Amino acid synthesis

[esalla]

I think you forgot the law of large numbers ...

I'm very familiar with the law of large numbers ... as a casino gambler I can say I'm quite intimate with the "gambler's fallacy" ...

That answers the wrong question ... we don't care how small the probability is that a more complex amino acid forms in any given year ... having enough years the probability of this amino acid to form just once approaches certainty ... thus "once is enough" ...

Consider the "one in a trillion" mutation that allows the individual to double their successful reproduction ... in so many generations this mutation will come to dominate the gene pool ... just one mutation occurring just once ...

Remember ... time we have in abundance ...

That is only true when you are talking about one step in any pathway where the second step is not dependent on the first step in a complex way. I was trying to help you realize that the RATE of chance formation of any one amino acid becomes more predictable the more trials are involved. And I asked how one polypeptide formed in Andromeda galaxy would get to meet another polypeptide formed in Milky Way 10,000 years later?

But, yes, once is enough for any one chemical reaction product - say one molecule of Cytosine for example. Remember, each specific chemical reaction product is dependent on the environment simulated in the experiment.

Again I ask how you get wet, dry (even with condensing agents), acid, alkaline, hot and cold in the same place at the same time? Sure, any one unlikely product (e.g amino acids not detected in Miller-Urey type experiments) can occur once in a long time in a specific environment - that you are correct about. However, you are missing the RATE of production of each required amino acid as well as SELECTION of said amino acid in a soup containing mostly Formic acid molecules.

An illustration is why you cannot get a tomato plant when you plant a carrot seed. You might get a different type of carrot but you will not get a tomato plant.

A more relevant example is the predicted chemical reaction product proportions in any specific chemical reaction in any given environment. Sure, any one product (one molecule) could end up in the results - but the larger the number of molecules involved, the more predictable the results are.

The predictability of any chemical reaction is due to the law of large numbers.

One more example: Chemical evolutionists admit that their synthesis results are dependent on the absence of free Oxygen. Again, that is really because of the law of large numbers. Any one atom can avoid the Oxygen atom - but the large number of atoms involved make that impossible.

Later I will post on one specific set of chemical reactions - that required for Cytosine synthesis.

The continuing problem faced by the supernatural creationists is that their religious literature ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions occurring simultaneously over the course of billions of years.

The real question becomes why would the gods make illogical life so complex when supernatural creation has no need for such complexity?

Have the gods played a cruel joke on supernatural creationists?

There are no chemical reactions that are time based and that do different things with the same elements at different times like DNA does. You should also examine the fact that the same collection of elements can create an infinite and massively different assortment of life, yet non DNA based collections of elements always arrange in EXACTLY the same way. DNA also produces consciousness which can achieve further changes to the atoms such as leaving the solar system in the search for home. So keep shaking up your elements trying to from the most complicated code in the known universe. Really it's astounding how my atoms can be so bright and yours so dim, and all from the same stuff

What consciousness does DNA produce in plant based life?

Easy, chlorophyll producing plants are the base of the food chain that humans rely upon

I love dumb PHD's

Ph. D.

Again Bill Gates is a DROPOUT

Prove me wrong

Again. I proved you wrong. Prove me wrong.

Easy, you provided no information that could be considered evidence of anything. So your proof is based upon the lack of evidence and not the abundance of such. That said schizzos impress their selves quite easily

You do accept that Einstein was wrong about the Universe right? Or was he just wrong about everything before he was right about everything

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

You're confused about the topic.

You are not discussing any topic or relaying any information that could be considered confusing.

An interesting and somewhat new avenue for me I must admit.

You pay off your tuition loans yet?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Once is enough" ... run Miller-Urey for ten million years and see if vital amino acids are formed ... all we need is one self-catalysing protein to form in that time span ... are there zillions of other products formed, of course, just look at how much CN(-) is in our oceans today ...

You only need one amino acid? You poor thing!

 

[Wuwei]

The beginnings of life does not have to be DNA surrounded by cellulose, etc. Research (I forget where) found that a viable form of "life" that can replicate is in the form of RNA surrounded and protected by lipids. Furthermore perhaps not all four, AGCT bases are necessary. Maybe (or maybe not) just two can work. Once a very simple system that can replicate arises, mutations and evolution will do the rest.

.

You forget the need for specific nucleic acid synthesis and the synthesis of sugars and the synthesis of fatty acids at the same place and time.

Guess why humans cannot restore life to a cell with too much loss of information lost due to entropy - or simply: the difference between a dead cell and a living cell. It is obviously easier to restore life to a dead cell than to create a dead cell from non-living matter.

Note that I was posting about amino acid synthesis (thread title). Would you like me to start a thread on nucleic acid synthesis?

I didn't forget about sugars or lipids. I am thinking that there could have been many simple replicating systems that are precursors to the more complex amino acids. In one sense they could be sort of like catalysts that set the stage for more complex systems. They don't have to actually follow a definition of life, but they could eventually lead to that.

As far as the low probability of complex systems spontaneously forming, think of Markov Chains, where there are a number of simpler steps of higher probability that lead to a more complex result. Lipids and RNA would be later in the chain.
.

 

[esalla]

"Once is enough" ... run Miller-Urey for ten million years and see if vital amino acids are formed ... all we need is one self-catalysing protein to form in that time span ... are there zillions of other products formed, of course, just look at how much CN(-) is in our oceans today ...

You only need one amino acid? You poor thing!

LOL if atoms combine for a trillion trillion years no amino acid would ever form, but as you say if it did it would not be life, nor would it likely be in a place where life could exist. The belief that life created itself was created before DNA wan even a dream

 

[esalla]

The beginnings of life does not have to be DNA surrounded by cellulose, etc. Research (I forget where) found that a viable form of "life" that can replicate is in the form of RNA surrounded and protected by lipids. Furthermore perhaps not all four, AGCT bases are necessary. Maybe (or maybe not) just two can work. Once a very simple system that can replicate arises, mutations and evolution will do the rest.

.

You forget the need for specific nucleic acid synthesis and the synthesis of sugars and the synthesis of fatty acids at the same place and time.

Guess why humans cannot restore life to a cell with too much loss of information lost due to entropy - or simply: the difference between a dead cell and a living cell. It is obviously easier to restore life to a dead cell than to create a dead cell from non-living matter.

Note that I was posting about amino acid synthesis (thread title). Would you like me to start a thread on nucleic acid synthesis?

I didn't forget about sugars or lipids. I am thinking that there could have been many simple replicating systems that are precursors to the more complex amino acids. In one sense they could be sort of like catalysts that set the stage for more complex systems. They don't have to actually follow a definition of life, but they could eventually lead to that.

As far as the low probability of complex systems spontaneously forming, think of Markov Chains, where there are a number of simpler steps of higher probability that lead to a more complex result. Lipids and RNA would be later in the chain.
.

You keep shaking that bucket of atoms, let us know when they form even rudimentary DNA, like yours

 

[Hollie]

I think you forgot the law of large numbers ...

I'm very familiar with the law of large numbers ... as a casino gambler I can say I'm quite intimate with the "gambler's fallacy" ...

That answers the wrong question ... we don't care how small the probability is that a more complex amino acid forms in any given year ... having enough years the probability of this amino acid to form just once approaches certainty ... thus "once is enough" ...

Consider the "one in a trillion" mutation that allows the individual to double their successful reproduction ... in so many generations this mutation will come to dominate the gene pool ... just one mutation occurring just once ...

Remember ... time we have in abundance ...

That is only true when you are talking about one step in any pathway where the second step is not dependent on the first step in a complex way. I was trying to help you realize that the RATE of chance formation of any one amino acid becomes more predictable the more trials are involved. And I asked how one polypeptide formed in Andromeda galaxy would get to meet another polypeptide formed in Milky Way 10,000 years later?

But, yes, once is enough for any one chemical reaction product - say one molecule of Cytosine for example. Remember, each specific chemical reaction product is dependent on the environment simulated in the experiment.

Again I ask how you get wet, dry (even with condensing agents), acid, alkaline, hot and cold in the same place at the same time? Sure, any one unlikely product (e.g amino acids not detected in Miller-Urey type experiments) can occur once in a long time in a specific environment - that you are correct about. However, you are missing the RATE of production of each required amino acid as well as SELECTION of said amino acid in a soup containing mostly Formic acid molecules.

An illustration is why you cannot get a tomato plant when you plant a carrot seed. You might get a different type of carrot but you will not get a tomato plant.

A more relevant example is the predicted chemical reaction product proportions in any specific chemical reaction in any given environment. Sure, any one product (one molecule) could end up in the results - but the larger the number of molecules involved, the more predictable the results are.

The predictability of any chemical reaction is due to the law of large numbers.

One more example: Chemical evolutionists admit that their synthesis results are dependent on the absence of free Oxygen. Again, that is really because of the law of large numbers. Any one atom can avoid the Oxygen atom - but the large number of atoms involved make that impossible.

Later I will post on one specific set of chemical reactions - that required for Cytosine synthesis.

The continuing problem faced by the supernatural creationists is that their religious literature ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions occurring simultaneously over the course of billions of years.

The real question becomes why would the gods make illogical life so complex when supernatural creation has no need for such complexity?

Have the gods played a cruel joke on supernatural creationists?

There are no chemical reactions that are time based and that do different things with the same elements at different times like DNA does. You should also examine the fact that the same collection of elements can create an infinite and massively different assortment of life, yet non DNA based collections of elements always arrange in EXACTLY the same way. DNA also produces consciousness which can achieve further changes to the atoms such as leaving the solar system in the search for home. So keep shaking up your elements trying to from the most complicated code in the known universe. Really it's astounding how my atoms can be so bright and yours so dim, and all from the same stuff

What consciousness does DNA produce in plant based life?

Easy, chlorophyll producing plants are the base of the food chain that humans rely upon

I love dumb PHD's

Yes. Your earlier claim is utterly contradicted.

Not by the lack of information that you just relayed

Did you forget what you wrote?

Not at all, did you forget that the o/1's of a computer operating system have no meaning without the computer and vice versa.

Did you not know that biological organisms operate differently than computers?

Are you aware that all computers are created by DNA and as such can never be more powerful than their creator

And that the above includes the human being as well

No kidding? I never realized that my Intel cpu was DNA based. The stuff you learn on the interwebs.

 

[esalla]

I think you forgot the law of large numbers ...

I'm very familiar with the law of large numbers ... as a casino gambler I can say I'm quite intimate with the "gambler's fallacy" ...

That answers the wrong question ... we don't care how small the probability is that a more complex amino acid forms in any given year ... having enough years the probability of this amino acid to form just once approaches certainty ... thus "once is enough" ...

Consider the "one in a trillion" mutation that allows the individual to double their successful reproduction ... in so many generations this mutation will come to dominate the gene pool ... just one mutation occurring just once ...

Remember ... time we have in abundance ...

That is only true when you are talking about one step in any pathway where the second step is not dependent on the first step in a complex way. I was trying to help you realize that the RATE of chance formation of any one amino acid becomes more predictable the more trials are involved. And I asked how one polypeptide formed in Andromeda galaxy would get to meet another polypeptide formed in Milky Way 10,000 years later?

But, yes, once is enough for any one chemical reaction product - say one molecule of Cytosine for example. Remember, each specific chemical reaction product is dependent on the environment simulated in the experiment.

Again I ask how you get wet, dry (even with condensing agents), acid, alkaline, hot and cold in the same place at the same time? Sure, any one unlikely product (e.g amino acids not detected in Miller-Urey type experiments) can occur once in a long time in a specific environment - that you are correct about. However, you are missing the RATE of production of each required amino acid as well as SELECTION of said amino acid in a soup containing mostly Formic acid molecules.

An illustration is why you cannot get a tomato plant when you plant a carrot seed. You might get a different type of carrot but you will not get a tomato plant.

A more relevant example is the predicted chemical reaction product proportions in any specific chemical reaction in any given environment. Sure, any one product (one molecule) could end up in the results - but the larger the number of molecules involved, the more predictable the results are.

The predictability of any chemical reaction is due to the law of large numbers.

One more example: Chemical evolutionists admit that their synthesis results are dependent on the absence of free Oxygen. Again, that is really because of the law of large numbers. Any one atom can avoid the Oxygen atom - but the large number of atoms involved make that impossible.

Later I will post on one specific set of chemical reactions - that required for Cytosine synthesis.

The continuing problem faced by the supernatural creationists is that their religious literature ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions occurring simultaneously over the course of billions of years.

The real question becomes why would the gods make illogical life so complex when supernatural creation has no need for such complexity?

Have the gods played a cruel joke on supernatural creationists?

There are no chemical reactions that are time based and that do different things with the same elements at different times like DNA does. You should also examine the fact that the same collection of elements can create an infinite and massively different assortment of life, yet non DNA based collections of elements always arrange in EXACTLY the same way. DNA also produces consciousness which can achieve further changes to the atoms such as leaving the solar system in the search for home. So keep shaking up your elements trying to from the most complicated code in the known universe. Really it's astounding how my atoms can be so bright and yours so dim, and all from the same stuff

What consciousness does DNA produce in plant based life?

Easy, chlorophyll producing plants are the base of the food chain that humans rely upon

I love dumb PHD's

Yes. Your earlier claim is utterly contradicted.

Not by the lack of information that you just relayed

Did you forget what you wrote?

Not at all, did you forget that the o/1's of a computer operating system have no meaning without the computer and vice versa.

Did you not know that biological organisms operate differently than computers?

Are you aware that all computers are created by DNA and as such can never be more powerful than their creator

And that the above includes the human being as well

No kidding? I never realized that my Intel cpu was DNA based. The stuff you learn on the interwebs.

Again all silicon computer chips are created by DNA.

Or do silicon chips form in Darwin's pond

What you realize or do not is not important

You in yet or have you accepted that folding is your only option

 

[ReinyDays]

I think you forgot the law of large numbers ...

I'm very familiar with the law of large numbers ... as a casino gambler I can say I'm quite intimate with the "gambler's fallacy" ...

That answers the wrong question ... we don't care how small the probability is that a more complex amino acid forms in any given year ... having enough years the probability of this amino acid to form just once approaches certainty ... thus "once is enough" ...

Consider the "one in a trillion" mutation that allows the individual to double their successful reproduction ... in so many generations this mutation will come to dominate the gene pool ... just one mutation occurring just once ...

Remember ... time we have in abundance ...

That is only true when you are talking about one step in any pathway where the second step is not dependent on the first step in a complex way. I was trying to help you realize that the RATE of chance formation of any one amino acid becomes more predictable the more trials are involved. And I asked how one polypeptide formed in Andromeda galaxy would get to meet another polypeptide formed in Milky Way 10,000 years later?

But, yes, once is enough for any one chemical reaction product - say one molecule of Cytosine for example. Remember, each specific chemical reaction product is dependent on the environment simulated in the experiment.

Again I ask how you get wet, dry (even with condensing agents), acid, alkaline, hot and cold in the same place at the same time? Sure, any one unlikely product (e.g amino acids not detected in Miller-Urey type experiments) can occur once in a long time in a specific environment - that you are correct about. However, you are missing the RATE of production of each required amino acid as well as SELECTION of said amino acid in a soup containing mostly Formic acid molecules.

An illustration is why you cannot get a tomato plant when you plant a carrot seed. You might get a different type of carrot but you will not get a tomato plant.

A more relevant example is the predicted chemical reaction product proportions in any specific chemical reaction in any given environment. Sure, any one product (one molecule) could end up in the results - but the larger the number of molecules involved, the more predictable the results are.

The predictability of any chemical reaction is due to the law of large numbers.

One more example: Chemical evolutionists admit that their synthesis results are dependent on the absence of free Oxygen. Again, that is really because of the law of large numbers. Any one atom can avoid the Oxygen atom - but the large number of atoms involved make that impossible.

Later I will post on one specific set of chemical reactions - that required for Cytosine synthesis.

The thing you're forgetting is that the product we're forming is a catalyst ... no matter how improbable this reaction in any given year ... the odds of at least one catalyst approaches certainty with enough years ... once form though, the second reaction in our chain proceeds very quickly soon filling the oceans with this second product ... which can then be catalyzed into a third product, then a fourth etc etc etc ...

Seems strange, I know, but let's examine an individual molecule and let's assign the odds of one in a billion billion (10^-18) of this molecule forming a new molecule ... there's roughly 10^23 molecules in a teaspoon of ocean water, so on average, each teaspoon will have 10,000 of these new molecules ... how many teaspoons does the ocean contain? ... how about one in a trillion trillion odds (10^-24) ... on average a new molecule in every ten teaspoons ... less than 1/4 cup of water ... if this new molecule is self-catalyzing, then each teaspoon quickly fills up with our new molecule until the reactants run out ...

A very nifty trick of the statistical arts ... what are the odds of throwing a pair of dice a million times and never rolling a 7? ... it's (5/6)^1000000 ... my arithmetic gives this as a $4,856 refundable tax credit per $100,000 of income using IRS forms 4514, 5725 and 8453 ... [adorable grin] ...

Later I will post on one specific set of chemical reactions - that required for Cytosine synthesis.

I'd rather you didn't ... start with carboxylic acid ... ammonia + methane + carboxylic acid yields glycine ... then we can work on glycine synthase ... then move up to alanine synthase ... etc etc etc ...

 

[Newtonian]

The beginnings of life does not have to be DNA surrounded by cellulose, etc. Research (I forget where) found that a viable form of "life" that can replicate is in the form of RNA surrounded and protected by lipids. Furthermore perhaps not all four, AGCT bases are necessary. Maybe (or maybe not) just two can work. Once a very simple system that can replicate arises, mutations and evolution will do the rest.

.

You forget the need for specific nucleic acid synthesis and the synthesis of sugars and the synthesis of fatty acids at the same place and time.

Guess why humans cannot restore life to a cell with too much loss of information lost due to entropy - or simply: the difference between a dead cell and a living cell. It is obviously easier to restore life to a dead cell than to create a dead cell from non-living matter.

Note that I was posting about amino acid synthesis (thread title). Would you like me to start a thread on nucleic acid synthesis?

I didn't forget about sugars or lipids. I am thinking that there could have been many simple replicating systems that are precursors to the more complex amino acids. In one sense they could be sort of like catalysts that set the stage for more complex systems. They don't have to actually follow a definition of life, but they could eventually lead to that.

As far as the low probability of complex systems spontaneously forming, think of Markov Chains, where there are a number of simpler steps of higher probability that lead to a more complex result. Lipids and RNA would be later in the chain.
.

OK, but what chemical reactions are you proposing for sugars or lipids? Like nucleic acids, I will eventually start a separate thread on sugars to ribose, and also lipids. I will be concentrating on amino acids in this thread but I do not wish to ignore your points.

For now, here is one problem with having chemical reactions producing amino acids at the same time as having chemical reactions producing sugars: From page 51 of:

https://www.krusch.com/books/evolution/Mystery_of_Lifes_Origin.pdf

"Reaction of Carbonyl Group with Amino Group
The reaction of compounds containing a free amino group (-NHz) with compounds containing a carbonyl group C> C=O) would have been a very important destructive process. This reaction would vastly diminish concentrations of important organic compounds in the primitive ocean. It can be written generally as follows: "

See the link for the structural diagrams of the molecules involved, namely:

carbonyl group (>C=O) + amino group (H2N) yields OH-C-NH yields Imine (>C=N) + water (H2O)

The problem is that in order to synthesize sugars you need the carbonyl group but in order to synthesize amino acids you need the amino group. But these will react with each other and thus destroy the chemical pathway to sugars and amino acids. Note that Miller-Urey were not trying to synthesize sugars (or lipids or nucleic acids) - they were trying to synthesize amino acids.

Thaxton et al continue (p. 51):

"Many substances used in prebiotic simulation experiments (see Chapter 3) presumably would have been present in the oceanic soup. According to the general equation above, the amino group (-NHz) of amines (including the free amino group in purines and pyrimidines) and amino acids would combine with the carbonyl group(> C=O) of reducing sugars, aldehydes, and a few ketones. Huge amounts of essential organic compounds would thus be removed from the soup by these reactions. [35]"

Reference 35: A. Nissenbaum, 1976. Origins of Life 7, 413.

Also from page 51:

"These reactions would have greatly diminished not only amino acid concentration but also the concentration of aldehydes. Buildup of concentrations of aldehydes, especially formaldehyde, would have been important in the primordial synthesis of sugars. Polymerization of formaldehyde in alkaline solution has given a variety of sugars vital to life, including glucose, ribose, and deoxyribose. Studies of thermodynamic and kinetic stability of the important sugars suggest, however, that only insignificant amounts of them could have existed in the primordial ocean.36 Add to this the chemical reality of reactions of sugars with amino compounds and the problem is seen as acute. Such low sugar concentrations argue strongly against formation of nucleic acids since they contain sugar."

Reference 36:

36. Abelson, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S., p. 1365. [=PNAS]

When I get to it, since nucleic acid synthesis and the synthesis of sugars are linked, I will start a thread on nucleic acid and sugar synthesis. In my next post I will explain some of the terms you all may not be familiar with - e.g.: Imine.

Yes -if you study Imines you will see what Imine - or, er: I mean!

 

[Newtonian]

The

I think you forgot the law of large numbers ...

I'm very familiar with the law of large numbers ... as a casino gambler I can say I'm quite intimate with the "gambler's fallacy" ...

That answers the wrong question ... we don't care how small the probability is that a more complex amino acid forms in any given year ... having enough years the probability of this amino acid to form just once approaches certainty ... thus "once is enough" ...

Consider the "one in a trillion" mutation that allows the individual to double their successful reproduction ... in so many generations this mutation will come to dominate the gene pool ... just one mutation occurring just once ...

Remember ... time we have in abundance ...

That is only true when you are talking about one step in any pathway where the second step is not dependent on the first step in a complex way. I was trying to help you realize that the RATE of chance formation of any one amino acid becomes more predictable the more trials are involved. And I asked how one polypeptide formed in Andromeda galaxy would get to meet another polypeptide formed in Milky Way 10,000 years later?

But, yes, once is enough for any one chemical reaction product - say one molecule of Cytosine for example. Remember, each specific chemical reaction product is dependent on the environment simulated in the experiment.

Again I ask how you get wet, dry (even with condensing agents), acid, alkaline, hot and cold in the same place at the same time? Sure, any one unlikely product (e.g amino acids not detected in Miller-Urey type experiments) can occur once in a long time in a specific environment - that you are correct about. However, you are missing the RATE of production of each required amino acid as well as SELECTION of said amino acid in a soup containing mostly Formic acid molecules.

An illustration is why you cannot get a tomato plant when you plant a carrot seed. You might get a different type of carrot but you will not get a tomato plant.

A more relevant example is the predicted chemical reaction product proportions in any specific chemical reaction in any given environment. Sure, any one product (one molecule) could end up in the results - but the larger the number of molecules involved, the more predictable the results are.

The predictability of any chemical reaction is due to the law of large numbers.

One more example: Chemical evolutionists admit that their synthesis results are dependent on the absence of free Oxygen. Again, that is really because of the law of large numbers. Any one atom can avoid the Oxygen atom - but the large number of atoms involved make that impossible.

Later I will post on one specific set of chemical reactions - that required for Cytosine synthesis.

The thing you're forgetting is that the product we're forming is a catalyst ... no matter how improbable this reaction in any given year ... the odds of at least one catalyst approaches certainty with enough years ... once form though, the second reaction in our chain proceeds very quickly soon filling the oceans with this second product ... which can then be catalyzed into a third product, then a fourth etc etc etc ...

Seems strange, I know, but let's examine an individual molecule and let's assign the odds of one in a billion billion (10^-18) of this molecule forming a new molecule ... there's roughly 10^23 molecules in a teaspoon of ocean water, so on average, each teaspoon will have 10,000 of these new molecules ... how many teaspoons does the ocean contain? ... how about one in a trillion trillion odds (10^-24) ... on average a new molecule in every ten teaspoons ... less than 1/4 cup of water ... if this new molecule is self-catalyzing, then each teaspoon quickly fills up with our new molecule until the reactants run out ...

A very nifty trick of the statistical arts ... what are the odds of throwing a pair of dice a million times and never rolling a 7? ... it's (5/6)^1000000 ... my arithmetic gives this as a $4,856 refundable tax credit per $100,000 of income using IRS forms 4514, 5725 and 8453 ... [adorable grin] ...

Later I will post on one specific set of chemical reactions - that required for Cytosine synthesis.

I'd rather you didn't ... start with carboxylic acid ... ammonia + methane + carboxylic acid yields glycine ... then we can work on glycine synthase ... then move up to alanine synthase ... etc etc etc ...

There is something wrong with your math I think - can you document your numbers?

Sir Arthur Eddington years ago calculated the mass of the visible universe as 10^79 amu (= atomic mass units).

 

[ReinyDays]

There is something wrong with your math I think - can you document your numbers?

Wald, George; "The Origins of Life"; Scientific American; August 1954 ...

 

[Hollie]

The beginnings of life does not have to be DNA surrounded by cellulose, etc. Research (I forget where) found that a viable form of "life" that can replicate is in the form of RNA surrounded and protected by lipids. Furthermore perhaps not all four, AGCT bases are necessary. Maybe (or maybe not) just two can work. Once a very simple system that can replicate arises, mutations and evolution will do the rest.

.

You forget the need for specific nucleic acid synthesis and the synthesis of sugars and the synthesis of fatty acids at the same place and time.

Guess why humans cannot restore life to a cell with too much loss of information lost due to entropy - or simply: the difference between a dead cell and a living cell. It is obviously easier to restore life to a dead cell than to create a dead cell from non-living matter.

Note that I was posting about amino acid synthesis (thread title). Would you like me to start a thread on nucleic acid synthesis?

I didn't forget about sugars or lipids. I am thinking that there could have been many simple replicating systems that are precursors to the more complex amino acids. In one sense they could be sort of like catalysts that set the stage for more complex systems. They don't have to actually follow a definition of life, but they could eventually lead to that.

As far as the low probability of complex systems spontaneously forming, think of Markov Chains, where there are a number of simpler steps of higher probability that lead to a more complex result. Lipids and RNA would be later in the chain.
.

OK, but what chemical reactions are you proposing for sugars or lipids? Like nucleic acids, I will eventually start a separate thread on sugars to ribose, and also lipids. I will be concentrating on amino acids in this thread but I do not wish to ignore your points.

For now, here is one problem with having chemical reactions producing amino acids at the same time as having chemical reactions producing sugars: From page 51 of:

https://www.krusch.com/books/evolution/Mystery_of_Lifes_Origin.pdf

"Reaction of Carbonyl Group with Amino Group
The reaction of compounds containing a free amino group (-NHz) with compounds containing a carbonyl group C> C=O) would have been a very important destructive process. This reaction would vastly diminish concentrations of important organic compounds in the primitive ocean. It can be written generally as follows: "

See the link for the structural diagrams of the molecules involved, namely:

carbonyl group (>C=O) + amino group (H2N) yields OH-C-NH yields Imine (>C=N) + water (H2O)

The problem is that in order to synthesize sugars you need the carbonyl group but in order to synthesize amino acids you need the amino group. But these will react with each other and thus destroy the chemical pathway to sugars and amino acids. Note that Miller-Urey were not trying to synthesize sugars (or lipids or nucleic acids) - they were trying to synthesize amino acids.

Thaxton et al continue (p. 51):

"Many substances used in prebiotic simulation experiments (see Chapter 3) presumably would have been present in the oceanic soup. According to the general equation above, the amino group (-NHz) of amines (including the free amino group in purines and pyrimidines) and amino acids would combine with the carbonyl group(> C=O) of reducing sugars, aldehydes, and a few ketones. Huge amounts of essential organic compounds would thus be removed from the soup by these reactions. [35]"

Reference 35: A. Nissenbaum, 1976. Origins of Life 7, 413.

Also from page 51:

"These reactions would have greatly diminished not only amino acid concentration but also the concentration of aldehydes. Buildup of concentrations of aldehydes, especially formaldehyde, would have been important in the primordial synthesis of sugars. Polymerization of formaldehyde in alkaline solution has given a variety of sugars vital to life, including glucose, ribose, and deoxyribose. Studies of thermodynamic and kinetic stability of the important sugars suggest, however, that only insignificant amounts of them could have existed in the primordial ocean.36 Add to this the chemical reality of reactions of sugars with amino compounds and the problem is seen as acute. Such low sugar concentrations argue strongly against formation of nucleic acids since they contain sugar."

Reference 36:

36. Abelson, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S., p. 1365. [=PNAS]

When I get to it, since nucleic acid synthesis and the synthesis of sugars are linked, I will start a thread on nucleic acid and sugar synthesis. In my next post I will explain some of the terms you all may not be familiar with - e.g.: Imine.

Yes -if you study Imines you will see what Imine - or, er: I mean!

If you're going to cut and paste the entirety of the creationist Thaxton's book, why not make a thread and post the contents there?

 

[Wuwei]

I didn't forget about sugars or lipids. I am thinking that there could have been many simple replicating systems that are precursors to the more complex amino acids. In one sense they could be sort of like catalysts that set the stage for more complex systems. They don't have to actually follow a definition of life, but they could eventually lead to that.

As far as the low probability of complex systems spontaneously forming, think of Markov Chains, where there are a number of simpler steps of higher probability that lead to a more complex result. Lipids and RNA would be later in the chain.

OK, but what chemical reactions are you proposing for sugars or lipids? Like nucleic acids, I will eventually start a separate thread on sugars to ribose, and also lipids. I will be concentrating on amino acids in this thread but I do not wish to ignore your points.

You are still jumping ahead. I am not proposing anything for sugar or nucleic acids synthesis. If you are concerned about the earliest stages of abiogenesis, they may not be needed in the simplest life forms. You seem to be jumping in the middle of the process and demanding that a more sophisticated biochemistry is required right at the primordial soup stage.

This is similar to the trap that some fall into that the eye is too complex to have been created in small stages.
.

 

[Newtonian]

OK - Imine first (the result of the reaction of the carbonyl group with the amino group) - the following source confirms the reactions Thaxton et al referenced:

19.8: Nucleophilic Addition of Amines - Imine and Enamine Formation

The nucleophilic addition of amines involves reacting primary or secondary amines with carbonyl compounds like aldehydes or ketones. This forms imines (with primary amines) or enamines (with …

chem.libretexts.org

Question 6 in this study:

explain why the rate of a reaction between an aldehyde or ketone and a primary or secondary amine is dependent on pH. "

pH involves acid (<7) neutral (7) and alkaline/base (>7). As I posted earlier, some amino acids prefer acid others alkaline for synthesis. Note that aldehydes and ketones contain the carbonyl group while amines contain the amino group.

I will need to study the link more carefully - meanwhile any of could post the results of your research.

 

[Newtonian]

There is something wrong with your math I think - can you document your numbers?

Wald, George; "The Origins of Life"; Scientific American; August 1954 ...

A link would help!

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24943594?seq=1

But I am not sure I still have access - can you post a relevant excerpt?

 

[Newtonian]

The beginnings of life does not have to be DNA surrounded by cellulose, etc. Research (I forget where) found that a viable form of "life" that can replicate is in the form of RNA surrounded and protected by lipids. Furthermore perhaps not all four, AGCT bases are necessary. Maybe (or maybe not) just two can work. Once a very simple system that can replicate arises, mutations and evolution will do the rest.

.

You forget the need for specific nucleic acid synthesis and the synthesis of sugars and the synthesis of fatty acids at the same place and time.

Guess why humans cannot restore life to a cell with too much loss of information lost due to entropy - or simply: the difference between a dead cell and a living cell. It is obviously easier to restore life to a dead cell than to create a dead cell from non-living matter.

Note that I was posting about amino acid synthesis (thread title). Would you like me to start a thread on nucleic acid synthesis?

I didn't forget about sugars or lipids. I am thinking that there could have been many simple replicating systems that are precursors to the more complex amino acids. In one sense they could be sort of like catalysts that set the stage for more complex systems. They don't have to actually follow a definition of life, but they could eventually lead to that.

As far as the low probability of complex systems spontaneously forming, think of Markov Chains, where there are a number of simpler steps of higher probability that lead to a more complex result. Lipids and RNA would be later in the chain.
.

OK, but what chemical reactions are you proposing for sugars or lipids? Like nucleic acids, I will eventually start a separate thread on sugars to ribose, and also lipids. I will be concentrating on amino acids in this thread but I do not wish to ignore your points.

For now, here is one problem with having chemical reactions producing amino acids at the same time as having chemical reactions producing sugars: From page 51 of:

https://www.krusch.com/books/evolution/Mystery_of_Lifes_Origin.pdf

"Reaction of Carbonyl Group with Amino Group
The reaction of compounds containing a free amino group (-NHz) with compounds containing a carbonyl group C> C=O) would have been a very important destructive process. This reaction would vastly diminish concentrations of important organic compounds in the primitive ocean. It can be written generally as follows: "

See the link for the structural diagrams of the molecules involved, namely:

carbonyl group (>C=O) + amino group (H2N) yields OH-C-NH yields Imine (>C=N) + water (H2O)

The problem is that in order to synthesize sugars you need the carbonyl group but in order to synthesize amino acids you need the amino group. But these will react with each other and thus destroy the chemical pathway to sugars and amino acids. Note that Miller-Urey were not trying to synthesize sugars (or lipids or nucleic acids) - they were trying to synthesize amino acids.

Thaxton et al continue (p. 51):

"Many substances used in prebiotic simulation experiments (see Chapter 3) presumably would have been present in the oceanic soup. According to the general equation above, the amino group (-NHz) of amines (including the free amino group in purines and pyrimidines) and amino acids would combine with the carbonyl group(> C=O) of reducing sugars, aldehydes, and a few ketones. Huge amounts of essential organic compounds would thus be removed from the soup by these reactions. [35]"

Reference 35: A. Nissenbaum, 1976. Origins of Life 7, 413.

Also from page 51:

"These reactions would have greatly diminished not only amino acid concentration but also the concentration of aldehydes. Buildup of concentrations of aldehydes, especially formaldehyde, would have been important in the primordial synthesis of sugars. Polymerization of formaldehyde in alkaline solution has given a variety of sugars vital to life, including glucose, ribose, and deoxyribose. Studies of thermodynamic and kinetic stability of the important sugars suggest, however, that only insignificant amounts of them could have existed in the primordial ocean.36 Add to this the chemical reality of reactions of sugars with amino compounds and the problem is seen as acute. Such low sugar concentrations argue strongly against formation of nucleic acids since they contain sugar."

Reference 36:

36. Abelson, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S., p. 1365. [=PNAS]

When I get to it, since nucleic acid synthesis and the synthesis of sugars are linked, I will start a thread on nucleic acid and sugar synthesis. In my next post I will explain some of the terms you all may not be familiar with - e.g.: Imine.

Yes -if you study Imines you will see what Imine - or, er: I mean!

If you're going to cut and paste the entirety of the creationist Thaxton's book, why not make a thread and post the contents there?

I gave the link. How about actually addressing the evidence I provided from chemistry?

 

[Newtonian]

I didn't forget about sugars or lipids. I am thinking that there could have been many simple replicating systems that are precursors to the more complex amino acids. In one sense they could be sort of like catalysts that set the stage for more complex systems. They don't have to actually follow a definition of life, but they could eventually lead to that.

As far as the low probability of complex systems spontaneously forming, think of Markov Chains, where there are a number of simpler steps of higher probability that lead to a more complex result. Lipids and RNA would be later in the chain.

OK, but what chemical reactions are you proposing for sugars or lipids? Like nucleic acids, I will eventually start a separate thread on sugars to ribose, and also lipids. I will be concentrating on amino acids in this thread but I do not wish to ignore your points.

You are still jumping ahead. I am not proposing anything for sugar or nucleic acids synthesis. If you are concerned about the earliest stages of abiogenesis, they may not be needed in the simplest life forms. You seem to be jumping in the middle of the process and demanding that a more sophisticated biochemistry is required right at the primordial soup stage.

This is similar to the trap that some fall into that the eye is too complex to have been created in small stages.
.

OK, so how do you get the informational molecules required for life? Do you think all of the scientists that engage in origin of life synthesis experiments are on the proverbial wild goose chase?

This thread is on Amino acid synthesis. Origin of life deserves a separate thread, don't you think>

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I am continuing my research

What you are doing is not actual, scientific research. It is verbose self soothing and attention seeking.

This is actual research:

Origins of building blocks of life: A review

How and where did life on Earth originate? To date, various environments have been proposed as plausible sites for the origin of life. However, discus…

www.sciencedirect.com

 

[Wuwei]

OK, so how do you get the informational molecules required for life? Do you think all of the scientists that engage in origin of life synthesis experiments are on the proverbial wild goose chase?

This thread is on Amino acid synthesis. Origin of life deserves a separate thread, don't you think>

Not a different thread. I thought this thread is supposed to address the earliest aspects of the origin of life because you referred to the Miller-Urey experiment which was precisely an attempt to explore the earliest stages. You were also concerned about the LLN. Your concern about amino acids (and sugars and lipids) would be most important in later stages in the formation of life.

No, I don't think it's a wild goose chase; it just shouldn't be associated with the more primordial Miller-Urey experiments.

.

 

[ReinyDays]

A link would help!

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24943594?seq=1

But I am not sure I still have access - can you post a relevant excerpt?

Yes ... a link would be nice ... bitch at SciAm for that lack ...

I already posted the relevant excerpt ... "Once is enough" ...

There is something wrong with your math I think - can you document your numbers?

Yes, I can document those numbers ... just not without breaking copyright law ... so the math is correct, whether you understand it or not ... I've explained it simpler than George Wald did ... just he goes into greater detail ...

Try ... Abiogenesis - Wikipedia ... this article touches upon Alexander Oparin's "primordial soup" theory that George Wald wrote about ... just without the math ...

ETA: how long until you post the synthesis pathway for carboxylic acid? ...