Scientists Discover a Self-Replicating Protein Structure, And It Could Have Built The First Life on

[Donald H]

Biological evolution occurs in living things.

It occurred in animals before they were fossilized too.

Natural selection requires a reproductive process to pass down genetics.

Yes, and that's true of hermaphrodites too, which I would assume that all early lifeforms were.

 

[ding]

It occurred in animals before they were fossilized too.

Yes, and that's true of hermaphrodites too, which I would assume that all early lifeforms were.

Does it occur in rocks?

 

[scruffy]

You'll need to elaborate I'm afraid.

Proteins are assembled by process that consumes mRNA which in turn is generated from DNA, anyone can read about this, they don't need to be a biochemist to appreciate the process at a logical level anyway.

I suspect you're alluding to something, perhaps hoping to enlighten (impress?) us, well go ahead, enlighten us.

You're an unappreciative lot.

I tell you things you don't know.

Not a single one of you could answer my elementary question about post translational modification.

Now you know. You don't even have to read the thread, just look at the pictures.

You're in a science forum. You're supposed to be scientists. Try it, you might like it.

Go look at the thread about protein evolution.

 

[alang1216]

No idea. The best guess is hot, wet conditions, long chains of organic molecules and chance. Chance as in the chain forming in the correct sequence and chance in the chain folding itself in the correct sequence. Which tells me that it was probably somewhere on the sea floor near a thermal vent.

So chance created a cell or are these long chains of organic molecules living and able to replicate?

But weren't you the guy that argued life evolved on land first? Then moved into the sea and then moved back on land?

Life began in water. The water may have been on land and subject to repeated cycles of wet and dry or in the sea, maybe deep maybe coastal.

 

[ding]

So chance created a cell or are these long chains of organic molecules living and able to replicate?


Life began in water. The water may have been on land and subject to repeated cycles of wet and dry or in the sea, maybe deep maybe coastal.

I don't see how anything that isn't alive can reproduce and pass down genetic instructions to the next generation which is how biological evolution works.

I have no idea why people would think life began on land in ponds when all of the evidence shows life evolved in the oceans and then moved to land.

Simulating Early Ocean Vents Shows Life's Building Blocks Form Under Pressure - NASA

Where did life first form on Earth? Some scientists think it could have been around hydrothermal vents that may have existed at the bottom of the ocean 4.5

www.nasa.gov

 

[alang1216]

I don't see how anything that isn't alive can reproduce and pass down genetic instructions to the next generation which is how biological evolution works.

I'm unclear what you claim, are these long chains of organic molecules living beings or not? Or was the cell the first living being?

I have no idea why people would think life began on land in ponds when all of the evidence shows life evolved in the oceans and then moved to land.

There are plenty of theories of abiogenesis, some involve ponds on land, some involve thermal vents, some involve intertidal areas, etc. In the absence of proof, all are valid theories. As usual, I'm agnostic and await further evidence.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You're an unappreciative lot.

I tell you things you don't know.

Not a single one of you could answer my elementary question about post translational modification.

Now you know. You don't even have to read the thread, just look at the pictures.

You're in a science forum. You're supposed to be scientists. Try it, you might like it.

Go look at the thread about protein evolution.

Is chaos deterministic? You're supposed to be a scientist so should know something as basic as this in your field.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

So chance created a cell or are these long chains of organic molecules living and able to replicate?


Life began in water. The water may have been on land and subject to repeated cycles of wet and dry or in the sea, maybe deep maybe coastal.

I was thinking, since chaos is deterministic, its reasonable to wonder if what we perceive as random is in fact not random. So the emergence of complex life structures from (apparent) randomness might actually be something very different.

Chaos arises from an extreme sensitivity to initial conditions so - might God have created the universe, chosen the constants and set the initial conditions to precisely the values needed for life to emerge?

 

[alang1216]

I was thinking, since chaos is deterministic, its reasonable to wonder if what we perceive as random is in fact not random. So the emergence of complex life structures from (apparent) randomness might actually be something very different.

Chaos arises from an extreme sensitivity to initial conditions so - might God have created the universe, chosen the constants and set the initial conditions to precisely the values needed for life to emerge?

I don't know how you'd prove or disprove that theory but it misses the point, namely how did life begin. If God created the universe and natural laws to ensure life emerged, then abiogenesis is an entirely natural process, and didn't need any additional input from God.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I don't know how you'd prove or disprove that theory but it misses the point, namely how did life begin. If God created the universe and natural laws to ensure life emerged, then abiogenesis is an entirely natural process, and didn't need any additional input from God.

I doubt it can be proved.

But it does give us pause for thought over what we then mean by "natural" we could argue that the behavior of the universe is entirely natural, deterministic, but it's existence is not natural.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Having said that, such an argument would necessitate the acceptance that we do not have free will.

 

[ding]

I'm unclear what you claim, are these long chains of organic molecules living beings or not? Or was the cell the first living being?


There are plenty of theories of abiogenesis, some involve ponds on land, some involve thermal vents, some involve intertidal areas, etc. In the absence of proof, all are valid theories. As usual, I'm agnostic and await further evidence.

Are those long chains of organic molecules reproducing and passing down genetic instructions? Nope

 

[ding]

I doubt it can be proved.

But it does give us pause for thought over what we then mean by "natural" we could argue that the behavior of the universe is entirely natural, deterministic, but it's existence is not natural.

If natural processes had been followed then the universe would be filled with only radiation. The amount of matter and anti matter from paired particle production would have been equal. As it stands though for every 1 billion anti matter particles there were 1 billion and 1 matter particles.

 

[ding]

Having said that, such an argument would necessitate the acceptance that we do not have free will.

How so?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

If natural processes had been followed then the universe would be filled with only radiation. The amount of matter and anti matter from paired particle production would have been equal. As it stands though for every 1 billion anti matter particles there were 1 billion and 1 matter particles.

Well if the universe was created by God, then why create a universe that requires occasional manual tweaking rather than one that is self sustaining from the get go?

 

[ding]

Well if the universe was created by God, then why create a universe that requires occasional manual tweaking rather than one that is self sustaining from the get go?

The only instances I am aware of are the creation of space and time and the leap from chemical evolution to biological evolution. And of course... Jesus Christ.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The only instances I am aware of is the creation of space and time and the leap from chemical evolution to biological evolution. And of course... Jesus Christ.

That implies though that God is not powerful enough to create an "automatic" universe where life does emerge naturalistically.

 

[ding]

That implies though that God is not powerful enough to create an "automatic" universe where life does emerge naturalistically.

I see it the other way around. Both the creation of space and time and the creation of life were creative acts. In other words, he left us some clues.

 

[scruffy]

Is chaos deterministic? You're supposed to be a scientist so should know something as basic as this in your field.

I think I understand the issue you're having.

You don't know what "random" means

Randomness is a perceptual thing, it has to do with SCALE. Things that seem random at one scale may be distinctly non random at another.

(This is why we have a Law of Large Numbers).

Let's be specific and apply math to the question. First of all, we need a measure. "How random is it"? Such measures exist. There's lots of versions of them. Renyi spent half a lifetime studying the asymptotes of those measures.

Randomness is not a "property", it's an assumption. The assumption lets us do a little convenient math, which is to say, description of relationships.

Now tell me this:

Is the roll of a pair of dice "random", or is it chaotic?

How about this: if you put a ball at the very top of a mountain and it starts rolling downhill, is the direction random or is it chaotic?

If you have a qubit that collapses, is the final state random or is it chaotic?

 

[scruffy]

I was thinking, since chaos is deterministic, its reasonable to wonder if what we perceive as random is in fact not random. So the emergence of complex life structures from (apparent) randomness might actually be something very different.

Chaos arises from an extreme sensitivity to initial conditions so - might God have created the universe, chosen the constants and set the initial conditions to precisely the values needed for life to emerge?

lol

Many people have tried to show the non randomness of randomness. No one has yet suçceeded.

That's because randomness isn't a "thing", it"s a way of LOOKING AT "things"

The reductionist view of chaos is not useful. Because at some point it becomes impossible to MEASURE the initial conditions. Much less control them

One of the basic principles of probability theory is you can't see the other side of the distribution. You can't look beyond the veil, much like we're limited by Heisenberg's uncertainty. Probability formalizes that concept, it actually FORBIDS you from looking, or even trying.

However topology allows us to construct MAPS between metric spaces. And since every deterministic system is homeomorphic to a stochastic system, probability becomes a universal metric

Stochastic topology is a brand new field, relatively speaking. So far the giants are Renyi and Paul Erdos.

https://sayanmuk.github.io/lecture9.pdf

Random manifolds are one area, topological optimization is another, and surely you've heard of Kitaev and his anyons. The hot new ticket is phase transitions and their relationship to criticality, which is important in everything from brains to weapons.

Here, check this out, it's a nice survey, very accessible, and current.

Topological phases in discrete stochastic systems

arxiv.org