can functional proteins exist by pure chance?

[mjs13]

I can count the probabilities of all events that happened a within a week before our conception that if were otherwise we would not be here. It would be probably higher than chances of life not to emerge from chemistry.

For someone with IQ>100, this points not towards magical interference, but towards a perspective issue. Like for instance life being a huge system of evolving chemical reactions judged under the perspective of a tiny fraction of results (us) embedded inside the system.

[dimreepr]

yes.

[StringJunky]

It's not pure chance, like rolling dice. There are elements of chance, like the probability of collision and, hence, a reaction occurring. What actually happens when certain atoms/molecules collide is  predetermined and not chance.

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

It's not pure chance, like rolling dice. There are elements of chance, like the probability of collision and, hence, a reaction occurring. What actually happens when certain atoms/molecules collide is  predetermined and not chance.

Yes and no (though maybe I am misunderstanding your point, if so, apologies). There are now plenty of studies that show that even entirely randomized peptides (i.e. random amino acid sequences) can result in enzymatic (i.e. functional) activities. They tend to be weak but it shows that very simple structures are functional. Over time mechanisms such as selection can lead to improved activities, of course.

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, CharonY said:

Yes and no (though maybe I am misunderstanding your point, if so, apologies). There are now plenty of studies that show that even entirely randomized peptides (i.e. random amino acid sequences) can result in enzymatic (i.e. functional) activities. They tend to be weak but it shows that very simple structures are functional. Over time mechanisms such as selection can lead to improved activities, of course.

I agree.  

[John Cuthber]

When the Germans were looking for a material to make gas bags for zeppelins they discovered that the membrane of a cow's stomach did a very good job.

It's a protein (mainly) with a function- storing hydrogen gas- which came about by chance.

Unless you think someone planned it that way, but then you would need to explain who that "someone" is, and that would be off-topic in this bit of teh forum.

[swansont]

The outcomes of chemistry are not random.

If I take a volume of H₂ and O₂ gases and add a spark, I will end up with a lot of H₂O. I will not end up with a random assortment of molecules with a distribution of H and O atoms in it. To any extent to which I end up with H_xO_y other than H₂O, it will not be equal proportions.

Other molecules might be more complicated and more results possible, but the underlying science still applies.

"Pure chance" is usually the wrong way to frame any such problem, since it has nothing to do with chance. The Urey-Miller experiment is a good example of why any "pure chance" calculation is fundamentally flawed.

[Strange]

17 hours ago, mjs13 said:

For someone with IQ>100, this points not towards magical interference, but towards a perspective issue. Like for instance life being a huge system of evolving chemical reactions judged under the perspective of a tiny fraction of results (us) embedded inside the system.

I'm not sure what this last sentence means. But most people are of the view that there was some form of "chemical evolution" that eventually led to the components necessary for living cells. 

(Also not sure what IQ has to do with it. But welcome to the 50%!)

[mjs13]

Thanks!! But to be fair, there is a huge leap from the creation of necessary components  to the creation of order out of disorder....

 

I dont remember who said: Give me a miracle from free and i will explain the entire creation...

[StringJunky]

20 minutes ago, mjs13 said:

Thanks!! But to be fair, there is a huge leap from the creation of necessary components  to the creation of order out of disorder....

 

I dont remember who said: Give me a miracle from free and i will explain the entire creation...

There''s a huge amount of time and a huge amount of matter interacting in an orderly or predictable manner when they make contact. Don't forget that there's only a limited number of ways each type of particle can interact with another; it is not infinite. If the number of potential combinations is limited, repeatable simple molecules can occur, which can then build more complex molecules.... etc. So even though the paths of molecules may be stochastic (random), their properties are fixed, which reduces the apparent chaos with time and produces more systemic behaviour between them.

Edited December 12, 2018 by StringJunky

[Moontanman]

43 minutes ago, mjs13 said:

Thanks!! But to be fair, there is a huge leap from the creation of necessary components  to the creation of order out of disorder....

 

I dont remember who said: Give me a miracle from free and i will explain the entire creation...

Order can and does arise from chaos. this can be demonstrated in real life. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory#Spontaneous_order

 

Quote

Spontaneous order[edit]

Under the right conditions, chaos spontaneously evolves into a lockstep pattern. In the Kuramoto model, four conditions suffice to produce synchronization in a chaotic system. Examples include the coupled oscillation of Christiaan Huygens' pendulums, fireflies, neurons, the London Millennium Bridge resonance, and large arrays of Josephson junctions.[40]

 

[mjs13]

Yes but those mathematics or models don't apply in biology because biology is more about spatial interactions. Even DNA regulation has to do with the spatial conformation of the molecule inside the nucleus. And then stability is favored. You can have creation of membranes, pores, fistulas, etc. For instance if a structure ends up being inside a structure, it stops interacting with other molecules it might have been previously interacted. Computed made structures might be vague simulations with hints of truth, but don't mix science and fiction...

[StringJunky]

31 minutes ago, mjs13 said:

Yes but those mathematics or models don't apply in biology because biology is more about spatial interactions. Even DNA regulation has to do with the spatial conformation of the molecule inside the nucleus. And then stability is favored. You can have creation of membranes, pores, fistulas, etc. For instance if a structure ends up being inside a structure, it stops interacting with other molecules it might have been previously interacted. Computed made structures might be vague simulations with hints of truth, but don't mix science and fiction...

Change can still occur by mutations or infection resulting in endosymbiosis (mitochondria, chloroplasts etc), even if isolated.

Edited December 13, 2018 by StringJunky

[mjs13]

I agree! And also we live and interact so closely with symbiotic bacteria or the environment that i dont know how right it is to see them as separate entities...there is a blurring on how individual organisms are defined or if there should such a definition exist at all. Maybe its just an anthropocentric bias