New theory on how life began

[untermensche]

Damned dude!! Are you really ignorant of the fact that there is a science of organic chemistry?

That you can conclude this shows a mind incapable of understanding.

I just told you there is a distinction between inorganic and organic chemistry.

The question is: How did organic chemistry and more specifically, biochemistry, arise?

Saying "chemistry works" isn't any kind of explanation.

 

[Kharakov]

The atoms combined by well understood laws to form organic molecules.

Like humans combine by well understood laws to form societies and build things. Fractal consciousness... sounds so woo to me at times.

 

[Rhea]

An empty phrase that explains absolutely nothing.
We divide chemistry between organic and inorganic.
The issue is not at all why atoms do what they do.
The issue is what did they do.
What happened that caused specific molecules to form and form in a specific way so that the end result was life?
Was it just time and chance?
Or were very specific events necessary along the way?
Nobody is close to knowing that.

Oh sure they are.

One of the first lessons that we talk about in Organic Chemistry I is what does "organic" chemistry mean, and where did the phrase come from? Not sure if you ever took OChem... well, yeah, I'm sure you didn't or you'd know this one, but I"m happy to share. I loved OChem - I and II.

Anyway, so what we learn is that back before "scientists" knew much about chemistry, back when they thought things like flies spontaeously generate from dead flesh, they divided chemicals into "organic" or "life" chemicals and inorganic or "dead" chemicals. See, they thought there was a life force - a vitality - inherent in the very atoms that was required for any living thing. And only God could ever EVER create any "organic" material. It needed his breath, his vitality to grant life. Organic materials, moreover, only came from other organic materials in a lab setting, because in a lab you couldn't breathe god's life force into a dish. You needed something that god had already breathed life into and the best you could do was continue His work.

Along came Friedrich Wöhler in 1828 and damned if he didn't upend the entire godly applecart by taking two inorganic substances, adding heat, and creating an organic substance. The substance was urea, heretofore only created by living, vital, organic systems.

This changed everything. It was religion changing, even. Godly vitality was no longer bestowed only by god.
Can you imagine the upheaval!?

Well, to make a long story short, the definition of "organic" became "those chemicals made from Carbon and often Hydrogen, among other ingredients" and that is what it is today.

That's the split. Organic no longer means "infused with god's vitality" Now it means "carbon chemistry"

And what the carbon atoms do... is they have the property of creating long chains that are exquisitely useful for forming membranes and storing energy. Because, by chance, they have four bonding sites and the right amount of energy and physical size to create a wide variety of bonds in a wide variety of directions, some of which are even flexible. So it's useful to study them separately because as a class they tend to follow certain reaction pathways that are different from non-chain-forming chemicals. But really, you can't study one without knowing the other. Because they are all chemicals.

It was time and chance that would bring specific events about, eventually. Wöhler reproduced one such useful accident so you could study it all these years later and understand how life could be created by "inorganic" chemicals coming into proximity with each other.

"I cannot, so to say, hold my chemical water and must tell you that I can make urea without thereby needing to have kidneys, or anyhow, an animal, be it human or dog".[citation needed]

It is argued that organic chemistry did not actually start with this discovery in 1828 but 4 years earlier with the synthesis of oxalic acid in 1824 also by Wöhler and also from the inorganic precursor cyanogen. It is also argued that vitalism was not put to bed either in 1828. His contemporaries Liebig and Pasteur never abandoned vitalism and it took until 1845 when Kolbe repeated an inorganic – organic conversion of carbon disulfide to acetic acid before vitalism started to lose supporters in serious numbers.

 

[untermensche]

That's the split. Organic no longer means "infused with god's vitality" Now it means "carbon chemistry"

No kidding.

Your long winded attack of a strawman is not helpful.

If you really took organic chemistry as you claim then you know all the steps that organic chemists must take to produce specific molecules.

It is not a ball rolling down hill.

Saying we start with all the elements on the earth and all the forces present and just wait until life arises is not an explanation of anything.

Of course it is a rational conjecture, but not any kind of an explanation.

An explanation is HOW.

 

[Rhea]

That's the split. Organic no longer means "infused with god's vitality" Now it means "carbon chemistry"

No kidding.

Your long winded attack of a strawman is not helpful.

Wait, what strawman? YOU are the one who claimed organic chemistry was somehow fundamentally different than inorganic chemistry (usually called "Physical Chemistry"). You said, and I quote,

We divide chemistry between organic and inorganic.

So I answered that for you. The only reason we call it "organic" is because of the history of it from ignorant scientists of olde. No other real reason.

If you really took organic chemistry as you claim

I got an "A" in both, as well as in Biochemistry. So, yeah. If you think I'm talking nonsense about it, then you should tell me your sources so I can learn.

then you know all the steps that organic chemists must take to produce specific molecules.

Yes. I do. Not only that, but I know that for many organic chemicals, there are a _variety_ of pathways. Often 4, 5 or 6 that can get you to the same place, depending on the temperature, pH, concentration, etc. Our class used to joke about our teacher who would call out, "how do you make that?" and point at a student who had to answer, fast! And then immediately point to a different student, "another way!" And then immediately point to a different student, "another way!" and again, "another way!" We would laugh, come on! Who cares about the EIGHTH different way of making this organic chemical!?!

One of the things that some people hate about OChem is that you actually have to study/care/know that you can get the product either by the electron running up this side, which then topples off that Hydrogen, or the electron can also run up the other side, so it topples off a hydroxyl group, or the electron can be draw off this other way, which causes the chemical to form a right-rotated version, or it can be done by two steps through this other side group which leads to a left-rotated version, etc. It gets down into what individual electrons in the atom are doing and how they affect the shape of the final molecule. It's very detailed and kind of difficult to memorize because they are just tiny tweaks of the same thing.

So you see, there are many different pathways,

It is not a ball rolling down hill.

So it kind of is. So many different pathways all yielding the same molecule to the point where it's practically inevitable.

Saying we start with all the elements on the earth and all the forces present and just wait until life arises is not an explanation of anything.

Don't you get it? "all the forces present" are not just waiting. They are in motion - constantly. They are causing the atoms and subsequent molecules to be rolling towards low energy states, then bombarded with new energy from the sun, or the earth's core, or a lightning strike, and then they flow toward equilibrium once again, by whatever pathway presents itself.... JUST LIKE A BALL RUNNING DOWN A HILL.

Of course it is a rational conjecture, but not any kind of an explanation.

An explanation is HOW.

And the "how" is what this whole thread is about!!!
D'oh! The proposed new theory is the how. The atoms tending toward dissipation of energy and tending toward configurations that favor it.

But a new theory, proposed by a researcher at MIT and first reported in Quanta Magazine, proposes that when a group of atoms is exposed for a long time to a source of energy, it will restructure itself to dissipate more energy. The emergence of life might not be the luck of atoms arranging themselves in the right way, it says, but an inevitable event if the conditions are correct.

Like a ball rolling down a freaking hill.

 

[Rhea]

Unter, how do you think the Sun maintains nuclear fusion in its core? How do you think lead is formed in the sun? Do you think that somehow 82 hydrogen atoms and 126 neutrons just happened to all bump into each other at the same time? What are the odds of that?

Or do you think that maybe, just maybe, two hydrogens bumped at the angle and with sufficient energy to fuse. And then a neutron bumped into that Helium and became Lithium, and then two lithiums happened near each other and etc until finally an accumulation of events eventually - and each one quite by chance - resulted in all of the parts necessary for a lead?

Or even yet, do you suppose that perhaps once that lithium was created it took practically no time for it to attach to whatever is nearby because it's just not very stable at all? And so it was practically inevitable that it would become something larger?

When you walk around in a velcro suit, it's fairly certain that you will eventually find things sticking to you. Certain things, you know?

Just ask a burr how often it sticks to a rock versus your socks. You' not "just waiting" for the burr to become one with your socks, by being nearby them, you're practically guaranteeing it. And they almost always cling in a fairly shallow layer, because your sock is a better cling than another burr. But this is not because burrs "like" your socks, or "want" your socks. It's because it takes only the barest brush for them to have the strength to stay on your sock and break from its bush or one of its own.

And this is not because anyone designed them to like socks, it's because the ones that happened to fit strongly against socks keep going.

 

[Malintent]

That's the split. Organic no longer means "infused with god's vitality" Now it means "carbon chemistry"

No kidding.

Your long winded attack of a strawman is not helpful.

If you really took organic chemistry as you claim then you know all the steps that organic chemists must take to produce specific molecules.

It is not a ball rolling down hill.

Saying we start with all the elements on the earth and all the forces present and just wait until life arises is not an explanation of anything.

Of course it is a rational conjecture, but not any kind of an explanation.

An explanation is HOW.

You are extremely confused about what 'manufacturing' is. Chemistry is a ball rolling down a PERFECT hill. the human effort.. the intelligent design... the manufacturing... the processing... is entirely about removing all of the variables except the ones that drive the reaction (every time, in exactly the same way) to what the intelligent designer (us) wants. In other words, we remove all the bumps and nooks that cause the ball to roll unexpectedly.

 

[Lion IRC]

Doesn't look good for creationists.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...how-life-began-and-disprove-god-10070114.html

The problem for scientists attempting to understand how life began is understanding how living beings – which tend to be far better at taking energy from the environment and dissipating it as heat – could come about from non-living ones.

But a new theory, proposed by a researcher at MIT and first reported in Quanta Magazine, proposes that when a group of atoms is exposed for a long time to a source of energy, it will restructure itself to dissipate more energy. The emergence of life might not be the luck of atoms arranging themselves in the right way, it says, but an inevitable event if the conditions are correct.

Good on him (the MIT professor) for accepting that things which come into existence have a cause and that cause - if not God - can only be either spontaneous chance or inevitable necessity.

So he's going for the latter.

 

[Angry Floof]

Doesn't look good for creationists.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...how-life-began-and-disprove-god-10070114.html

Good on him (the MIT professor) for accepting that things which come into existence have a cause and that cause - if not God - can only be either spontaneous chance or inevitable necessity.

So he's going for the latter.

Don't be afraid, believer. It's just another God-gap slowly closing. Science is nothing if not the light that also reveals new cracks for followers to stuff God into.

 

[untermensche]

[YOU are the one who claimed organic chemistry was somehow fundamentally different than inorganic chemistry (usually called "Physical Chemistry"). You said, and I quote

Of course organic chemistry is fundamentally different from non-carbon chemistry.

That is why it is taught separately.

But in terms of chemistry and life the important molecules are the replicating molecules. They are carbon based and specific.

That is life, self replication, and life on this planet is RNA and DNA based replication.

If this research demonstrates how life arose please tell me the three precursors to RNA that occurred in it's development.

I don't care what courses you took in college. I not only took organic and in my day, inorganic, chemistry but I also took two and a half years of graduate level medicinal chemistry in pharmacy school. There is nothing you can teach me about chemistry.

So it kind of is. So many different pathways all yielding the same molecule to the point where it's practically inevitable.

This is babble and it shows you took organic chemistry but you took nothing from it.

There are many things organic chemists can do with molecules. Because they have foresight and because of countless trials and errors.

But the central question is self replicating molecules. Molecules that replicate on their own and do not stop.

No chemist can create this.

 

[fromderinside]

Of course organic chemistry is fundamentally different from non-carbon chemistry.

That is why it is taught separately.

But in terms of chemistry and life the important molecules are the replicating molecules. They are carbon based and specific.

That is life, self replication, and life on this planet is RNA and DNA based replication.

If this research demonstrates how life arose please tell me the three precursors to RNA that occurred in it's development.

I don't care what courses you took in college. I not only took organic and in my day, inorganic, chemistry but I also took two and a half years of graduate level medicinal chemistry in pharmacy school. There is nothing you can teach me about chemistry.

So it kind of is. So many different pathways all yielding the same molecule to the point where it's practically inevitable.

This is babble and it shows you took organic chemistry but you took nothing from it.

There are many things organic chemists can do with molecules. Because they have foresight and because of countless trials and errors.

But the central question is self replicating molecules. Molecules that replicate on their own and do not stop.

No chemist can create this.

-nm

 

[Rhea]

That is life, self replication, and life on this planet is RNA and DNA based replication.

If this research demonstrates how life arose please tell me the three precursors to RNA that occurred in it's development.

Oh, you're one of those who says, "if you can't show the whole path at once, I don't want to hear your theory on part of the path."

Good thing you weren't there to tell Newton that if he couldn't prove gravitational waves he should STFU.

I don't care what courses you took in college. I not only took organic and in my day, inorganic, chemistry but I also took two and a half years of graduate level medicinal chemistry in pharmacy school. There is nothing you can teach me about chemistry.

Well great. And it surprises the shit out of me that you can't imagine one reaction following on another following on another obeying common physical laws over a billion years can come up with a nice stable molecule that can exude an environment that tends to foster the creation of more like itself.

I mean, I see that you can't imagine that, and I've run across creationists who can't quite figure out how many reactions are possible in a billion years, either, but it does surprise me to find this in a pharmacist.

So it kind of is. So many different pathways all yielding the same molecule to the point where it's practically inevitable.

This is babble and it shows you took organic chemistry but you took nothing from it.

There are many things organic chemists can do with molecules. Because they have foresight and because of countless trials and errors.

Yeah those countless trials and errors would never happen in an enormously diverse giant petri dish over a billion years. I mean, what are the odds in a billion years of split second reactions among many billlions of molecules, anyway? Probably like, 7 in 12 or something, right?

But the central question is self replicating molecules. Molecules that replicate on their own and do not stop.

No chemist can create this.

Or anything like it, I bet!!!!1!!!


The researchers, at the Scripps Research Institute, created molecules that self-replicate and even evolve and compete to win or lose. If that sounds exactly like life, read on to learn the controversial and thin distinction.


...two years later...

In a neat twist, Holliger's team also showed that tC19Z can make copies of another RNA enzyme, which then worked correctly. That suggests that, once the first self-replicating RNA had appeared, it would have been able to surround itself with additional molecular equipment, kick-starting the evolution of more complex life.

None of this is perfected yet, but I don't need it to be to keep my mind open that a possible pathway can exist and to imagine the proposals using the known chemistry to proceed over an enormous period of time.

 

[untermensche]

Oh, you're one of those who says, "if you can't show the whole path at once, I don't want to hear your theory on part of the path."

No, I'm the one who says that making claims you have part of the path requires more than having molecules move about.

 

[Lion IRC]

Good on him (the MIT professor) for accepting that things which come into existence have a cause and that cause - if not God - can only be either spontaneous chance or inevitable necessity.

So he's going for the latter.

Don't be afraid, believer. It's just another God-gap slowly closing. Science is nothing if not the light that also reveals new cracks for followers to stuff God into.

Well I think science discovers more 'woo' than it solves.

We didn't have worm holes and multiverses and dark energy and uncertainty principles 10,000 years ago.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Don't be afraid, believer. It's just another God-gap slowly closing. Science is nothing if not the light that also reveals new cracks for followers to stuff God into.

Well I think science discovers more 'woo' than it solves.

We didn't have worm holes and multiverses and dark energy and uncertainty principles 10,000 years ago.

Worm holes and multiverses are only hypothetical at the moment. Dark energy and the uncertainty principle are based on observation.

 

[Angry Floof]

Don't be afraid, believer. It's just another God-gap slowly closing. Science is nothing if not the light that also reveals new cracks for followers to stuff God into.

Well I think science discovers more 'woo' than it solves.

We didn't have worm holes and multiverses and dark energy and uncertainty principles 10,000 years ago.

We did, but just didn't know it yet. But that's awesome that you think science somehow brings these things into existence.

"If I don't know about it, it doesn't exist" is one of the cognitive pitfalls that make superstition possible. I imagine it's a bit scary when scientific endeavor looms up and challenges sacred assumptions. Must be a bit jarring.

 

[skepticalbip]

Don't be afraid, believer. It's just another God-gap slowly closing. Science is nothing if not the light that also reveals new cracks for followers to stuff God into.

Well I think science discovers more 'woo' than it solves.

We didn't have worm holes and multiverses and dark energy and uncertainty principles 10,000 years ago.

Yes, before scientific inquiry there were no questions that couldn't be answered by the local clergy or shaman - there were no unknowns or unknown-unknowns - the universe was perfectly understood and explained. Of course however, all the answers were woo. Scientific investigation has replaced much of that woo with understanding but there are still unknowns to be explained but those unknowns are known to be unknown. While science investigates to develop an understanding of those unknowns it will discover further unknowns that are currently unknown-unknowns.

 

[Angry Floof]

Well I think science discovers more 'woo' than it solves.

We didn't have worm holes and multiverses and dark energy and uncertainty principles 10,000 years ago.

Yes, before scientific inquiry there were no questions that couldn't be answered by the local clergy or shaman - there were no unknowns or unknown-unknowns - the universe was perfectly understood and explained. Of course however, all the answers were woo. Scientific investigation has replaced much of that woo with understanding but there are still unknowns to be explained but those unknowns are known to be unknown. While science investigates to develop an understanding of those unknowns it will discover further unknowns that are currently unknown-unknowns.

YOU SHUT YOUR BLASPHEMOUS MOUTH, INFIDEL.

 

[Malintent]

Don't be afraid, believer. It's just another God-gap slowly closing. Science is nothing if not the light that also reveals new cracks for followers to stuff God into.

Well I think science discovers more 'woo' than it solves.

We didn't have worm holes and multiverses and dark energy and uncertainty principles 10,000 years ago.

.. or clean water to drink, or a notion of 'basic human rights', or even the idea that washing your hands after wiping your butt might be a good idea.

 

[Lion IRC]

Right!
Then the bible came along and Gods people started following Leviticus' hygiene regulations and learning about concepts like the sanctity of life and treating others as you want to be treated. And they became prosperous enough to dig wells (like Jacobs Well) and accumulate livestock.