only in your head. Only in your head

 

 

 

​"Not true."

 

So you do have an answer to at least some of the questions I had? Then please answer them:

 

Where in the non-living nature can we observe:

Protein synthesis?

Protein?

Protein consisting of laevorotary amino acids only?

Biologically functioning protein?

Amino acids/peptides in quantities sufficient to build protein?

Places containing laevorotary amino acids/peptides only?

The availability of all amino acids necessary for life?

Where in the non-living nature can we dump amino acids/peptides and show their synthesis to protein?

 

 

 

I know how you are probably going to answer. Giving me some personal retoric again. So you don't have to look into the matter. Am I wrong?

Just be honest and acknowledge that you don't have a clue as well. It doesn't make anything less.

Edited March 27, 2017 by whoknows

[Moontanman]

 

 

"There are various publications that speculate how relatively simple chemistry could lead to replicating molecules"

 

I am not asking for speculations. I am asking for observations in nature and result from experimental studies in chemistry. Scientific attempts have failed.

 

Chemistry is unable to create protein from the molecules thought to have been available in the prebiotic atmosphere. Only amino acids and tiny amounts of simpler peptides have been found.

 

No protein.

No explanation for chirality/racemic mixtures of amino acids.

Than there's the protein folding problem.

 

 

 

"Do you understand that having a dominance of one isomer over another is just because of selective processes".

 

What is unavailable cannot be selected. Chemistry can only create racemic mixtures of amino acids under plausible prebiotic circumstances.

 

I am no asking about isomers and whatever theory you have about them or about peptides. Protein is what we observe so protein is what needs to be explained. Irrelevant at what stage of life/early Earth you assume it would have been present.

So assume your theory would be correct. There was simple peptide built from D and L-isomer amino acids. How could this have led to biologically functional protein built from L-isomer amino acids?

 

 

 

"Sure, we do not not with certainty how it happened"

 

Sorry, but we don't have an idea what happened. That's something else! Not knowing with certainty what has happened means there are several possible scenarios we have to choose from. There is zero scenario. Let's be honest about that.

 

 

 

"And no, I do not need to present a complete model of all steps that may or may not have happened. Rather I would like to see that you propose something that has more explanatory power than we currently have. At least that would be educational."

 

Agreed, you do not need to present a complete model of all steps that may or may not have happened. But science should have a large set of possible plausible scenarios based on both observation and experimentation.

What I want to make clear, is that there is no model. Experiments fail. Observations fail. Is there a theory or even a hypothesis when science fails?

I don't have an idea about how it could have gone as well. How could I?

 

 

Thank you for your time to give me a serious answer instead of the religion finger from people that get a Pavlov reaction when someone even thinks about showing them the flaws in their theory.

 

 

"So what? "I don't know" does not prove that your god did it."

 

Only in your head. Only in your head

 

 

 

​"Not true."

 

So you do have an answer to at least some of the questions I had? Then please answer them:

 

Where in the non-living nature can we observe:

Protein synthesis?

Protein?

Protein consisting of laevorotary amino acids only?

Biologically functioning protein?

Amino acids/peptides in quantities sufficient to build protein?

Places containing laevorotary amino acids/peptides only?

The availability of all amino acids necessary for life?

Where in the non-living nature can we dump amino acids/peptides and show their synthesis to protein?

 

 

 

I know how you are probably going to answer. Giving me some personal retoric again. So you don't have to look into the matter. Am I wrong?

Just be honest and acknowledge that you don't have a clue as well. It doesn't make anything less.

 

 

Why do you have so much trouble understanding that science honestly saying they do not know for sure lends no credence to your Ken Ham fanboy assertion that god did it?

[Strange]

No explanation for chirality/racemic mixtures of amino acids.

 

 

That is one of the easiest to answer. Why do you think it is a problem? Did it say that on some Creationist website you saw?

 

 

 

Sorry, but we don't have an idea what happened. That's something else! Not knowing with certainty what has happened means there are several possible scenarios we have to choose from. There is zero scenario. Let's be honest about that.

 

So you admit that there are multiple, plausible, possibilities for some of the steps required. That is not "zero".

 

We have two models for gravity; that doesn't mean we have no theory of gravity.

 

 

Agreed, you do not need to present a complete model of all steps that may or may not have happened. But science should have a large set of possible plausible scenarios based on both observation and experimentation.

What I want to make clear, is that there is no model. Experiments fail. Observations fail. Is there a theory or even a hypothesis when science fails?

 

Stop it. Just repeating something doesn't make it true.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

 

 

 

Only in your head. Only in your head

 

You are the one that believes a mythical character did it all.

 

 

Just be honest and acknowledge that you don't have a clue as well. It doesn't make anything less.

 

I have already admitted that we don't have all the answers. As anyone with the slightest knowledge of science would know, that doesn't prove that your god did it.

Edited March 27, 2017 by Strange

[BabcockHall]

 

 

"There are various publications that speculate how relatively simple chemistry could lead to replicating molecules"

 

I am not asking for speculations. I am asking for observations in nature and result from experimental studies in chemistry. Scientific attempts have failed.

 

Chemistry is unable to create protein from the molecules thought to have been available in the prebiotic atmosphere. Only amino acids and tiny amounts of simpler peptides have been found.

 

No protein.

No explanation for chirality/racemic mixtures of amino acids.

Than there's the protein folding problem.

SNIP

 

 

I thought you said that we did not need to go into folding. If we do, then I would ask, "What protein folding problem?" It is an empirical observation that proteins fold quickly; Levinthal's paradox is a fine place to begin thinking about folding, but I don't see it as more than that.

[whoknows]

 

 

Why do you have so much trouble understanding that science honestly saying they do not know for sure lends no credence to your Ken Ham fanboy assertion that god did it?

 

So, we finally got to the point to admit we don't have a clue. That was all I was asking for.

 

Since there are no current observations we can make and since organic chemistry cannot produce the proteins under any realistic early earth scenario, the abiotic synthesis idea cannot be a theory. Not even a hypothesis. It is merely wishing it to be true.

 

Please quote me where I state god did it.

[Strange]

So, we finally got to the point to admit we don't have a clue.

 

 

Actually, we do have several clues. We just don't have the old story.

 

Not knowing everything is not the same as knowing nothing.

 

 

 

Please quote me where I state god did it.

 

Well, you clearly aren't interested in the scientific approach so that only leaves ...

(And your repeated lies and straw man arguments are also symptomatic of being a Creationist.)

Edited April 5, 2017 by Strange

[whoknows]

 

 

That is one of the easiest to answer. Why do you think it is a problem? Did it say that on some Creationist website you saw?

 

 

So you admit that there are multiple, plausible, possibilities for some of the steps required. That is not "zero".

 

We have two models for gravity; that doesn't mean we have no theory of gravity.

 

 

Stop it. Just repeating something doesn't make it true.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

 

 

You are the one that believes a mythical character did it all.

 

 

I have already admitted that we don't have all the answers. As anyone with the slightest knowledge of science would know, that doesn't prove that your god did it.

 

“That is one of the easiest to answer. Why do you think it is a problem? Did it say that on some Creationist website you saw?”

I read the scientific literature. Several experiment were performed where amino acids were synthesized. Always both left- and righthanded forms are synthesized. Show me an experiment where only the left-handed form is synthesized under plausible prebiotic conditions, if you think otherwise.

“So you admit that there are multiple, plausible, possibilities for some of the steps required. That is not "zero".”

What about “There is zero scenario” do you not understand?

“We have two models for gravity; that doesn't mean we have no theory of gravity.”

With 2 models there is a choice. We have no model for prebiotic protein synthesis. Please show me experiments were protein is synthesized under plausible prebiotic conditions, if you think otherwise. Researchers cannot do it.

“Stop it. Just repeating something doesn't make it true.

http://www.talkorigi...iginoflife.html”

Where in the article are my questions answered?

“You are the one that believes a mythical character did it all.”

Pleas quote me where I state that. I am only asking quesions. You are making assumptions on that, not I.

“I have already admitted that we don't have all the answers. As anyone with the slightest knowledge of science would know, that doesn't prove that your god did it.”

Sofar, there are zero answers. “We don’t have all the answers” suggests some were answered.

 

 

Actually, we do have several clues. We just don't have the old story.

 

Not knowing everything is not the same as knowing nothing.

 

 

Well, you clearly aren't interested in the scientific approach so that only leaves ...

(And your repeated lies and straw man arguments are also symptomatic of being a Creationist.)

 

"Actually, we do have several clues"

 

Then show me the experiments or the observations.

 

 

 

"Not knowing everything is not the same as knowing nothing".

 

Not having a clue comes close, doesn't it? Experiments have failed. And no current observations give any credibility to the theory. Please answer the quesions in my first post, if you feel otherwise.

 

 

 

"Well, you clearly aren't interested in the scientific approach so that only leaves ..."

 

Do you have a clue what science is? --> Observation and experimentation. And with each question, I am asking for???? O right, for observation and experiments............... How unscientific of me.

 

 

 

"And your repeated lies and straw man arguments are also symptomatic of being a Creationist"

 

Quote my lies and correct them using the scientific method then.

[Strange]

 

“That is one of the easiest to answer. Why do you think it is a problem? Did it say that on some Creationist website you saw?”

I read the scientific literature. Several experiment were performed where amino acids were synthesized. Always both left- and righthanded forms are synthesized. Show me an experiment where only the left-handed form is synthesized under plausible prebiotic conditions, if you think otherwise.

 

 

They don't need to be favoured in pre-biotic conditions.

 

 

 

What about “There is zero scenario” do you not understand?

 

I understand it perfectly. It just happens to be a lie.

 

 

 

I am only asking quesions.

 

Of course you are.

 

 

 

“We don’t have all the answers” suggests some were answered.

 

Some of the questions regarding abiogenesis have plausible answers.

 

But, not surprisingly, the questions that don't currently have answers ... don't have answers. Congratulations on that stunning insight.

 

The fact the we don't currently have those answers doesn't make it impossible or that your favourite divinity did it.

 

If you were honestly interested in science, you wouldn't have this "science knows nothing because there are some unanswered questions" attitude. Instead, you might be asking what mechanisms might be possible, or what research could help us find these answers, or ...

 

But instead you have the typical Creationist attitude of "we don't know therefore it is impossible [therefore my god did it]". That is simplistic, naive and appears to be dishonest.

 

You are clearly anti-science and almost certainly a Creatinist. I'm not sure why so many of you hide behind the "I was only asking questions" smoke screen. Do you think it makes you appear charmingly naive? It doesn't. It just makes you appear duplicitous and dishonest.

[stuff]

 

 

So, if you reject any scientific hypotheses and research related to abiogenesis, and you are not a Cretinist, how do you explain the existence of life?

 

It's a mystery to me, so I would love to hear what suggestions you have. Or is it impossible and therefore we don't exist?

[DrP]

I think the chirality of these evolving molecules can be influenced by clays. I read it recently and saw a documentary that shows that much of this early replication of chiral longer chain self replicating molecules were catalized by having the reactions taking place in the interstitial layers between the sheets of clay. It was all very plausible and I have seen chirality influenced first hand by seeing reactions taking place between the layers in graphite sheets. As has been said several times above - no one knows exactly what happened (yet) but we are getting closer to fully understanding it.

 

The evolution of the first cell type structures from surfactant like materials is amazing... and plausibly credible.. although nothing can be written in stone as a theory yet from what I have read. I would be a fool to suggest that because I do not understand or can't explain it fully that the people who can up with these ideas (which they have tested to some extent) are wrong or deluded or are trying to deceive.

 

I guess that until it is sorted and fully understood we will be continuously plagued by people that have their own unsupported 'theories' of creation. I personally have to be careful of not being a hypocrite here - I used to argue from the other perspective and used to be a creationist due to my (past) belief in a god. Therefore, I understand how people can be fooled by this - I felt pretty darn stupid really, but I forgive myself, I can see how it is easy to get locked into a belief system, especially when it is upheld and supported by the word of so many people.

[whoknows]

 

 

They don't need to be favoured in pre-biotic conditions.

 

 

I understand it perfectly. It just happens to be a lie.

 

 

Of course you are.

 

 

Some of the questions regarding abiogenesis have plausible answers.

 

But, not surprisingly, the questions that don't currently have answers ... don't have answers. Congratulations on that stunning insight.

 

The fact the we don't currently have those answers doesn't make it impossible or that your favourite divinity did it.

 

If you were honestly interested in science, you wouldn't have this "science knows nothing because there are some unanswered questions" attitude. Instead, you might be asking what mechanisms might be possible, or what research could help us find these answers, or ...

 

But instead you have the typical Creationist attitude of "we don't know therefore it is impossible [therefore my god did it]". That is simplistic, naive and appears to be dishonest.

 

You are clearly anti-science and almost certainly a Creatinist. I'm not sure why so many of you hide behind the "I was only asking questions" smoke screen. Do you think it makes you appear charmingly naive? It doesn't. It just makes you appear duplicitous and dishonest.

 

 

So, if you reject any scientific hypotheses and research related to abiogenesis, and you are not a Cretinist, how do you explain the existence of life?

 

It's a mystery to me, so I would love to hear what suggestions you have. Or is it impossible and therefore we don't exist?

 

“They don't need to be favoured in pre-biotic conditions.”

Protein synthesis from simpler compounds needs to be explained, since it obviously took place. Regardless of the moment anybody thinks it took place.

“I understand it perfectly. It just happens to be a lie.”

Again: then show me the experimental scenarios where protein was synthesized from simpler compounds thought to be available at that time. Regardless of the moment you believe protein was first synthesized.

I’ll give you the answer. It cannot be done! Experiments done in 2016 with better equipment to examine synthesized molecules show that thousands of different molecules were formed in a perceived early atmosphere. All in micromolar concentrations. A complex brew without any peptides and chained fatty/carboxylic acids. Even if all the water would evaporate, it is inconceivable to even imagine this brew could link itself to the complex molecules needed for life. Which would be protein and/or fatty acid vesicles. Therefore, there is no theory.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26508401

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27896547

“Some of the questions regarding abiogenesis have plausible answers”

Again and again I ask for the experimental evidence showing the plausibility. And always the same lack of an answer.

“If you were honestly interested in science, you wouldn't have this "science knows nothing because there are some unanswered questions" attitude.”

Then show me my attitude is incorrect by providing results from experimental studies.

The amount of unanswered quesions is insane. Nothing can be explained. Absolutely nothing. Show me the evidence where any part of a single cell is created from chemicals. Any part. Even the building blocks (protein, complex carbohydrates, chained fatty acids) cannot be synthesized. And don’t forget the DNA, RNA, enzymes.

What can be synthesized is amino acids or carboxylic acids amongst thousands of other molecules in a complex brew. Sorry, but I feel this random nonliving brew differs somewhat from a living cell. There is nothing between the brew and the cell. Nothing. Scientists don’t have a clue how to go from there.

“Instead, you might be asking what mechanisms might be possible, or what research could help us find these answers, or ...”

It is inconceivable to imagine how thousands of molecules could be eliminated from the (an)organic brew leaving amino acids only. Then, at some point in time, these amino acids would need to be available in an insanely higher molar quantity. They would need to eliminate all the right-handed isomers. Need to link to each other the right way. And the protein would need to fold/become biologically active. Even if this absurd miracle would take place, it would only show the availability of one single unstable protein molecule. Which would hydrolyse to amino acids on contact with water and at the same time would loose biological activity on missing contact with water. See the complexity here?

“But instead you have the typical Creationist attitude of "we don't know therefore it is impossible [therefore my god did it]". That is simplistic, naive and appears to be dishonest.

You are clearly anti-science and almost certainly a Creatinist. I'm not sure why so many of you hide behind the "I was only asking questions" smoke screen. Do you think it makes you appear charmingly naive? It doesn't. It just makes you appear duplicitous and dishonest. ”

Please quit the blah blah dishonest, creationist thingy over and over again. And show the experimental evidence proving me wrong.

“So, if you reject any scientific hypotheses and research related to abiogenesis, and you are not a Cretinist, how do you explain the existence of life?”

How would I know? I cannot remember being there when it happened. I am only showing you there is no science to back up your theory. Not “unanswered question”. But we don’t have the slightest clue since it goes agains what organic science shows us. Experiments disprove the theory and observations do not exist. Mind the words “goes AGAINST what organic science shows us”. Organic science destroys the abiotic model all by itself.

I think the chirality of these evolving molecules can be influenced by clays. I read it recently and saw a documentary that shows that much of this early replication of chiral longer chain self replicating molecules were catalized by having the reactions taking place in the interstitial layers between the sheets of clay. It was all very plausible and I have seen chirality influenced first hand by seeing reactions taking place between the layers in graphite sheets. As has been said several times above - no one knows exactly what happened (yet) but we are getting closer to fully understanding it.

 

The evolution of the first cell type structures from surfactant like materials is amazing... and plausibly credible.. although nothing can be written in stone as a theory yet from what I have read. I would be a fool to suggest that because I do not understand or can't explain it fully that the people who can up with these ideas (which they have tested to some extent) are wrong or deluded or are trying to deceive.

 

I guess that until it is sorted and fully understood we will be continuously plagued by people that have their own unsupported 'theories' of creation. I personally have to be careful of not being a hypocrite here - I used to argue from the other perspective and used to be a creationist due to my (past) belief in a god. Therefore, I understand how people can be fooled by this - I felt pretty darn stupid really, but I forgive myself, I can see how it is easy to get locked into a belief system, especially when it is upheld and supported by the word of so many people.

 

“I think the chirality of these evolving molecules can be influenced by clays. I read it recently and saw a documentary that shows that much of this early replication of chiral longer chain self replicating molecules were catalized by having the reactions taking place in the interstitial layers between the sheets of clay. It was all very plausible and I have seen chirality influenced first hand by seeing reactions taking place between the layers in graphite sheets. As has been said several times above - no one knows exactly what happened (yet) but we are getting closer to fully understanding it.”

I understand the chirality balance can change to a certain degree. But have not read a scientific article showing plausible circumstances without intelligent aid from researchers.

I will show you a few flaws in research design:

1) Amino acids can be synthesized in micromolar quantities among a mixture of thousands of other molecules synthesized from the experimental design.

2) Then researchers show how simpler peptides (up to about 6 in chain I think) can be formed from high molar concentations of amino acids.

3) Right there research stops. The barrier to a) synthesize protein b) from all left-handed amino acids and c) the protein becoming biologically active is beyond what scientists can even imagine under plausible prebiotic circumstances (or circumstances at a later moment in time).

Tiny amounts of short-chain peptides could be synthesized. But the experimental flaws are obvious:

-The thousands of other molecules would have to disappear from the brew containing amino acids. Many molecules that would react with the amino acids preferably, prohibiting peptide synthesis.

-The amino acids would need to be available in quantities millions of times higher.

This is where our knowledge comes to an end.

I fear the same problems would arise with all other steps to “synthesize/create” a cell. And at one moment all these impossibilities are presumed to have been present at the same time.

“I guess that until it is sorted and fully understood we will be continuously plagued by people that have their own unsupported 'theories' of creation. I personally have to be careful of not being a hypocrite here - I used to argue from the other perspective and used to be a creationist due to my (past) belief in a god. Therefore, I understand how people can be fooled by this - I felt pretty darn stupid really, but I forgive myself, I can see how it is easy to get locked into a belief system, especially when it is upheld and supported by the word of so many people.”

I don’t know what to believe. Currently, I am studying the abiotic synthesis and see it completely fails to explain protein synthesis.

Maybe that would need to be the conclusion from interpreting science: cells cannot be “synthesized” from chemicals. This would leave us with a big gap in knowledge. But I prefer a gap over false interpretations of science.

I am glad to see you have a more sceptical mind than many abiogenesis-believers. Which sometimes seems to be a religion on it’s own. I don’t want anyone to believe in anything. Just show where science stands. Not at a place where some questions remain open. But at a place where we need to get from a chemical goo to a single protein.

[DrP]

Cells formed in a different way... it is thought that they started from micelle like structures of short chains with an ionic head that formed micelles.. the molecules trapped inside the micelles were free to form their little colonies and cells continued to evolved from there. I'll try to find the documentary I saw about it recently and copy it here for you when I am at home.

[whoknows]

Cells formed in a different way... it is thought that they started from micelle like structures of short chains with an ionic head that formed micelles.. the molecules trapped inside the micelles were free to form their little colonies and cells continued to evolved from there. I'll try to find the documentary I saw about it recently and copy it here for you when I am at home.

 

Thanx, but this does not answer my questions. At some moment in the past, protein was available. It does not matter at what moment you thought it would be available. Neither does it matter if protein was synthesized before or after first life appeared. For it would need to have been available before it could be selected by evolutionary means.

 

Biologically functional (folded) protein from left-handed amino acids only. And there is no conceivable way how this could have been synthesized from simple molecules under prebiotic conditions.

 

 

 

Even if we forgot biological funtionality and the fact that protein is built from left-handed amino acids, it is still inconceivable how protein could have been formed in any relevant amounts and would have been kept stable.

 

People often assume the needed amino acids were readily available in sufficient amount and could have synthesized to protein without much trouble. This is far from the truth in all it's aspects. Chemistry says it cannot be done under realistic conditions.

Edited April 11, 2017 by whoknows

[Strange]

 

Thanx, but this does not answer my questions. At some moment in the past, protein was available. It does not matter at what moment you thought it would be available. Neither does it matter if protein was synthesized before or after first life appeared. For it would need to have been available before it could be selected by evolutionary means.

 

Biologically functional (folded) protein from left-handed amino acids only. And there is no conceivable way how this could have been synthesized from simple molecules under prebiotic conditions.

 

 

 

Even if we forgot biological funtionality and the fact that protein is built from left-handed amino acids, it is still inconceivable how protein could have been formed in any relevant amounts and would have been kept stable.

 

People often assume the needed amino acids were readily available in sufficient amount and could have synthesized to protein without much trouble. This is far from the truth in all it's aspects. Chemistry says it cannot be done under realistic conditions.

 

 

 

So, as proteins (and life) exist, what is your explanation?

[whoknows]

 

 

 

So, as proteins (and life) exist, what is your explanation?

 

I cannot explain it.

[Strange]

 

I cannot explain it.

One day, science may be able to. (But not if scientists had your nihilistic "there are unanswered questions so we should give up" attitude.)

Edited April 16, 2017 by Strange

[StringJunky]

One day, science may be able to. (But not if scientists had your nihilistic "there are unanswered questions so we should give up" attitude.)

Exactly. It's the only discipline that''s capable.

[whoknows]

One day, science may be able to. (But not if scientists had your nihilistic "there are unanswered questions so we should give up" attitude.)

 

It is not about "unanswered questions". Peptides can form from high concentrations of amino acids. Not from mixtures of thousands of different molecules. Do you truly think there may be a mechanism that would eliminate the thousands of non-amino acid molecules from the mixture, leaving amino acids only? And that would only be the beginning.

 

For a fatty acid vesicle to be formed, the same problem would need to be fixed. From a mixtures of thousands of different molecules, all non-fatty/carboxylic acids would have to be eliminated, leaving carboxylic acids only.

 

The same seems to apply for more building blocks, including pyrimidines/purines.

 

 

 

 

It is inconceivable for it goes against basic chemistry. Key words are: go against! Not: there seem to be some problems.

 

Then, all mixtures, containing (almost) purely these building blocks, would need to reach far higher concentrations (thousans/millionfold), for complexer molecules of a higher order to be formed. And the instable mixtures would need to combine.

Still, this would give us nothing, for the combination of only one single protein, a fatty acids vesicle in a form not observed in nature and a chain of pyrimidines/purines is far from what would is observed at even early stages of life.

 

 

Mail an expert in chemistry to see how he thinks an early Earth mixture of thousands of molecules could get rid of all non-amino acid molecules, leaving amino acids only. You will see it is beyond what can be imagined.

[Strange]

It is inconceivable for it goes against basic chemistry. Key words are: go against! Not: there seem to be some problems.

 

So in your opinion it is impossible and therefore life doesn't exist. So it is not worth doing any more research on the subject.

 

Is that about it?

[whoknows]

 

So in your opinion it is impossible and therefore life doesn't exist. So it is not worth doing any more research on the subject.

 

Is that about it?

 

Where did you get those ideas?

 

I am saying chemistry does not allow protein synthesis from the abiotic early Earth model. Not by any tiny plausible chance.

 

People don't seem to understand the conditions needed for protein synthesis to take place and don't know what the results from early Earth chemical experiments mean. But how can they be blamed if the scientists themselves make unrealistic assumptions and publish their results as if there were any proof for possible abiotic cell formation.

 

 

 

Let's say that we want a fairly simple protein, 100 amino acids long and built from 10 different amino acids.

Regardless if we want that specific protein to be formed, or if we want to calculate the odds that one duplicate protein from a fictional existing protein could be formed. The odds would be calculated as 1 x 10^​100 , which allready is a very small number.

An estimate for the total amount of atoms on Earth is 1,33 x 10^​50. Showing the odds for it happenning on Earth are allready pretty much nonexisting. People than refer to the Universal probability bound which is defined as:

 

"A degree of improbability below which a specified event of that probability cannot reasonably be attributed to chance regardless of whatever probabilitistic resources from the known universe are factored in"

 

The estimated number for the bound is 1 x 10^​150 . A chance smaller than this would be unreasonable to assume to be possible anywhere, ever in the known Universe.

But the number 1 x 10^​100 for the protein synthesis gives a much higher chance you say? You could say protein synthesis under these assumptions would be unlikely, but could possibly happen somewhere in the Universe. And that somehwere would happen to be planet Earth?

 

 

 

But the chance of 1 x 10^​100 of the specific required protein to be formed is totally unrealistic.

​​Early Earth experiments show that:

1) Racemic mixtures of amino acids are formed.

2) Amino acids are formed in a liquid mixture in the presence of thousands of other molecules. All in tiny (micromolar) concentrations.

3) Other reactive molecules (unneeded amino acids, amines, and carboxylic acids) containing a -NH2 or -COOH group are formed in quantities higher than the amino acids. A ratio of 3:1 for other reactive molecules to amino acids has been published. Possibly 3x in amount and in different forms.

 

 

The racemic mixture doubles the amount of different amino acids available --> 20 x 10^​100 = 1.27 x 10^​130 different proteins possible.

The presence of 3x as much other reactive molecules gives us 40 different possibly reactive molecules. This number becomes 80 doubled in the racemic mixture. --> 80 x 10^​100 = 2.04 x 10^​190 different molecules possible using a chain of only 100 parts. A number trillions and trillions of times smaller than the Universal probability bound.

 

You may argue the calculations and number used. And say the number should be smaller. Let's assume some flaws in the reasoning. Say you downplay the number to a chance of "only" one in 1 x 10^​100 . Then I would ask you what the odds would be for the formation of only 2 identical proteins. It would be the product of the number used: 1 x 10^​200 . Or I would ask what the odds would be for a protein found in a living cell, consisting of all 20 amino acids in a chain of 1,000 amino acids. The chance would be unimaginably small. And we only would be talking about one single protein.

Including one additional protein decreases the odds of formation by the product of these chances. And a living cell can include thousands of different proteins. Each different protein adds the product of it's chance of formation. The odds of a thousand different wanted molecules formed under the conditions mentioned would be a 1,000 x the product of 1 x 10^​100 , or a chance of 1 in 1 x 10^​100000 .

 

Non-peptide bonds.

Various molecules can react with the wanted protein by forming non-peptide bonds. In thas sence, the amount of possible reactive molecules is much larger than given in the examples above. Including these numbers (I have no idea how large), will most probably dramatically increase the diversity of the potentially created molecules in a 100-part molecule. The chance of obtaining the wanted protein decreasing by the same order of magnitude.

 

The environmental conditions for a protein to be formed, further decrease the odds dramatically, by multiples of orders of magnitude.

Many conditions would need to be met for protein synthesis:

-The continuous presence of the needed amino acids at the right time and place. This would be hindered to a large extend by the sheer presence of the thousands of types of other (non-reactive) molecules synthesized in prebiotic experiments.

-The a) continuous presence of b) the right amount of energy needed to form peptide bonds.

-The (near) absence of water.

-The correct pH, heat and possibly mineral content or unknown other environmental factors.

 

This is the reason I asked if anybody knows one single place on Earth where amino acids can be dropped, in response to which we could observe protein synthesis. I doubt that such a place exists.

 

 

 

Summary:

the odds of one single simple protein built from 10 different amino acids in a chain of 100 amino acids. In a prebiotic Earth experiment mixture it is the product of these three chances:

a) One in 2.04 x 10^​190 .

b) The chance of formation of non-peptide bonds.

c) The chance of finding a location where amino acids can readily form proteins.

 

We are talking about a simple protein which is not even folded the right way to become biologically active. A protein which is supposed to remain stable under various conditions.

 

 

 

What these numbers show:

There is not even the tiniest of a plausible chance protein could have been synthesized from the raw building blocks supposedly available on the early Earth.

[Strange]

I am saying chemistry does not allow protein synthesis from the abiotic early Earth model. Not by any tiny plausible chance.

 

 

So either you are wrong or life can't exist.

 

And yet life exists.

[whoknows]

 

 

So either you are wrong or life can't exist.

 

And yet life exists.

 

Incorrect. I am saying the abiotic model used to explain life originating from chemicals fails.

[Strange]

 

Incorrect. I am saying the abiotic model used to explain life originating from chemicals fails.

 

 

And the alternative is?