AgnosticWeb.com - Origin of Life: new commentaries

Origin of Life: new commentaries (reply)

dhw — Sun, 12 Jun 2011 07:33:00 +0000

DAVID: Here is a study of a meteorite with organic compounds. They wonder how the amino acids formed on it or in it. The comment that the organic compounds do not follow the organic patterns in life seems to negate the idea that somehow or other meteorites started life on Earth:-http://the-scientist.com/2011/06/09/meteorite-hints-at-life%e2%80%99s-origins/-The headline screams: "Meteorite hints at life's origins", and the article is full of excitement at the possibility that it may provide clues. It points out that: "Many scientists believe those meteor showers provided the quantities of carboxylic acids, amino acids, and amines necessary to create life in the primordial soup of Earth's ancient seas." -Then we read: An alternative interpretation of the data is that the compounds formed when a life form from outer space was degraded, said Chandra Wickramasinghe, an astrobiologist at the Cardiff Center for Astrobiology, who was not involved in the study.-But both Herd and Sephton disagreed with that interpretation. The meteorite doesn't have the patterns that you see in biological material, even degraded life forms, Sephton said.-I get the impression from the article that scientists are looking for an instant mixture which will only require water to spring to life. They obviously haven't found it. We know that all the ingredients must have come together somehow, but I'd be grateful if someone would tell me exactly why this particular piece of research is so exciting.

Origin of Life: new commentaries (reply)

David Turell — Sat, 11 Jun 2011 02:20:03 +0000

Here is a study of a meteorite with organic compounds. They wonder how the amino acids formed on it or in it. The comment that the organic compounds do not follow the organic patterns in life seems to negate the idea that somehow or other meteorites started life on Earth:-http://the-scientist.com/2011/06/09/meteorite-hints-at-life%e2%80%99s-origins/

Origin of Life: new commentaries (reply)

David Turell — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 02:53:19 +0000

There appears to have been evolutionary life on land before the Cambrian Explosion, long before fish with legs made landfall.: > > http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/58114/-Here is another take on the ealy fossils on land, with perhaps a more complete explanation of the findings:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110413132951.htm

Origin of Life: new commentaries (reply)

David Turell — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 01:59:00 +0000

This is an interview with Rabbi M. Averick, whose book uses the origin of life in his book to refute atheism. He makes perfect sense to me:-http://webtalkradio.net/shows/transformation-radio/

Origin of Life: new commentaries (reply)

David Turell — Wed, 13 Apr 2011 18:59:41 +0000

There appears to have been evolutionary life on land before the Cambrian Explosion, long before fish with legs made landfall.:-http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/58114/

Origin of Life: new commentaries (reply)

David Turell — Tue, 12 Apr 2011 17:32:23 +0000

In the beginning there had to be enzymes. Organic chemistry reactions require them. This paper, with computer assumptions as a computer model, claims they were complex. If this is so, and a big IF, life was complex from the beginning. That just can't be possible without a directing intelligence, as in my previous entry, stating that the 20 existiing essential amino acids did not occur by chance. Evidence for a UI keeps piling up:-http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-resurrect-ancient-enzymes-reveal-conditions.html

Origin of Life: new commentaries (reply)

David Turell — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:13:54 +0000

Questions about Origin of Life includes the issue of why are there 20 essential amino acids, that is acids that make all proteins, and must be eaten to be available. (Actually, in some organisms there are 22, but this is a rare requirement.) Why aren't other amino acids used? Now comes a paper that seriously questions whether these 20 were chosen by chance. The paper appears to state that these 20 are the most desirable for life, and could not happen just from chance evolution:- Astrobiology. 2011 Mar 24. [Epub ahead of print]-Did Evolution Select a Nonrandom "Alphabet" of Amino Acids? Philip GK, Freeland SJ.-NASA Astrobiology Institute, University of Hawaii , Honolulu, Hawaii.-Abstract Abstract The last universal common ancestor of contemporary biology (LUCA) used a precise set of 20 amino acids as a standard alphabet with which to build genetically encoded protein polymers. Considerable evidence indicates that some of these amino acids were present through nonbiological syntheses prior to the origin of life, while the rest evolved as inventions of early metabolism. However, the same evidence indicates that many alternatives were also available, which highlights the question: what factors led biological evolution on our planet to define its standard alphabet? One possibility is that natural selection favored a set of amino acids that exhibits clear, nonrandom properties-a set of especially useful building blocks. However, previous analysis that tested whether the standard alphabet comprises amino acids with unusually high variance in size, charge, and hydrophobicity (properties that govern what protein structures and functions can be constructed) failed to clearly distinguish evolution's choice from a sample of randomly chosen alternatives. Here, we demonstrate unambiguous support for a refined hypothesis: that an optimal set of amino acids would spread evenly across a broad range of values for each fundamental property. Specifically, we show that the standard set of 20 amino acids represents the possible spectra of size, charge, and hydrophobicity more broadly and more evenly than can be explained by chance alone. Key Words: Astrobiology-Evolution-Molecular biology-Modeling studies. Astrobiology 11, xxx-xxx.-PMID: 21434765 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]-(My bolding)

Origin of Life: new commentaries (reply)

David Turell — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 22:18:05 +0000

The great quest for life elsewhere in the universe is for ANY type of life. (Apparently it's now a pet theory that life did start elsewhere ... maybe on Mars, though see David's latest post about meteorites.) But if it couldn't/didn't evolve, it wouldn't be OUR type of life. In any case, if our type of life started somewhere else, we are still faced with the same mysteries. How did the mechanisms put themselves together in the first place?-Another pie-in-the-sky RNA world self-replicating and copying RNA, made by intelligence in a lab. The first since R18, many years ago, and based on it, imploying many thousands of variations on R18. Oh, well:-http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/04/rna-enzyme-makes-another-rna-e.html-Even if this research continues, it proves nothing, except humans can invent realities. We can never know if this is the way it happened.

Origin of Life: new commentaries (reply)

Balance_Maintained — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 15:17:10 +0000

From the last couple of posts I have seen catching up on this thread:-Once again the scientific community is shocked by how different our genes/chromosomes are from monkeys....-Life is much younger than we thought...-Err.. duh. -Sorry, this does not come as a shock, or a surprise. It comes as more proof that pet theories are just pet theories and are still held in high esteem despite evidence to the contrary. In order to defend those theories, even more wildly unbelievable(and even less supportable)theories are being used to shore up the crumbling framework. -(Not a real quote, just an abstract message from all the articles) "Well, life didn't have as long to evolve, so natural selection didn't have as long to work, and genetic diversity is greater than we thought... I know!! If we claim that life evolved elsewhere we can get that 1 Billion Years back and it all works again!!"

Origin of Life: new commentaries (reply)

David Turell — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:44:30 +0000

Now that it appears that life started only two byo this research becomes of even more interest. > > > > http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/58083/ > > 2Bnya? Did they date fossils wrong that had archaea?-See my entry of 3/17/11 13:50 under origin of life.

Origin of Life: new commentaries (reply)

xeno6696 — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 18:55:47 +0000

There has been a new look at the old Miller-Urey 1953-58 experiments with a supposed ancient atmosphere and amino acids. More amino acids have been found but I don't see a claim for more than the eight essential amino acids found in arriving metoerites so far in that kind of research. Remember we humans need 20 essential amino acids in our proteins. Now that it appears that life started only two byo this research becomes of even more interest. > > http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/58083/-2Bnya? Did they date fossils wrong that had archaea?

Origin of Life: new commentaries (reply)

David Turell — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:26:34 +0000

There has been a new look at the old Miller-Urey 1953-58 experiments with a supposed ancient atmosphere and amino acids. More amino acids have been found but I don't see a claim for more than the eight essential amino acids found in arriving metoerites so far in that kind of research. Remember we humans need 20 essential amino acids in our proteins. Now that it appears that life started only two byo this research becomes of even more interest.-http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/58083/

Origin of Life: new commentaries (reply)

David Turell — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 01:52:58 +0000

Now there is "dark matter" in biology! > > http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20265-biologys-dark-matter-hints-at-fourth-domain... > Picked this up from New Scientist post on Twitter.-No, I follow their website almost daily, but the last two days have been wildly active and I haven't had the time. Thanks for posting it. Great story, and who knows how many branches of life there are?- > Anyone else here on twitter?-I'm not. I do have a facebook account but don't use it, no time, frankly.

Origin of Life: new commentaries (reply)

George Jelliss — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 14:25:10 +0000

Now there is "dark matter" in biology!-http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20265-biologys-dark-matter-hints-at-fourth-domain-of-life.html-Picked this up from New Scientist post on Twitter. Anyone else here on twitter?

Origin of Life: new commentaries (reply)

David Turell — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 13:50:02 +0000

New studies by the Raman specrometer show that 3.5 byo 'bacterial fossils' are nothing but minieral deposits in the rocks from Australia. The Greenland rocks' 'fossil bacteria' are also under dispute. Life may be only 2 byo on Earth.-http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-overturns-oldest-evidence-life-earth.html

Origin of Life: new commentaries (reply)

David Turell — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 01:29:10 +0000

The chimp Y chromosome has turned out to be widely different than the human Y, and it is suggested that the split occurred early and speedily.- http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100113/full/463149a.html

Origin of Life: new commentaries (reply)

David Turell — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 13:41:41 +0000

John Horgan in Sci Am notes how futile the search for origin-of-life chemistry has been. Read the comments afterward, from interesting points of view:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-bu-2011-02-28

Origin of Life: new commentaries (reply)

David Turell — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 01:17:44 +0000

David has drawn our attention to what may or may not be an exciting discovery ... a meteorite with fossils of life from elsewhere. > > > > > > http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/03/05/exclusive-nasa-scientists-claims-evidence-ali... > > Now comes a chorus of doubt about this paper: > > > http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-scientists-skeptical-meteorite-alien-life.html-http...

Origin of Life: new commentaries (reply)

David Turell — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 01:11:20 +0000

Another meteorite story finding abundant ammonia, explaining how our atmosphere might have picked up enough nitrogen to form life. Nitrogen is one of the vital elements to make amino acids, one of the main foundations of life's protein.-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110302091646.htm

Origin of Life: new commentaries (reply)

David Turell — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 00:02:22 +0000

David has drawn our attention to what may or may not be an exciting discovery ... a meteorite with fossils of life from elsewhere. > > > > http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/03/05/exclusive-nasa-scientists-claims-evidence-ali... comes a chorus of doubt about this paper:- http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-scientists-skeptical-meteorite-alien-life.html