Crosswords4 mins ago
Self-Replicating Molecules.
How did certain chemicals combine to produce the first self-replicating molecules?
Answers
We don't know. Writings on the subject are still full of the words 'possibly' and 'perhaps'.
18:56 Wed 13th Nov 2013
Khandro, What I posted on the other thread was
/Some people conduct affairs in publicly funded bus shelters....so? /
Please explain how you managed to conflate what I actually said to what you claim I said. Your predisposition to distort almost everything and lie to support your point of view does little for your credibility and in reality makes everything you say open to question.
Congratulations on the humour bypass by the way, it seems to have been a 100% success.I'm looking forward to seeing the results of the logic transplant. Top the day to you Paddy.
/Some people conduct affairs in publicly funded bus shelters....so? /
Please explain how you managed to conflate what I actually said to what you claim I said. Your predisposition to distort almost everything and lie to support your point of view does little for your credibility and in reality makes everything you say open to question.
Congratulations on the humour bypass by the way, it seems to have been a 100% success.I'm looking forward to seeing the results of the logic transplant. Top the day to you Paddy.
Dear Khandro,
Re your Irish question. I don't know why you popped this in but I'm not guilty . My question to you about why you asked the original question was not an answer to your starter question - just a stand-alone for the reasons I explained.
Fred has got the bones of it but this needs expansion to be consistent with the thread.
(a) The complaint about a question (Q) being answered by anothe Q is commonly done by those who have something to hide - they don't want to reveal all in total. Defo not you Khandro!
(b) To expand on Fred's point, maybe the man asked the Dubliner how to get to Phoenix Park. But the Dubliner needed to know how he was travelling (car, on-foot or cycle). Hence Q followed by Q.
(c) To end on a deeper point - whether it's a Q, statement or theory etc., continual questioning can really get to the revealing heart of the matter - Socratic Logic or Interrogation. A very useful tool in art, literature and (aaaw sorry) science.
Kindest Regards,
SIQ.
Re your Irish question. I don't know why you popped this in but I'm not guilty . My question to you about why you asked the original question was not an answer to your starter question - just a stand-alone for the reasons I explained.
Fred has got the bones of it but this needs expansion to be consistent with the thread.
(a) The complaint about a question (Q) being answered by anothe Q is commonly done by those who have something to hide - they don't want to reveal all in total. Defo not you Khandro!
(b) To expand on Fred's point, maybe the man asked the Dubliner how to get to Phoenix Park. But the Dubliner needed to know how he was travelling (car, on-foot or cycle). Hence Q followed by Q.
(c) To end on a deeper point - whether it's a Q, statement or theory etc., continual questioning can really get to the revealing heart of the matter - Socratic Logic or Interrogation. A very useful tool in art, literature and (aaaw sorry) science.
Kindest Regards,
SIQ.
Dear O_G,
You are right about giving a concise answer to Khandro's question - I suppose along with heathfield and you Khandro could have closed the topic down there and then.
However I think, or thought, Khandro's question needed a fuller debate with evidence.
Even I would have needed more reasoning from you for your views.
Unfortunately we now know Khandro already has a decided opinion although we are trying to elucidate what that is - nothing in the 164 responses yet though. It looks like jomifl is right as usual.
Well done though, O_G,
Kindes Regards,
SIQ.
You are right about giving a concise answer to Khandro's question - I suppose along with heathfield and you Khandro could have closed the topic down there and then.
However I think, or thought, Khandro's question needed a fuller debate with evidence.
Even I would have needed more reasoning from you for your views.
Unfortunately we now know Khandro already has a decided opinion although we are trying to elucidate what that is - nothing in the 164 responses yet though. It looks like jomifl is right as usual.
Well done though, O_G,
Kindes Regards,
SIQ.
SIQ; Thanks, but I'm puzzled by the accolade to O-G, no disrespect to him but "Plenty of time and plenty of locations for stuff to come together just so once." isn't really an answer at all, it's just another unfounded opinion, and isn't 'science'. On this subject I adopt the Cartesian view that science must be founded on a system of self-evident truths, metaphysics - truths which do not require further proofs than that is involved in understanding them, (though a better explanation should never be ruled out).
I withdraw my earlier remark of 'flim-flam', and acknowledge you were attempting an unsubstantiated suggestion on the subject.
Tomorrow -23rd- is my 75th birthday (which I now see is already here) there's a lot of Champagne chilled, I shall open the first bottle at breakfast, lots of friends should be arriving late morning. If you think I speak little sense now, just wait until tomorrow!
jomifl;I thought you might have had a slightly more robust sense of humour. G'night all!
I withdraw my earlier remark of 'flim-flam', and acknowledge you were attempting an unsubstantiated suggestion on the subject.
Tomorrow -23rd- is my 75th birthday (which I now see is already here) there's a lot of Champagne chilled, I shall open the first bottle at breakfast, lots of friends should be arriving late morning. If you think I speak little sense now, just wait until tomorrow!
jomifl;I thought you might have had a slightly more robust sense of humour. G'night all!
Dear Khandro,
Ty for your last message.
Happy Birthday and many more to come.
Wow, chronologcally you are a bit older than me! I thought I was the oldest person on earth - I think I was born about 200 years old - in my mind at least. No, not wise, just that I've made every mistake in the book! No not the bible book, lol.
"Flim-flam"? Forget it. I do talk flim flam often. if not this time. Like you, I have a thick-skin and a broad back on AB (but in real life I am as sensitive and easily hurt as the next person).
Please don't step out of character by apologising Khandro - that would ruin the fun you bring to AB!
Enjoy your champers breakfast and your whole day. As an enigma wrapped up in a conundrum you are a treasure to all on AB.
Brotherly love and my very best wishes,
SIQ.
Ty for your last message.
Happy Birthday and many more to come.
Wow, chronologcally you are a bit older than me! I thought I was the oldest person on earth - I think I was born about 200 years old - in my mind at least. No, not wise, just that I've made every mistake in the book! No not the bible book, lol.
"Flim-flam"? Forget it. I do talk flim flam often. if not this time. Like you, I have a thick-skin and a broad back on AB (but in real life I am as sensitive and easily hurt as the next person).
Please don't step out of character by apologising Khandro - that would ruin the fun you bring to AB!
Enjoy your champers breakfast and your whole day. As an enigma wrapped up in a conundrum you are a treasure to all on AB.
Brotherly love and my very best wishes,
SIQ.
"Plenty of time and plenty of locations for stuff to come together just so once." isn't really an answer at all". Naturally enough I disagree. With the vastness of space and near infinite number of locations a combination may happen to occur, not to mention the long time since the BB, I think the onus is on showing why this is insufficient, since I contend it looks clearly more than sufficient.
Dear O_G,
Ty for your last two intelligent posts. Sorry: not good enough for Khandro (I bet), nor for me at this stage. We now need to elaborate if we are get Khandro to move an inch.
(a) All sorts of chemical combinations occur throughout the universe as you say.
These can include the fomation of simple ones like amino acids - in fact chains of them (proteins) are quite feasible. But by concentrating on these and excluding all other extraterrestrial molecules e.g. non-life forms of pure carbon: like diamond, graphite and slate is selective bias towards a theory that chemico/physical life molecules coming from outer space are important and is quite unnecessary except to show it could have all happened here.
The simplest explanation of Our Type of life-formation is here where we live -planet Earth. Yup you said that but a bit too concisely mabe.
(b) Could you have evolved to what you are on an ice-cold comet? Nope [and to anticipate the extra-terrestial "seeding" theorists]: it's inot necessary! Our own star, the sun, not only catalysed the formation of Earth but also supplied all the atoms which could link to form all the molecules in our bodies. Please refer to the Periodic Table to see how "few" elements were needed to make such a wonderful being we call O_G.
(c) That life originated as proteins-only doesn't stand up to analysis - "in parallel with nucleic acids, lipids and lipoid membranes and a coming together for good ones and useless ones?" - yes, probably, but DNA is the key.
(d) A very difficult concept to explain in one dimension is stereochemistry (the shape of molecules) but we know this as an indisputable fact:
many life-formed molecules are absolutely exclusively "L" or "D". These are laevo- or dextro-rotatory [identified by whether they rotate polarised light left or right when viewed through a polarimeter].
Why is this relevant? It's 'cos optically active molecules, randomly made by man or in comets, are a 50:50 mixture of "L" and "D" of molecules while all
life-replicated molecules are either 100% "L" (amino acids) or "D" (carbohydrates) 'cos they are made on living templates: DNA to mRNA to proteins inc. important enzymes which then start the cycle all over again until control molecules say "stop" - negative feedback.
With Kindest Regards, that's all for now (sighs of relief all round, lol)
SIQ.
Ty for your last two intelligent posts. Sorry: not good enough for Khandro (I bet), nor for me at this stage. We now need to elaborate if we are get Khandro to move an inch.
(a) All sorts of chemical combinations occur throughout the universe as you say.
These can include the fomation of simple ones like amino acids - in fact chains of them (proteins) are quite feasible. But by concentrating on these and excluding all other extraterrestrial molecules e.g. non-life forms of pure carbon: like diamond, graphite and slate is selective bias towards a theory that chemico/physical life molecules coming from outer space are important and is quite unnecessary except to show it could have all happened here.
The simplest explanation of Our Type of life-formation is here where we live -planet Earth. Yup you said that but a bit too concisely mabe.
(b) Could you have evolved to what you are on an ice-cold comet? Nope [and to anticipate the extra-terrestial "seeding" theorists]: it's inot necessary! Our own star, the sun, not only catalysed the formation of Earth but also supplied all the atoms which could link to form all the molecules in our bodies. Please refer to the Periodic Table to see how "few" elements were needed to make such a wonderful being we call O_G.
(c) That life originated as proteins-only doesn't stand up to analysis - "in parallel with nucleic acids, lipids and lipoid membranes and a coming together for good ones and useless ones?" - yes, probably, but DNA is the key.
(d) A very difficult concept to explain in one dimension is stereochemistry (the shape of molecules) but we know this as an indisputable fact:
many life-formed molecules are absolutely exclusively "L" or "D". These are laevo- or dextro-rotatory [identified by whether they rotate polarised light left or right when viewed through a polarimeter].
Why is this relevant? It's 'cos optically active molecules, randomly made by man or in comets, are a 50:50 mixture of "L" and "D" of molecules while all
life-replicated molecules are either 100% "L" (amino acids) or "D" (carbohydrates) 'cos they are made on living templates: DNA to mRNA to proteins inc. important enzymes which then start the cycle all over again until control molecules say "stop" - negative feedback.
With Kindest Regards, that's all for now (sighs of relief all round, lol)
SIQ.
Well O-G there you have it from SIQ, but I come from a different approach angle; I may be hung-over (see above) but I'm capable of seeing how bizarre is your reasoning, (or rather it isn't reasoning at all). The idea that if you wait long enough, something will happen is a specious argument - some things are never going to happen; wait on a Paris Metro station for a Bakerloo train and it just won't arrive!
Also to say "the onus is on showing why this is insufficient," Well, this beggars belief. You are saying that someone may postulate a theory without foundation, no matter how speculative, and it is not up to you to demonstrate it's validity, but it's up to others to disprove it, This sounds like the logic of the nut-house I'm afraid. :-)
Also to say "the onus is on showing why this is insufficient," Well, this beggars belief. You are saying that someone may postulate a theory without foundation, no matter how speculative, and it is not up to you to demonstrate it's validity, but it's up to others to disprove it, This sounds like the logic of the nut-house I'm afraid. :-)
It depends on how likely the thing is to occur. The probability that a Bakerloo train will turn up in the Paris Metro is exactly zero. Conversely the probability that a set of molecules will arrange to form a more complex molecule is quite high, assuming that the complex arrangement is energetically favourable. Crystals tell us that sometimes more complex arrangements are indeed energetically favourable, hence why they can form so readily. Perhaps -- and this is where I stop understanding the subject nearly as well -- DNA is similar. In which case there is a good chance that it will form, and indeed given enough time the probability of its occurring approaches 1.
If Khandro had been really interested in the origins of self replicating molecules he could easily have got a far more comprehensive answer to his question from Wiki which I imagine he has heard of..
http://
That he apparently did not suggests that his question was just a means of broaching the subject so as to enable him to propound his own unsubtantiable views on the subject. We can now only await the moment of illumination. :O)
http://
That he apparently did not suggests that his question was just a means of broaching the subject so as to enable him to propound his own unsubtantiable views on the subject. We can now only await the moment of illumination. :O)
Dear All,
Let's give Khandro a well-deserved rest after his 75th.
I'll throw out 2 subjects out for all (Khanrdo included of course) to ponder. I wanted to elucidate on these but I'll just throw them open to all for now.
(a) We scientists (and all of us, maybe) have long used a tool which is becoming more popular now. It's called: "Reverse Engineering".
Instead of discovering or inventing the new, we look at something we don't understand and try to work out, by analysing it, how it works and even how it came about. That's been the at the core of my contributions, as a biochemist, so far.
(b) Bootstrapping. Sure you know what I mean - pulling yourself up by your bootstraps (physically impossible of course). However your PC does it every time you switch-on - booting up. Lying dormant with a binary zero, it's a useless space waster. But a single electric spark, making zero to 1, sets off a train of zero/1 signals and here we are chatting now! A god-given miracle? - no! Man-made and that means: made over time by chemisty and physics at play.
I feel that life and its origin involves a lot of booting-up but have not put my argument in place. Help please! Simple example of today's booting-up: You faint and fall down. This helps oxygen to reach the brain, so you wake up, not from a night's sleep. Wow, within seconds you know everything you used to.
D'ya know what I'm driving at? - if so please explain as I don't know!, lol.
Yours,
SIQ.
Let's give Khandro a well-deserved rest after his 75th.
I'll throw out 2 subjects out for all (Khanrdo included of course) to ponder. I wanted to elucidate on these but I'll just throw them open to all for now.
(a) We scientists (and all of us, maybe) have long used a tool which is becoming more popular now. It's called: "Reverse Engineering".
Instead of discovering or inventing the new, we look at something we don't understand and try to work out, by analysing it, how it works and even how it came about. That's been the at the core of my contributions, as a biochemist, so far.
(b) Bootstrapping. Sure you know what I mean - pulling yourself up by your bootstraps (physically impossible of course). However your PC does it every time you switch-on - booting up. Lying dormant with a binary zero, it's a useless space waster. But a single electric spark, making zero to 1, sets off a train of zero/1 signals and here we are chatting now! A god-given miracle? - no! Man-made and that means: made over time by chemisty and physics at play.
I feel that life and its origin involves a lot of booting-up but have not put my argument in place. Help please! Simple example of today's booting-up: You faint and fall down. This helps oxygen to reach the brain, so you wake up, not from a night's sleep. Wow, within seconds you know everything you used to.
D'ya know what I'm driving at? - if so please explain as I don't know!, lol.
Yours,
SIQ.
When the agreed viewpoint is that something is fairly likely, then the request to disprove it rather than prove it is a reasonable one. Check out that Horizon program for details.
No creature needs to evolve on an ice cold comet, that is merely the start & distribution stage that speeds up the process: since one doesn't need each suitable environment to start up on its own, which otherwise is likely to delay the expected start time somewhat. The next stage is to end up at a suitable environment, and with enough basic building blocks around, some comets will inevitably deposit its pay load in such an environment.
No creature needs to evolve on an ice cold comet, that is merely the start & distribution stage that speeds up the process: since one doesn't need each suitable environment to start up on its own, which otherwise is likely to delay the expected start time somewhat. The next stage is to end up at a suitable environment, and with enough basic building blocks around, some comets will inevitably deposit its pay load in such an environment.
Dear O_G,
Ty for your response but you're losing me and I suspect others with your comet (meteriorite, aliens or whatever) theorising re the origin of life on our Planet Earth.
Why are you hung-up on extraterrestrial life's origin?
If your first, correct contribution was based on this (outside-earth origin of Our Earthly Life) then you lose my initial support.
Sorry but that's getting into E.Van Daniken territory (S. American landing lines, Bermuda Triangle etc. - all discredited).
Anyway this jextraterrestrial theory just throws the ball (understanding) back into the long grass as most, including Khandro agree ...I think.
To end on agreement - the earthly origin of life needs speeding up compared with the universe's relatively infinite time. But this does not need comets etc.
If you can be bothered or can afford the long time, please plough thro' my earlier contributions.
In the meantime let's agree to differ on a subject neither of us can detail or will ever know - O.K?
In deepest respect,
SIQ.
Ty for your response but you're losing me and I suspect others with your comet (meteriorite, aliens or whatever) theorising re the origin of life on our Planet Earth.
Why are you hung-up on extraterrestrial life's origin?
If your first, correct contribution was based on this (outside-earth origin of Our Earthly Life) then you lose my initial support.
Sorry but that's getting into E.Van Daniken territory (S. American landing lines, Bermuda Triangle etc. - all discredited).
Anyway this jextraterrestrial theory just throws the ball (understanding) back into the long grass as most, including Khandro agree ...I think.
To end on agreement - the earthly origin of life needs speeding up compared with the universe's relatively infinite time. But this does not need comets etc.
If you can be bothered or can afford the long time, please plough thro' my earlier contributions.
In the meantime let's agree to differ on a subject neither of us can detail or will ever know - O.K?
In deepest respect,
SIQ.
