Blowing Up Darwin

[Leo123]

You don't "create" life.

Life is a part of the fabric of spacetime.

Wherever there's spacetime, there will be life.

Our particular form of it is advanced because it's gone through 4 billion years of evolution, under near-optimal conditions.

But there are microbes on asteroids. Where there is no oxygen and no water.

There are microbes living inside rocks on earth, where there isn't even any light. They get their energy from nearby mineral reactions.

That was my point. It's impossible to create life. People who say it is possible have never seen the inner workings of just one cell. We know a lot about HOW chemicals react but we really don't know why.

 

[Leo123]

The family line that is most successful will propagate and evolve if the gene pool is small enough to force inbreeding.
I am not an organic chemistry expert:
{...
The Miller-Urey experiment was conducted by American chemist Stanley Miller under the supervision of American scientist Harold C. Urey at the University of Chicago. The experiment was designed to test ideas introduced independently in the 1920s by Russian biochemist Aleksandr Oparin and British physiologist J.B.S. Haldane, both of whom suggested that organic molecules, such as amino acids and sugars, could be formed from abiogenic materials when acted on by an external energy source within the context of a reducing atmosphere, that is, one with low levels of free oxygen (see also oxidation-reduction reaction). At the time, it was thought that the atmosphere of early Earth between 4 billion and 3.5 billion years ago was primarily composed of ammonia and water vapour. Oparin and Haldane noted that from this “primordial soup” of materials the first organic molecules arose, which became the precursors to molecules of ever-increasing complexity that resulted in the development of living cells (see also abiogenesis).
...}
Miller-Urey experiment | Description, Purpose, Results, & Facts | Britannica

That experiment created no life and also required human manipulation. We're talking about the origin of life here, before humans.

 

[abu afak]

That was my point. It's impossible to create life. People who say it is possible have never seen the inner workings of just one cell. We know a lot about HOW chemicals react but we really don't know why.

And how do you know that?
It was "impossible" for man to fly just over a century ago after many failed tries over decades/centuries... until they succeeded.
"We don't know that... yet" is the only HONEST answer.
The vast majority of gods (Tens of thousands) have lapsed after we found out why/how.

One thing we do know for certain is that man created gods. Lots of them. Most way gone.
We also DO know at least 75% of the planet is wrong even if one is right.

Is it more possible to POOF a god/omnipotent being into existence or a cell that had a few billion years and an infinite amount of chances/conditions to combine from pre-existing elements?
`

 

[Rigby5]

That experiment created no life and also required human manipulation. We're talking about the origin of life here, before humans.

This Miller-Urey experiment created what is essential for life, and makes life itself trivial.
It did not require human manipulation except to duplicate the conditions of primordial earth.
It only slightly sped it up a little by adding artificial lightening.

 

[Leo123]

This Miller-Urey experiment created what is essential for life, and makes life itself trivial.
It did not require human manipulation except to duplicate the conditions of primordial earth.
It only slightly sped it up a little by adding artificial lightening.

It did not create life. The whole experiment was in human-made lab glass and they added to it. You even said they added lightning. It’s just not believable.

 

[scruffy]

That was my point. It's impossible to create life. People who say it is possible have never seen the inner workings of just one cell. We know a lot about HOW chemicals react but we really don't know why.

To put together a cell, you need basically three things:

1. Micelles, which are lipids, they are hydrophobic and naturally form round membranes with either one or two layers (two being preferred)

2. Polypeptides, which are prototype amino acids and the building blocks for proteins, and

3. Nucleotides, which go on to form strands of RNA and DNA.

Parts 2 and 3 can be achieved with moderate concentrations of glycine in water, and the process is catalyzed by copper ions (which are abundant in seawater).

Part 1 is also easy to achieve because micelles naturally fuse with each other. Before they fuse, they create a stable and isolated environment in which chemical reactions can occur. And it turns out, lipid assembly is catalyzed by diglycine.

The Miller-Urey experiment created 20 of the 24 naturally occurring amino acids, glycine being the most prevalent by volume.

The problem with the lightning is you have to turn it off after a while. If you don't, reactions continue to take place and you end up with organic "tar". So instead of trying to create a bigger diversity of organic molecules by letting the experiment run longer, the better strategy is to run it for 2 hours at a time over a period of several days.

If you then add minerals to the mix, you end up with short strands of RNA. They will be inside micelles along with polypeptides and raw amino acids. These micelles will then fuse with each other, allowing their inner contents to intermingle.

This process is very likely sufficient for the eventual emergence of self replicating cells. Because, there is a very simple polyglycine analog that can serve as a substitute for tRNA. (It's a lot slower, but it works).

Also, polyglycine is much like nylon, it provides structural stability so the cell can maintain its shape, which is important for cell division. The earliest form of cell division was probably just punching off a bud from a large micelle.

(And by the way, all these precursors are found in abundance in seawater, even today).

Subsequently, you need additional minerals to build a better repertoire of complex biomolecules. Calcium, magnesium, copper, and nickel are essential, all of which are plentiful in undersea rocks. There is further catalysis of polypeptide chains at the air-water interface, which means a few micelles had to break free from the rocks and travel to the surface.

All these steps are "very" likely to occur with just seawater, sunlight, and a little electricity. Earth's early environment was a rich source of diversity for chemical catalysis

Venter et al have shown that a minimal self sustaining cell requires about 50 small proteins. ("Not many"). To get from there to self replication you just have to add a few short strands of RNA. You can actually calculate the chances of this happening, and therefore the time until it happens. Turns out, we're looking at 90 days or so. 90 days from soup to a self sustaining micelle. And from there just a few more months to self replication.

Once you have self replication, you can begin the process of actually building a working cell. The point being it's DAYS, not years or decades. Life begins "almost instantly" under the right conditions.

 

[Leo123]

To put together a cell, you need basically three things:

1. Micelles, which are lipids, they are hydrophobic and naturally form round membranes with either one or two layers (two being preferred)

2. Polypeptides, which are prototype amino acids and the building blocks for proteins, and

3. Nucleotides, which go on to form strands of RNA and DNA.

Parts 2 and 3 can be achieved with moderate concentrations of glycine in water, and the process is catalyzed by copper ions (which are abundant in seawater).

Part 1 is also easy to achieve because micelles naturally fuse with each other. Before they fuse, they create a stable and isolated environment in which chemical reactions can occur. And it turns out, lipid assembly is catalyzed by diglycine.

The Miller-Urey experiment created 20 of the 24 naturally occurring amino acids, glycine being the most prevalent by volume.

The problem with the lightning is you have to turn it off after a while. If you don't, reactions continue to take place and you end up with organic "tar". So instead of trying to create a bigger diversity of organic molecules by letting the experiment run longer, the better strategy is to run it for 2 hours at a time over a period of several days.

If you then add minerals to the mix, you end up with short strands of RNA. They will be inside micelles along with polypeptides and raw amino acids. These micelles will then fuse with each other, allowing their inner contents to intermingle.

This process is very likely sufficient for the eventual emergence of self replicating cells. Because, there is a very simple polyglycine analog that can serve as a substitute for tRNA. (It's a lot slower, but it works).

Also, polyglycine is much like nylon, it provides structural stability so the cell can maintain its shape, which is important for cell division. The earliest form of cell division was probably just punching off a bud from a large micelle.

(And by the way, all these precursors are found in abundance in seawater, even today).

Subsequently, you need additional minerals to build a better repertoire of complex biomolecules. Calcium, magnesium, copper, and nickel are essential, all of which are plentiful in undersea rocks. There is further catalysis of polypeptide chains at the air-water interface, which means a few micelles had to break free from the rocks and travel to the surface.

All these steps are "very" likely to occur with just seawater, sunlight, and a little electricity. Earth's early environment was a rich source of diversity for chemical catalysis

Venter et al have shown that a minimal self sustaining cell requires about 50 small proteins. ("Not many"). To get from there to self replication you just have to add a few short strands of RNA. You can actually calculate the chances of this happening, and therefore the time until it happens. Turns out, we're looking at 90 days or so. 90 days from soup to a self sustaining micelle. And from there just a few more months to self replication.

Once you have self replication, you can begin the process of actually building a working cell. The point being it's DAYS, not years or decades. Life begins "almost instantly" under the right conditions.

So, where’s the newly created life?…From a pond?

 

[Soupnazi630]

Totally wrong.

Marx is a German philosopher and predates all the others you listed.
He discussed economic problems and suggested theoretical solutions.

Bolsheviks were more anarchists and socialists than communists.
But the colonial imperialists paid people like Lenin and Stalin to murder them all and take over.

Maoists are best identified as Stalinists, as they were not Marxist or communists.

Nazis were a front for the monarchists actually, and had all the anarchists, socialists, and communists killed in the "Night of the Long Knives".

Democrats vary.
Before Lincoln, they the wealthy elite.
After around 1880, the wealthy elite switched over to the Republicans.
With the Depression, the democrats switched to the working poor majority.
With LBJ and Vietnam, democrats like LBJ were again the wealthy elite.
Clinton seemed to be back with the working poor?
Obama and Biden seem to be back with the wealthy elite?

Wrong

Bolshevicks were communisst folliowing the scropt of marx who was a self assumed prophet and proposed tyranny.

Lenin and stalin werenot paid to take over they simply did asccording to marcist principles.

Maoists are indeed communists and marxists

 

[Soupnazi630]

You never read Marx.
All Marx and Engles were trying to do in the 1830s, was come up with a means by which the poor majority could survive after the Industrial Revolution caused expensive factories to be able to undercut cottage industry prices.
Essentially all Marx wrote was that the only means by which the working poor majority could survive and maintain their freedom, would be to band together and collectively, communally, and cooperatively create their own factories so they would not become slaves to those who could afford factories.
Since then, we invented alternative, such as unions and labor laws, so we do not need communal factories as an alternative.

There are no examples of Marxism because he came after the French and North American rebellion, and way before the Russian rebellion.

Wrong

You understand nothing of marx. They were not insertested in the poor but in ruling the world.

he never propsed communal oving or cooperation but temanded universal slavery

There are many examples of marxism

 

[scruffy]

So, where’s the newly created life?…From a pond?

lol

Well, most of the "newly created life" probably gets eaten by now.

Did you ever look at a drop of pond water in the microscope? Lots of tiny little predators in there!

 

[scruffy]

So, where’s the newly created life?…From a pond?

I should probably amplify that.

Single celled organisms get food by endocytosis. And all that is, is the pinching off of a small piece of cell membrane in the presence of calcium or other ion. Food is mostly small molecules. The process looks like this:

This is probably where most free floating organic molecules go, eventually. But you'll note that once they're in the cell they can react with other stuff that's already inside the cell (hence, "food").

Loading…

pubs.acs.org

 

[scruffy]

So, these small molecules will form spontaneously at the surface, and all the organism has to do is move to the top to feed.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1210029109

 

[Leo123]

I should probably amplify that.

Single celled organisms get food by endocytosis. And all that is, is the pinching off of a small piece of cell membrane in the presence of calcium or other ion. Food is mostly small molecules. The process looks like this:

View attachment 1051029

This is probably where most free floating organic molecules go, eventually. But you'll note that once they're in the cell they can react with other stuff that's already inside the cell (hence, "food").

Loading…

pubs.acs.org

Single cell organisms are already alive.

 

[Leo123]

So, these small molecules will form spontaneously at the surface, and all the organism has to do is move to the top to feed.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1210029109

Informative, however that still doesn't explain how a bunch of elements suddenly became alive and started replicating. You can follow all the steps there, set up a lab, equipment, have vials full of primordial ingredients, chemicals, etc. and still you will not have created life. In light of that, to think that life emerged from some primordial pond seems ludicrous.

 

[scruffy]

Single cell organisms are already alive.

"Alive" at that level just means they sustain themselves, and eventually self replicate.

Most (all?) cellular life on earth uses DNA at this point, however viruses and other "very simple" life forms can use RNA.

The simplest form of replication in cells is binary fission, which means the genetic material is duplicated and then the cell membrane splits in two. This is a pretty simple process in prokaryotes, they have a single circular chromosome, the strands pull to opposite ends and then the membrane pinches in the middle. It looks like this:

Replication only requires a single enzyme called a polymerase, although it also needs a "primer" which is usually a small piece of RNA (so technically there might be a second enzyme to synthesize it, called a primase). It's the pulling apart that's harder and somewhat more complex. After uncoiling and replication the old and new DNA are pulled to opposite poles of the cell. Instead of the microtubules used in eukaryotic asters, these simple bacteria use a protein called FtsZ, which looks like this:

It may look complicated, but it's really not, it has lots of repeating subunits. Anyway, it self assembles into a ring and pulls apart the coils of DNA. Then, the membrane contracts and closes, and then you have two identical cells. (There is no recombination in this process, the two strands of DNA are identical).

All together there are maybe half a dozen proteins in the whole process, which have to be encoded in the DNA. So to get from an RNA micelle to here is a pretty big step, it requires decades or maybe centuries of evolution. They have AI working on the evolutionary sequence even as we speak, the requirement being that simple forms of replication are maintained during the evolution.

The splitting of the membrane occurs when the FtsZ filaments tighten and ratchet against each other, much like the tubulin in our microtubules. This just happens when they run out of DNA to pull, the switchover is automatic

In eukaryotic cells this process becomes very complicated, involving asters and a spindle to line up and then separate the chromosome copies. But this simpler bacterial mechanism is used in chloroplasts and mitochondria too (except that our mitochondria use dynamin instead of FtsZ).

So, cell replication for even the simplest cell is non-trivial. Here's the thing though: cells don't "have to" replicate. They're perfectly happy living forever just as they are. However they tend to get eaten by bigger cells, which is one reason why they reproduce.

In a nutshell: sustainability is easy, replication is harder. If a cell has to replicate it needs to encoded at least half a dozen proteins in its DNA. It can do this over decades to centuries, by ingesting lots of small molecules and making bigger molecules out of them. The mechanism is currently being investigated.

 

[JoeB131]

Brilliant post.


I guess you got tired of me slapping you around, huh?

Naw, I just find you so nuts that you can't even be responded to.

Yes, or no, do you think Dinosaurs and Humans co-existed?

 

[Seymour Flops]

For now I'm satisfied with minimal cells and bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics in 5 generations on a Petri dish. Fossil records are superfluous when you can watch the process with your own eyes.

Here's the reason that is flawed: No individual cell or bacterial "becomes" resistant to antibiotics. What happens is that in any population of cells or bacteria there are some who are more resistant to antibiotics than others. Introduce antibiotics to that population and the least resistant dies immediately, moderately resistant ones die soon, and resistant ones survive and reproduce.

No entirely new cell or bactria is created, they just keep on reproducing as they were designed to do millions of years ago.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wrong.
Nutrition has improved on average, but some people have always have more than enough nutrition, and in fact the Romans threw up so they could eat even more.
There are no "environmental factors" that would cause us to become taller now, since we rely more on machines now and do not need to be taller.
The increasing tallness is only from natural selection, and is being passed down.
Shorter humans simply are not as desirable as mates.

Evolution, you dolt, is one species changing into another.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wrong.
No one I have ever read believes this.
They all believe that universes create black hole that eventually cause new universes to pop up.
So nothing comes from nothing, but instead universes have life spans and create new universes eventually.

But religion makes no sense because why would a god spend thousands of millions of year creating new species until finally creating human beings?
And why would that god then only tell a tiny Mideast group about his existence?
If there really were a god, then there would not need to be any proto homo sapiens, and there would only be one universal religion created by that god.

You should read more.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, I said nothing tends to evolve if successful.
What I said is that if moths become unsuccessful, they will likely evolve into something else that is more successful.

And since I have a BS in physics and electrical engineering, and an MS in computer science, I think I am well educated enough.

That adaption, you dunce, not evolution.

Mutations have NOTHING to do with success in an environment.