Re: OoL – out at first base?

Liste des GroupesRevenir à t origins 
Sujet : Re: OoL – out at first base?
De : me22over7 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (MarkE)
Groupes : talk.origins
Date : 11. Dec 2024, 03:09:55
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vjas9j$16l6r$2@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 10/12/2024 8:08 am, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 20:50:18 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
 
On 9/12/2024 8:11 pm, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 16:54:56 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
>
We need prebiotic formation and supply of nucleotides for RNA world, and
other models at some stage. The scope of the problem of the supply of
these precursors is prone to underestimation.
>
Nucleotides are chemically challenging in terms of the prebiotic
synthesis and assembly of their three constituents of nitrogenous base,
sugar and phosphate group.
>
Harder again are the requirements for supply of these building blocks.
You need (eventually) all canonical bases in sufficient concentration,
purity, chirality, activation, distribution, location, etc.
>
But the greatest problem I think is this: time. How long must you
maintain the supply described above in order to assemble a
self-replicating RNA strand? And even if you managed that, how much more
time is needed before reaching a protocell capable of self-synthesising
nucleotides? One million years? One hundred million years?
>
A hypothised little warm pond with wetting/drying cycles (say) must
provide a far-from-equilibrium system...for a million years...or
hundreds of millions of years. You can’t pause the process, because any
developing polymers will fall apart and reset the clock.
>
What are the chances of that kind of geological and environmental
stability and continuity?
>
Therefore, the formation of an autonomous protocell naturalistically has
vanishingly small probability.
>
>
There were many warm little ponds, spread throughout the young Earth,
all multiplying that probability.  Try to keep that in mind.
>
>
Of course, but that doesn't solve the problem of time:
>
     10 million ponds x 10 years != 1 pond x 100 million years
  
You need to develop a self-replicating entity that also self-synthesises
nucleotides (i.e. no longer depends on environmental supply). Aka a
protocell. This requires an unbroken development process (lineage) over
millions of years, i.e. one pond, or connected ponds.
>
And this one pond continuously pumping in a supply fresh nucleotides for
MILLIONS of years.
>
No floods, droughts or interruption of supply allowed. For MILLIONS of
years.
>
Not a chance on a young Earth (or any Earth for that matter).
  Your arguments above assume unnecessary requirements.  It's not clear
what you mean by "self-synthesises".  There are no life systems that
don't depend on the environment; even autotrophs need to pull raw
materials and energy from it.  It's also not clear what you expect
your presumptive "protocell" had to do.
 My understanding is current research assumes the first
self-reproducing *systems* would have been very dependent on the
environment to provide the conditions they needed to sustain
themselves, ex. proton gradients, before they eventually evolved
more-or-less independent protocells.
Broadly, the steps would be:
1. Self-replicating polymer - environment supplies monomers
2. Non-autonomous protocell - environment supplies monomers, lipids, etc, which are used directly by the cell
3. Autonomous protocell - environment supplies food which the cell converts into monomers, lipids, etc
I'm referring to reaching step 3.

 It's unsurprising that the closer to modern life you specify your
presumptive "protocell", the less likely unguided natural processes
would create them.  Pasteur was quite right that modern life can't
generate spontaneously, with or without the aid of intelligent
designers.   So yes, the first protocells almost certainly didn't use
complex biochemical feedback systems on which modern life relies.  The
whole point is life evolved them over time, after unguided natural
processes organized the first self-reproducing *systems*.
 WRT floods and droughts and other environmental events, they would
have been part of the *systems* that eventually evolved more-or-less
independent protocells.  And yes, there are many environments on Earth
which have existed for MILLIONS of years; ex. oceans.
 

Date Sujet#  Auteur
9 Dec 24 * OoL – out at first base?117MarkE
9 Dec 24 +* Re: OoL – out at first base?18erik simpson
9 Dec 24 i`* Re: OoL – out at first base?17MarkE
9 Dec 24 i `* Re: OoL – out at first base?16erik simpson
10 Dec 24 i  +* Re: OoL – out at first base?3MarkE
10 Dec 24 i  i+- Re: OoL – out at first base?1erik simpson
10 Dec 24 i  i`- Re: OoL – out at first base?1jillery
11 Dec 24 i  +* Re: OoL – out at first base?2MarkE
11 Dec 24 i  i`- Re: OoL – out at first base?1erik simpson
11 Dec 24 i  `* Re: OoL - out at first base?10Martin Harran
11 Dec 24 i   +* Re: OoL - out at first base?7erik simpson
11 Dec 24 i   i`* Re: OoL - out at first base?6Martin Harran
11 Dec 24 i   i +- Re: OoL - out at first base?1erik simpson
11 Dec 24 i   i `* Re: OoL - out at first base?4LDagget
12 Dec 24 i   i  `* Re: OoL - out at first base?3Martin Harran
12 Dec 24 i   i   `* Re: OoL - out at first base?2LDagget
12 Dec 24 i   i    `- Re: OoL - out at first base?1DB Cates
11 Dec 24 i   `* Re: OoL - out at first base?2Ernest Major
11 Dec 24 i    `- Re: OoL - out at first base?1LDagget
9 Dec 24 +* Re: OoL – out at first base?9jillery
9 Dec 24 i+* Re: OoL – out at first base?6MarkE
9 Dec 24 ii+* Re: OoL ? out at first base?2aph
9 Dec 24 iii`- Re: OoL ? out at first base?1MarkE
9 Dec 24 ii`* Re: OoL – out at first base?3jillery
11 Dec 24 ii `* Re: OoL – out at first base?2MarkE
11 Dec 24 ii  `- Re: OoL – out at first base?1MarkE
16 Dec19:38 i`* Re: OoL – out at first base?2Mark Isaak
16 Dec21:23 i `- Re: OoL – out at first base?1Kerr-Mudd, John
9 Dec 24 +* Re: OoL – out at first base?7RonO
9 Dec 24 i`* Re: OoL – out at first base?6MarkE
10 Dec 24 i +- Re: OoL – out at first base?1RonO
10 Dec 24 i `* Re: OoL – out at first base?4erik simpson
11 Dec 24 i  `* Re: OoL - out at first base?3Martin Harran
11 Dec 24 i   `* Re: OoL - out at first base?2erik simpson
18 Dec12:36 i    `- Re: OoL - out at first base?1jillery
10 Dec 24 +* Re: Ool - out at first base?80Bob Casanova
11 Dec 24 i`* Re: Ool - out at first base?79MarkE
13 Dec 24 i +* Re: Ool - out at first base?70Ernest Major
13 Dec 24 i i`* Re: Ool - out at first base?69erik simpson
14 Dec 24 i i `* Re: Ool - out at first base?68MarkE
14 Dec 24 i i  +* Re: Ool - out at first base?2erik simpson
14 Dec 24 i i  i`- Re: Ool - out at first base?1MarkE
14 Dec 24 i i  `* Re: Ool - out at first base?65Martin Harran
14 Dec 24 i i   `* Re: Ool - out at first base?64MarkE
14 Dec 24 i i    +* Re: Ool - out at first base?62Martin Harran
14 Dec 24 i i    i`* Re: Ool - out at first base?61MarkE
14 Dec 24 i i    i +* Re: Ool - out at first base?52Martin Harran
15 Dec 24 i i    i i`* Re: Ool - out at first base?51MarkE
15 Dec 24 i i    i i `* Re: Ool - out at first base?50Martin Harran
15 Dec 24 i i    i i  +- Re: Ool - out at first base?1Martin Harran
15 Dec 24 i i    i i  `* Re: Ool - out at first base?48MarkE
15 Dec 24 i i    i i   `* Re: Ool - out at first base?47Martin Harran
16 Dec 24 i i    i i    `* Re: Ool - out at first base?46MarkE
16 Dec20:33 i i    i i     +* Re: Ool - out at first base?6Mark Isaak
18 Dec02:12 i i    i i     i`* Re: Ool - out at first base?5MarkE
18 Dec17:16 i i    i i     i `* Re: Ool - out at first base?4Mark Isaak
18 Dec17:49 i i    i i     i  +- Re: Ool - out at first base?1Martin Harran
19 Dec05:49 i i    i i     i  `* Re: Ool - out at first base?2MarkE
19 Dec17:35 i i    i i     i   `- Re: Ool - out at first base?1Mark Isaak
17 Dec14:07 i i    i i     `* Re: Ool - out at first base?39Martin Harran
17 Dec17:19 i i    i i      +* Re: Ool - out at first base?2erik simpson
17 Dec18:48 i i    i i      i`- Re: Ool - out at first base?1Martin Harran
18 Dec01:32 i i    i i      `* Re: Ool - out at first base?36MarkE
18 Dec15:17 i i    i i       `* Re: Ool - out at first base?35Martin Harran
18 Dec15:52 i i    i i        +- Re: Ool - out at first base?1Martin Harran
18 Dec18:17 i i    i i        +* Re: Ool - out at first base?2Ernest Major
19 Dec10:38 i i    i i        i`- Re: Ool - out at first base?1jillery
19 Dec04:10 i i    i i        `* Re: Ool - out at first base?31MarkE
19 Dec07:17 i i    i i         +* Re: Ool - out at first base?15Vincent Maycock
19 Dec07:33 i i    i i         i+* Re: Ool - out at first base?11MarkE
19 Dec19:50 i i    i i         ii`* Re: Ool - out at first base?10Vincent Maycock
19 Dec23:25 i i    i i         ii `* Re: Ool - out at first base?9MarkE
20 Dec00:32 i i    i i         ii  `* Re: Ool - out at first base?8Vincent Maycock
20 Dec02:42 i i    i i         ii   `* Re: Ool - out at first base?7MarkE
20 Dec03:23 i i    i i         ii    `* Re: Ool - out at first base?6Vincent Maycock
20 Dec05:08 i i    i i         ii     `* Re: Ool - out at first base?5MarkE
20 Dec06:10 i i    i i         ii      +* Re: Ool - out at first base?2Vincent Maycock
20 Dec23:45 i i    i i         ii      i`- Re: Ool - out at first base?1MarkE
21 Dec12:42 i i    i i         ii      +- Re: Ool - out at first base?1jillery
22 Dec21:46 i i    i i         ii      `- Re: Ool - out at first base?1Mark Isaak
19 Dec17:05 i i    i i         i`* Re: Ool - out at first base?3erik simpson
19 Dec19:53 i i    i i         i `* Re: Ool - out at first base?2Vincent Maycock
19 Dec23:08 i i    i i         i  `- Re: Ool - out at first base?1erik simpson
19 Dec11:04 i i    i i         +- Re: Ool - out at first base?1jillery
19 Dec15:56 i i    i i         +* Re: Ool - out at first base?13Martin Harran
19 Dec18:15 i i    i i         i+- Re: Ool - out at first base?1Martin Harran
19 Dec23:20 i i    i i         i`* Re: Ool - out at first base?11MarkE
19 Dec23:31 i i    i i         i +- Re: Ool - out at first base?1erik simpson
20 Dec18:24 i i    i i         i `* Re: Ool - out at first base?9Martin Harran
20 Dec18:44 i i    i i         i  +* Re: Ool - out at first base?2erik simpson
21 Dec00:02 i i    i i         i  i`- Re: Ool - out at first base?1MarkE
20 Dec23:59 i i    i i         i  `* Re: Ool - out at first base?6MarkE
21 Dec08:13 i i    i i         i   `* Re: Ool - out at first base?5Martin Harran
22 Dec19:12 i i    i i         i    `* Re: Ool - out at first base?4Martin Harran
22 Dec22:07 i i    i i         i     +* Re: Ool - out at first base?2William Hyde
23 Dec07:49 i i    i i         i     i`- Re: Ool - out at first base?1Martin Harran
22 Dec23:53 i i    i i         i     `- Re: Ool - out at first base?1jillery
19 Dec18:44 i i    i i         `- Re: Ool - out at first base?1Mark Isaak
14 Dec 24 i i    i `* Re: Ool - out at first base?8DB Cates
14 Dec 24 i i    i  +* Re: Ool - out at first base?6erik simpson
14 Dec 24 i i    i  i`* Re: Ool - out at first base?5Martin Harran
14 Dec 24 i i    i  `- Re: Ool - out at first base?1Ernest Major
16 Dec20:16 i i    `- Re: Ool - out at first base?1Mark Isaak
13 Dec 24 i `* Re: Ool - out at first base?8Bob Casanova
10 Dec 24 `* Re: OoL – out at first base?2Kerr-Mudd, John

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal