1
   

Francis Crick and the theory of Directed panspermia

 
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 10:28 am
farmerman wrote:
The discussion then follows an Occams Razor direction. If it happened out there, why couldnt it have happened here without the extraneous step of riding pre-life in on a comet? Simpler the better.


I understand your point. But the Earth has a limitet set of conditions, no matter what they might have been.

So, the razor may actually be made simpler if we *don't* have to restrict the inception of life to the conditions available on Earth (no matter how much we like those conditions).

Let me ask you this, if at some point in the future, we find some simple replicative molecule frozen in the ice of a comet, would it them seem more likely to you that those molecules might have influenced the development of life on this planet?

What if the fertile ground for replicative molecules is not on new planets, but in asteroid belts or oort clouds with micro gravity and exposure to cosmic rays. Those types of fertile fields have been around a LOT longer than the Earth has been, and they disperse more easily.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 10:30 am
stuh505 wrote:
It's a network of molecules that, given a constant supply of certain molecules, can quickly and repeatedly reproduce itself because the set contains molecules which are catalysts to all the reactions that would produce the set. Given a high variation of molecules in high concentration these sets form with nearly guaranteed statistical probability. They can evolve by assimilating new molecules into the set. There's a lot more evidence than this but that's the basic idea.


Are there specific examples of these sets, or is this just theoretical at this point?
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 10:44 am
They emergy reliably in computer models, but I think it is still mostly theoretical.

I think these are some specific examples

Quote:
Gunter von Kiedrowski[15], then at U. Freiburg in Germany, several years ago published work on a collectively autocatalytic set of two DNA hexamers that mutually ligated the two pairs of DNA trimers composing the two hexamers. Meanwhile, Reza Ghadiri at the Scripps Institute in La Jolla, California has made an autocatalytic peptide, Nature August 2 years ago [9,10], and nearly collectively autocatalytic sets more recently [11,12].


9. David H. Lee, Juan R. Granja, Jose A. Martinez, Kay Severin & M. Reza Ghadiri A self-replicating peptide Nature 382, 525 - 528 (1996).
10. Stuart A. Kauffman (1996) Self-replication: Even peptides do it. Nature 382 August 8, 1996.
11. David H. Lee, Kay Severin, Yohei Yokobayashi & M. Reza Ghadiri Emergence of symbiosis in peptide self-replication through a hypercyclic network. Nature 390, 591-594 (1997) Letters to Nature.
12. David H. Lee, Kay Severin, Yohei Yokobayashi & M. Reza Ghadiri : Correction: Emergence of symbiosis in peptide self-replication through a hypercyclic network. Nature 394, 101 (1998) Letters to Nature.
15. G. von Kiedrowski : A Self-Replicating Hexadeoxynucleotide Angew. Chem. 98, 932-934 (1986).

http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho32.htm#Notes
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 10:56 am
stuh505 wrote:
They emergy reliably in computer models, but I think it is still mostly theoretical.


If we leave off the idea of Panspermia for now, then in order for life to have developed on Earth (between the time it was molten and the time Isua formed), then we have to assume replicative systems can form within about a quarter billon years.

We would also have to assume that something very simple would be the first to occur, and that it would occur with just the raw materials available to it.

You would think that if all this is just a chemical process when it starts, that we (humans) should be able to replicate it. Unless of course it really takes hundreds of millions of years and oceans of water to get just a few mollecules.

I guess I find it a bit odd that nobody has yet been able to mix at least some obscure chemicals, under some specific conditions to produce at least some replicative molecule. Chemistry was never my strong suit, so maybe it's harder to isolate the conditions and combinations than I am aware, but we have a fair number of clues to work from (DNA, RNA, Amino acids, timeframe, heat, solar exposure, water, clay, etc), doesn't it seem a bit odd that we can't even artificially approximate what should have been plentiful and common back in the day?
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 01:19 pm
Quote:
I guess I find it a bit odd that nobody has yet been able to mix at least some obscure chemicals, under some specific conditions to produce at least some replicative molecule.


Didn't I just give some examples of this?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 02:54 pm
ligands that replicate, like the haem group, Alu, chlorophyll, xanthophylls, etc can autocatalyze and reverse (that is, act against a chemical gradient.

Clay based polymerization of lobg chain (metal) centered molecules have been created by surface chemistry reactions. How an RNA first developed

The first process, the Tropsch process creates a long chain organic alkane and (in the presence of N) forms easily a series of nucleotides.
These , with metals and using surface chemistry reactions, the chains polymerize. The cyclic formation is a fairly common structure in nature , all the way from complex chain and "leaf " silicates to organics.
All that wasneeded was an initial atmosphere supersat in H2 and in a reducing environmenta. (And, we have evidence of these from early pyrite layers in and around the Isua and Newfoundland shales ). Pyrite is a mineral (fools gold) that forms in reducing environments.
As far as "not doing it" stuh's refs were a few of the literature on polymerization, ligands and autocatalysis.


The early earths environment ws hot, then hot and wet, and always supersaturated in the compounds and ions needed. Its difficult to see this happening in any isolated rock cloud.

One other consideration is that, when the earth /moon doublet was first formed, it resulted from a collision between the earth's accreting sphere and another heavenly body. Could that body have been the source? If we say yeas then we are bucking the Occams Razor argument that simpler is better.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 02:59 pm
stuh505 wrote:
Quote:
I guess I find it a bit odd that nobody has yet been able to mix at least some obscure chemicals, under some specific conditions to produce at least some replicative molecule.


Didn't I just give some examples of this?


I thought you said it was done on computer. I was hoping for something more gooey.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 03:05 pm
farmerman wrote:
ligands that replicate, like the haem group, Alu, chlorophyll, xanthophylls, etc can autocatalyze and reverse (that is, act against a chemical gradient.

Clay based polymerization of lobg chain (metal) centered molecules have been created by surface chemistry reactions. How an RNA first developed

The first process, the Tropsch process creates a long chain organic alkane and (in the presence of N) forms easily a series of nucleotides.
These , with metals and using surface chemistry reactions, the chains polymerize. The cyclic formation is a fairly common structure in nature , all the way from complex chain and "leaf " silicates to organics.
All that wasneeded was an initial atmosphere supersat in H2 and in a reducing environmenta. (And, we have evidence of these from early pyrite layers in and around the Isua and Newfoundland shales ). Pyrite is a mineral (fools gold) that forms in reducing environments.
As far as "not doing it" stuh's refs were a few of the literature on polymerization, ligands and autocatalysis.


I'm not sure I understand all of what you (and Stuh) are saying. My appoligies, but I don't have much background in chemistry.

Could you dumb it down a bit for me so I can keep track of what we're saying here? It's an interesting subject (one of the few I've had the pleasure of threading lately), so I hate to miss out due to my highschool distractions in chem class all those years ago.

It *sounds* like what you are saying is that there have been several physical examples of replicative chemistry demonstrated, but no conclusions drawn as to which (if any) was the possible precursor to life on this planet. Is that about right, or did I miss the point?

Thanks guys,
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 05:07 pm
If you consider living as a description of any molecule that with the addition of any kind of energy will divide. A self replicating molecule so as to speak.

Then consider the possible interactions considering time and the volume and number of elements and energies availiable on Earth : then how long will it take for a self replicating molecule to appear on Earth.

When I did this did it the results were that a self replicating molecule will appear on an Earthlike mass in as little as about one and a half seconds. The outside limits were about 60 hours.

I suspect that they (self replicating molecules) are developed constantly. However they are ill suited to a world that has evolved with and due to the influence of life and probably only survive a very short time. This planet no longer has an ecological niche suitable for the survival of "beginning life".

Consider the life style of a prion for instance Exclamation And I suspect that an elementary self replicating molecule makes a prion look like a Phd.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 05:53 pm
It might be a joke about your Dad.

One should never underestimate potential pranksters.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 05:31 pm
self replecation is an easy target to achieve Silicates do it, so do a number of polymers. Taking in nutrients, establishing cell walls , maintaining a steady state AND replicating, now we talkin.
Some of compounds I listed above were the central nutrient "engines" in plants and animals. The IDesr wish us to believe that vastly complex cascades of special enzymes are needed to accomplish many of the functions and thats pretty much bullshit.

I awlways wanted silica based life cause the first surface chemistry reactions I played with were silica hydrates that fromed these huuuge polymer chains and it looked like clear goo.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jan, 2006 01:04 pm
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, which are stable as hell, are observable throughout the universe, from examples occurring naturally and through human intervention right here on earth, to comet dust, to the spectra of distant stars. They tend to form ordered, plate-like stacks of themselves, and in UV-irradiated aqueous solution have an affinity for amino acids, which stick to the stacks of plates. As they accrete, the space between these PAH layers is 0.34 billionths of a meter, which just happens to be precisely the distance between the ladder-like rungs of a DNA or RNA molecule. Given amino acids and long-chain polymers, protocellular membrane formation is no big deal, thats what Lipids, particularly Amphiphilic Lipids, are all about. As a simple, abiotic replicative mechanism, first at the molecular level, then, through accretion and chemical interaction, into ever more and more complex and diverse protobiotic compounds, that this phenomenon would be a logical precursor for the development both of RNA/DNA and prokaryotes is a notion which is a helluva strong candidate.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jan, 2006 01:43 pm
That's all very well timber and very erudite I must say but it is all in the service of living longer or something.What's it all for?So bloody what?What use is all that stuff when you're following three swaying succulent singing seaside girls along the promenade alongside the warm golden sands after a decent evening in the pubs at 78 degrees farenheit?It's no use at all for that feeling.So if you can keep that feeling going all the time it has no value.You can change the scene if you like to adapt to the inexorable onwardness of the years.

What you wrote,good though it is,is all thought.It is sans feeling.

The whole debate might be about thought versus feeling.Thought is the thinking person's seaside girls and,if one might digress slightly,somewhat easier to control.

I know which side I'm on goodstyle.The Pope's.Who has applied over many long years great thought to seaside girls through a battery of minions who had to watch seaside girls without even twitching an eyebrow.

But pure thought applied to miniscule importances like universes is necessary,or seemingly so,in this weather especially,but so also is feeling necessary to be human at all.Notice in the sci-fi how all the losers have no feelings.If they made a movie with the ones with no feelings winning they'd get run out of town on a pole.

We would be nowhere without both.

Well-it does say "panspermia".
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jan, 2006 01:47 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, which are stable as hell, are observable throughout the universe, from examples occurring naturally and through human intervention right here on earth, to comet dust, to the spectra of distant stars. They tend to form ordered, plate-like stacks of themselves, and in UV-irradiated aqueous solution have an affinity for amino acids, which stick to the stacks of plates. As they accrete, the space between these PAH layers is 0.34 billionths of a meter, which just happens to be precisely the distance between the ladder-like rungs of a DNA or RNA molecule. Given amino acids and long-chain polymers, protocellular membrane formation is no big deal, thats what Lipids, particularly Amphiphilic Lipids, are all about. As a simple, abiotic replicative mechanism, first at the molecular level, then, through accretion and chemical interaction, into ever more and more complex and diverse protobiotic compounds, that this phenomenon would be a logical precursor for the development both of RNA/DNA and prokaryotes is a notion which is a helluva strong candidate.


Very interesting Smile

Thanks.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jan, 2006 11:14 am
Stardust return

Do you think they will find any PAH in the comet dust?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/16/2024 at 01:27:54