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

[Itoero]

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

The Miller-Urey and many other experiments that came after show the necessary building block were probably present in the early earth.

And I suppose it took many millions of years for the first proteiins to be formed.

 

I think it's very possible that amino acids were 'joined' and formed a small polypeptidechain which gave structure to other active chemicals.

If amino acids bound on the small polypeptidechain then it probably gave more structure and might allow other active chemicals to bind.

This can evolve further into bigger polypeptidechains wchich give structure and bind with more active chemicals.

 

Such chemical 'droplets' can join together and form the first small proteins with active chemicals.

Those small proteins and active chemicals you can consider to be the start of a membrane and organelle.

 

The origin of DNA and DNA replication is well understood...

 

There is so many that points to abiogenesis.

Edited April 18, 2017 by Itoero

[whoknows]

The Miller-Urey and many other experiments that came after show the necessary building block were probably present in the early earth.

And I suppose it took many millions of years for the first proteiins to be formed.

 

I think it's very possible that amino acids were 'joined' and formed a small polypeptidechain which gave structure to other active chemicals.

If amino acids bound on the small polypeptidechain then it probably gave more structure and might allow other active chemicals to bind.

This can evolve further into bigger polypeptidechains wchich give structure and bind with more active chemicals.

 

Such chemical 'droplets' can join together and form the first small proteins with active chemicals.

Those small proteins and active chemicals you can consider to be the start of a membrane and organelle.

 

The origin of DNA and DNA replication is well understood...

 

There is so many that points to abiogenesis.

 

I think you are missing the point. In theory, amino acids are assumed to join. But this is not observed in the primary experiments where complex mixtures of thousands of different molecules are formed in micromolar concentrations. The mixture does not (practical experiment) and cannot (in theory) by any means form protein because a) the non-amino acids disrupt the process, b) water hydrolyzes any potentially formed peptides, c) reactive molecules take the place of amino acids in the chain, or end the chain, and d) there are requirements for the availability and amount of energy needed to form the chain.

If you were somehow able to form a short peptide chain (5-6 amino acids), it would be available in minuscule amounts (nanomol/L), and it would be a racemic mixture of left- and righthanded amino acids in a soup of other molecules.

 

Again, I ask the question: Is there any place on Earth where we could drop amino acids to show their synthesis to protein? Do you understand the required environmental conditions, I pointed out?

 

The origin of DNA and RNA is well understood? Do you know how their building block could be formed and synthesized under prebiotic conditions?

It is the same as with the protein. Some pyrimidines/purines will be formed in micromolar amounts together with thousands of other different molecules under early Earth conditions. The same goes for carboxylic acids assumed to have been the basis for a fatty acid vesicle (aka a primitive cell). They will not link to a chain, for they cannot form a chain.

And yes, the pyrimidines/purines will also be a racemic mixture.

 

Check what I wrote about protein. The same goes for the other complex building blocks.

[Strange]

So what is the alternative?

[whoknows]

So what is the alternative?

 

I am not giving an alternative. But hanging on to a "hypothesis" that goes against basic Chemistry and statistics seems nonsensical to me.

[Strange]

 

I am not giving an alternative. But hanging on to a "hypothesis" that goes against basic Chemistry and statistics seems nonsensical to me.

 

 

Science investigates all ideas until they are shown to be impossible. Your disbelief doesn't count.

 

As life exists now (and previously didn't) then it must have arisen somehow. How this happened seems a reasonable question for science to try and answer.

[whoknows]

 

 

Science investigates all ideas until they are shown to be impossible. Your disbelief doesn't count.

 

As life exists now (and previously didn't) then it must have arisen somehow. How this happened seems a reasonable question for science to try and answer.

 

Life "formed" by chemicals under early Earth conditions has nothing to do with my personal beliefs. The sum of Chemistry and statistics disproves it. This is something else.

 

Of course, I applaud experiments to see how life first began. But scientists will have to take a different approach.

[Strange]

But scientists will have to take a different approach.

 

 

Such as?

[DrP]

whoknows - where did you get those statistical probabilities you quote in post 47, like 1 x 10^100? Did you take into account catalyzation from the earths clays? Or forced arrangements from some other force or source unknown? I don't think you can seriously brandish about those probabilities as straight facts - even if they were so, 4 .5 billion years is a long time. No one was there, but we have been creeping closer to finding out. Look up the part that simple clays play in the formation of early proteans. I don't have a reference here as I saw it in a documentary, but the inclusion of ground clays into the test tube when trying to simulate the early conditions seriously altered the experimental results.

[Strange]

I don't think he cares. He is convinced that abiogenesis is impossible. He has no alternative explanation. Therefore we don't exist.

[DrP]

There is no point sticking his head in the sand though - there are explanations out there that seriously alter the values put on those probabilities he was waving about.

[Strange]

There is no point sticking his head in the sand though - there are explanations out there that seriously alter the values put on those probabilities he was waving about.

 

 

we all know that. But creationists are incapable of understanding subtleties like that.

[DrP]

Do you remember talking to me about creation... probably over a decade ago? I was a creationist then. Bombardment with enough actual facts should get through eventually... depends on the level of brainwashing and the individuals ability to reason with facts and reality.... it is a bit like hypnotism in my view. It is difficult when there are grey areas, such as the formation of the first proteans, even if we explain that then there will be something else that hasn't been explained yet that they will latch onto.

 

Even if we do eventually explain everything then they will latch onto the first few pico seconds before the BB and claim that as it can't be explained it was god. I think these people are becoming fewer though. The gaps are closing for the god of the gaps.

[Manticore]

Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)

 

The results of these experiments signal that these meteorites possess the amazing properties of catalysing complex organic compounds which are not present in terrestrial rocks. The minerals which form carbonaceous chondrites are capable of synthesising carboxylic acids, amino acids and all the nitrogenous bases which form ribonucleic acid (ARN), considered to be the precursor of the first living organism.

"The data obtained indicates that, even if chondrites were pulverised and lost their organic compounds during the phases of deceleration and ablation in the atmosphere, those minerals which reached the Earth's surface and were heated in the presence of both water and formamide would be able to reproduce the organic compounds fundamental to prebiotic chemistry. This clearly points to life being fertilised from outside Earth's atmosphere- life which could reach any part of our Solar System and, for that matter, of the Universe wherever conditions were conducive to maintaining liquid water for a reasonable length of time. Mars, Europa and Titan could possibly be excellent candidates for our exploration" indicates Trigo.

[Strange]

Do you remember talking to me about creation... probably over a decade ago? I was a creationist then. Bombardment with enough actual facts should get through eventually...

 

 

 

I don't. But congratulations on being open-minded enough to change your opinion when faced with evidence.

[whoknows]

whoknows - where did you get those statistical probabilities you quote in post 47, like 1 x 10^100? Did you take into account catalyzation from the earths clays? Or forced arrangements from some other force or source unknown? I don't think you can seriously brandish about those probabilities as straight facts - even if they were so, 4 .5 billion years is a long time. No one was there, but we have been creeping closer to finding out. Look up the part that simple clays play in the formation of early proteans. I don't have a reference here as I saw it in a documentary, but the inclusion of ground clays into the test tube when trying to simulate the early conditions seriously altered the experimental results.

 

The 1x 10 and other probabilities are as they are. Clays have nothing to do with the odds. Even if the clays would somehow catalyze reactions, how would they influence what molecule binds to the amino acid?

 

Your remark has to do with the conditions I mentioned in #47, not with the chance probabilities one specific amino acid will bind to another molecule.

I don't think he cares. He is convinced that abiogenesis is impossible. He has no alternative explanation. Therefore we don't exist.

 

That's all you can do, is it not? Giving stupid remarks without being able to answer any of my questions. And without disproving any of the points I am making.

 

I have respect for people who want to discuss the topic. But less so for people who are here to flame others.

[Strange]

I have respect for people who want to discuss the topic.

 

 

So do I. But you have nothing to offer beyond "I don't think it is possible that life arose".

[whoknows]

There is no point sticking his head in the sand though - there are explanations out there that seriously alter the values put on those probabilities he was waving about.

 

"There is no point sticking his head in the sand though".

 

I a merely showing the flaws in the hypothesis. Flaws not disproven by any of you. So who is sticking his head in the sand then?

 

 

 

"There are explanations out there that seriously alter the values put on those probabilities he has waving about."

 

What is keeping you form pointing them out. Your remark with possible clay catalysts has nothing to do with the chance probabilities of which molecules are included when 100 molecules are lined up to form a chain consisting of 100 different molecules, does it?

[Strange]

 

"There is no point sticking his head in the sand though".

 

I a merely showing the flaws in the hypothesis. Flaws not disproven by any of you. So who is sticking his head in the sand then?

 

 

Even if the flaws you claim were correct (and I see no reason to think they are) then ... what?

 

Nothing? We give up looking?

 

Why the negative and nihilistic approach to science?

[whoknows]

Do you remember talking to me about creation... probably over a decade ago? I was a creationist then. Bombardment with enough actual facts should get through eventually... depends on the level of brainwashing and the individuals ability to reason with facts and reality.... it is a bit like hypnotism in my view. It is difficult when there are grey areas, such as the formation of the first proteans, even if we explain that then there will be something else that hasn't been explained yet that they will latch onto.

 

Even if we do eventually explain everything then they will latch onto the first few pico seconds before the BB and claim that as it can't be explained it was god. I think these people are becoming fewer though. The gaps are closing for the god of the gaps.

 

Reading seems to be very hard for you people. Again: where did I state I am a creationist?

 

A scientists evaluates both the strengths and weaknesses of a hypothesis, before accepting them as a probable theory. This is exactly what I am doing.

[Itoero]

I think you are missing the point. In theory, amino acids are assumed to join. But this is not observed in the primary experiments where complex mixtures of thousands of different molecules are formed in micromolar concentrations. The mixture does not (practical experiment) and cannot (in theory) by any means form protein because a) the non-amino acids disrupt the process, b) water hydrolyzes any potentially formed peptides, c) reactive molecules take the place of amino acids in the chain, or end the chain, and d) there are requirements for the availability and amount of energy needed to form the chain.

If you were somehow able to form a short peptide chain (5-6 amino acids), it would be available in minuscule amounts (nanomol/L), and it would be a racemic mixture of left- and righthanded amino acids in a soup of other molecules.

 

Again, I ask the question: Is there any place on Earth where we could drop amino acids to show their synthesis to protein? Do you understand the required environmental conditions, I pointed out?

 

The origin of DNA and RNA is well understood? Do you know how their building block could be formed and synthesized under prebiotic conditions?

It is the same as with the protein. Some pyrimidines/purines will be formed in micromolar amounts together with thousands of other different molecules under early Earth conditions. The same goes for carboxylic acids assumed to have been the basis for a fatty acid vesicle (aka a primitive cell). They will not link to a chain, for they cannot form a chain.

And yes, the pyrimidines/purines will also be a racemic mixture.

 

Check what I wrote about protein. The same goes for the other complex building blocks.

You should not make assumptions like that.

You are using your 'knowledge' from current chemistry to debunk something that happened billions of years ago in an environment which is mostly unknown.

 

DNA can be considered as a modified form of RNA, it seems that first DNA evolved/developed from RNA. Ribose in RNA is reduced into deoxyribose in DNA, whereas the base uracil is methylated into thymidine. First DNA was probably DNA that contained Uracil(U-DNA). There are modern viruses with DNA that contains Uracil(U-DNA)...

 

Our knowledge concerning (quantum)chemistry shoots imo to short to make valid assumptions concerning abiogenesis.

It seems that quantum entanglement has an important role in DNA and energytransport in Photosynthesis can't be explained by classical physics.

Quantum mechanics might have a very important role in biological systems.

Some articles concerning DNA:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1006.4053

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/419590/quantum-entanglement-holds-dna-together-say-physicists/

https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.5342

https://arxiv.org/abs/1101.0073?context=physics

[whoknows]

Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)

 

The results of these experiments signal that these meteorites possess the amazing properties of catalysing complex organic compounds which are not present in terrestrial rocks. The minerals which form carbonaceous chondrites are capable of synthesising carboxylic acids, amino acids and all the nitrogenous bases which form ribonucleic acid (ARN), considered to be the precursor of the first living organism.

"The data obtained indicates that, even if chondrites were pulverised and lost their organic compounds during the phases of deceleration and ablation in the atmosphere, those minerals which reached the Earth's surface and were heated in the presence of both water and formamide would be able to reproduce the organic compounds fundamental to prebiotic chemistry. This clearly points to life being fertilised from outside Earth's atmosphere- life which could reach any part of our Solar System and, for that matter, of the Universe wherever conditions were conducive to maintaining liquid water for a reasonable length of time. Mars, Europa and Titan could possibly be excellent candidates for our exploration" indicates Trigo.

 

What exactly is your point? Does it answer any of my questions or disprove anything I state in post #47? If so, please explain that.

You should not make assumptions like that.

You are using your 'knowledge' from current chemistry to debunk something that happened billions of years ago in an environment which is mostly unknown.

 

DNA can be considered as a modified form of RNA, it seems that first DNA evolved/developed from RNA. Ribose in RNA is reduced into deoxyribose in DNA, whereas the base uracil is methylated into thymidine. First DNA was probably DNA that contained Uracil(U-DNA). There are modern viruses with DNA that contains Uracil(U-DNA)...

 

Our knowledge concerning (quantum)chemistry shoots imo to short to make valid assumptions concerning abiogenesis.

It seems that quantum entanglement has an important role in DNA and energytransport in Photosynthesis can't be explained by classical physics.

Quantum mechanics might have a very important role in biological systems.

Some articles concerning DNA:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1006.4053

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/419590/quantum-entanglement-holds-dna-together-say-physicists/

https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.5342

https://arxiv.org/abs/1101.0073?context=physics

 

Do you see what you are doing here? First you state:

 

"You should not make assumptions like that.

You are using your 'knowledge' from current chemistry to debunk something that happened billions of years ago in an environment which is mostly unknown."

 

But then you ignore this statement by telling me how DNA probably evolved on an early Earth.

 

 

 

We don't know the atmosphere on early Earth. But we do know the amino acids arose from a carbon source (CO, CO2 or CH4), a hydrogen source (H2 or H2O), and a nitrogen source (N2 or NH3). I don't see any substantial differences in experimental molecules created by these sources. Quantities of molecules and their diversity may differ. But all experiments produce a large mixture of different molecules in tiny quantities when exposed to an energy source.

 

From that perspective, my question would be: Is there any reason to assume basic Chemistry would have been under differential natural laws on the early Earth?

 

I agree with you that quantum mechanichs may create a better picture of what happened. Not will, but may.

[DrP]

He used words like 'probably'... he made no concrete claims of anything being impossible or not seeing as it is impossible to know with our current knowledge. We don't understand how it happened... but SOMETHING happened or we wouldn't be here. Probably it was some kind of evolution, as that is what everything else developed from.

 

The clay thing can be selective of molecular type as well as being able chiralise things. I don't think there is enough to draw any firm conclusion... but I can't think of any other ways it could have happened. The micelluar formation leading to early cells seemed convincing to me... and with the recent discovery that clays and meterorites can catalyse certain chain growths I would think we will develop in our learning over the next few decades. It hasn't been explained yet - doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[Manticore]

 

What exactly is your point? Does it answer any of my questions or disprove anything I state in post #47? If so, please explain that.

 

Did you actually read it.

 

"The minerals which form carbonaceous chondrites are capable of synthesising carboxylic acids, amino acids and all the nitrogenous bases which form ribonucleic acid (ARN), considered to be the precursor of the first living organism."

 

(note: ARN is what we know as RNA)

 

"those minerals which reached the Earth's surface and were heated in the presence of both water and formamide would be able to reproduce the organic compounds fundamental to prebiotic chemistry."

[Strange]

He used words like 'probably'... he made no concrete claims of anything being impossible or not seeing as it is impossible to know with our current knowledge. We don't understand how it happened... but SOMETHING happened or we wouldn't be here.

Exactly. And we shouldn't expect to see the same thing happen today. As soon as there were an environment rich in the right organic chemicals it would become a food source for one or more organisms.

[Itoero]

From that perspective, my question would be: Is there any reason to assume basic Chemistry would have been under differential natural laws on the early Earth?

 

I agree with you that quantum mechanichs may create a better picture of what happened. Not will, but may.

No, but why do you think our laws are sufficient? Why do you think our science is far enough evolved to make valid assumptions about abiogenesis?