There are two possible answers to the question of the origin of life. There may be something special about the Earth, and the molecules of life only formed here because of the special conditions we have of being in a solar system with the sun at the right size and at a certain distance. On the other hand, it may be possible to form the molecules of life around a star system anywhere. If that’s the case, life would be much more common, indeed maybe the most likely system to occur on any planet.We’re trying to recall the chemistry behind these possible scenarios. For instance, investigating how the building block molecules like amino acids and peptides are made. In order to probe these questions we use a combination of experiment, observation, and modeling. We want to develop a model that takes us from the Big Bang through to now.So we start with how the first matter in the universe was made and follow it through to when you start to have chemistry, which is about 1,000 seconds into the history of the universe. Then you try and follow that chemistry through to the formation of a planet and to the molecules in the planet. From there you try to see how those molecules may be assembled to create self-replicating, life-giving molecules.
One readily apparent commonality is that all living things consist of similar organic (carbon-rich) compounds. Another shared property is that the proteins found in present-day organisms are fashioned from one set of 20 standard amino acids. These proteins include enzymes (biological catalysts) that are essential to development, survival and reproduction.Further, contemporary organisms carry their genetic information in nucleic acids - RNA and DNA - and use essentially the same genetic code. This code specifies the amino acid sequences of all the proteins each organism needs. More precisely, the instructions take the form of specific sequences of nucleotides, the building blocks of nucleic acids. These nucleotides consist of a sugar (deoxyribose in DNA, and ribose in RNA), a phosphate group and one of four different nitrogen-containing bases. In DNA, the bases are adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C) and thymine (T). In RNA, uracil (U) substitutes for thymine. The bases constitute the alphabet, and triplets of bases form the words. As an example, the triplet CUU in RNA instructs a cell to add the amino acid leucine to a growing strand of protein.From such findings we can infer that our last common ancestor stored genetic information in nucleic acids that specified the composition of all needed proteins. It also relied on proteins to direct many of the reactions required for self-perpetuation. Hence, the central problem of origin-of-life research can be refined to ask, By what series of chemical reactions did this interdependent system of nucleic acids and proteins come into being?Anyone trying to solve this puzzle immediately encounters a paradox. Nowadays nucleic acids are synthesized only with the help of proteins, and proteins are synthesized only if their corresponding nucleotide sequence is present. It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.
This said, I still agree with Kauffman (from the Epilog)that: "Evolution is not just 'chance caught on the wing.' Itis not just a tinkering of the ad hoc, of bricolage, of contraption.It is emergent order honored and honed by selection."We see here Kauffman's literate writing style and hisjoy in exposition, features that make reading his difficultbook much easier.Biological order obeys the first and second laws of thermodynamicsand it is molecular in character. Its conceptualizationrests firmly in physics and chemistry. Mathematicscan sharpen some of the ideas, and it can make some ideasmore accessible to physical scientists, but it is no substitutefor experimental evidence from real biochemical experience.Empirically based conceptualization has come first and hasbeen followed later by mathematical formalization. I encouragethe continuing efforts in this direction and I applaudStuart Kauffnan for showing us some of what can be done.
It is suggested that protein synthesis may have begun without even a primitive ribosome if the primitive tRNA could take up two configurations and could bind to the messenger RNA with five base-pairs instead of the present three. This idea would impose base sequence restriction on the early messages and on the early genetic code such that the first four amino acids coded were glycine, serine, aspartic acid and aspargine. A possible mechanism is suggested for the polymerization of the early message.
(calling people who didn't believe evolution created life "stupid" and "not sane" and stuff).
But it looks like this guy did a good job confusing people with a biased against evolution with misleading probability and i bet he chucked in some bad science in with that
Alternatively, just go back to trolling the thread and outright dismissing everything without any real reason.
As for "misleading probability", I pretty much explained it all how he did (or at least, how I'd noted it down) - care to prove it wrong?
Then he also gave awareness to other animals too because some of them have it including Apes, which makes it look like just another evolutionary step.
I'll give you his credentials next time I see him (next Sunday).From memory he had a degree in biology and biochemistry, or something.As for "misleading probability", I pretty much explained it all how he did (or at least, how I'd noted it down) - care to prove it wrong?Alternatively, just go back to trolling the thread and outright dismissing everything without any real reason.
The thing is, the numbers don't really mean much at all.Consider this scenario, i'm not saying I believe this, but i think it's pretty reasonable.God is not concerned with the physical world as such, he exists outside of it, before humans came along he pretty had nothing to do with Earth.Humans have free will, and a sense of awareness, as in they are aware of their existence. Tree's are on the other side of the scale, they are living like us, but that's it, what they do is completely controlled by chemical reactions and the physical environment.Then between trees and humans are the rest of the creatures, with increasing levels of intelligence.This is where I think God could come in, somehow connecting an intelligent animal with a brain, to awareness. Therefore, before humans came around, God didn't create anything, the world, life all started by natural means.However when a primate evolved to a stage where it had a certain level of intelligence, God gave is awareness, so in a way, God did create humans, you could even say God created humans in his image, not in the image of physical body, but in the image of his mind, giving us the ability of free will, and made us aware of our existence.
your argument:"the probability of pulling 26 letters at random and spelling a specific sentence is close to zerotherefore god created everything QED"I dont know how much discussion this needs to prove that it is meaningless, unless you are arguing that evolution is analogous to randomly picking letters out of a box in which case you should probably try and get a basic understanding of the process before posting your ignorant propaganda)
Which is why I called it a scenario. And my post was more aimed at Fleastyler.And why do people keep brining up the word 'evidence' in a philosophical argument?
Mathematics can sharpen some of the ideas, and it can make some ideasmore accessible to physical scientists, but it is no substitutefor experimental evidence from real biochemical experience.
your argument:"the probability of pulling 26 letters at random and spelling a specific sentence is close to zerotherefore god created everything QED"
Read his posts again.He wasn't talking about evolution, he was talking about the origins of life.For life to spontaneously come about the right mix of ammino acids needed to combine together through the movements of the ocean.
you also do yourself a huge discredit by that list of people who were fans of Darwin's work and then committed crimes against humanity
It sounds like a non-sequitur to me though. Yes, there's a common strand, but it would be near impossible to say that one would lead to the other.
However, I do believe - and I don't know how you could disagree (indeed, you've presented nothing to show that the analogy is blatantly wrong) - that pouring scrabble letters onto a table to randomly form a sentence is analogous to amino acids randomly arranging themselves into the correct order to form a protein.
Yeah, that is a good analogy imo. But I don't think it's a very good anaolgy to use in any argument trying to show the unlikelihood of life creating itself from the "primordial ooze"If you take into account the sheer amount of matter in the universe, the number of ways in which the atoms can connect to form amino acids, they ways in which those can interact to join and fold into proteins, and the amount of time (virtually limitless) there is for it to happen, then you have to ask yourself "how could it not happen, somewhere, sometime?". And once the first steps take place, the rest is almost an unavoidable chain reaction, given time.It may take an unimaginable number of monkeys randomly mashing typewriter keys before one of them accidentally spits out the complete works of William Shakespeare, but given enough monkeys and time, one of them undoubtedly will.There's a lot of monkeys in the universe, more than any of us could comprehend. And they've spent a very very long time sitting in front of those typewriters.
Nope I normally skim over your copy/paste wall-o-text.
You're an arse then.you've missed out on some vital information, but if you want to just continue being ignorant, that's fine with me.
How about you put forward some of your own thoughts then making me read your constant link-o-thon.
