• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Abiogenesis -- Another Theory

A teaser from your link:

Ice as a protocellular medium for RNA replication

James Attwater , Aniela Wochner , Vitor B. Pinheiro , Alan Coulson & Philipp Holliger

AbstractA crucial transition in the origin of life was the emergence of an informational polymer capable of self-replication and its compartmentalization within protocellular structures. We show that the physicochemical properties of ice, a simple medium widespread on a temperate early Earth, could have mediated this transition prior to the advent of membraneous protocells.
Click to expand...
 
There is a very brief article about this in the Oct 23 issue of Science News.

The hot spot for life on early Earth may have been a very cold place. Tiny pockets and channels that form inside ice can contain and protect replicating molecules, researchers report September 21 in Nature Communications.

The paper suggests that life could have sprung from icy slush covering a freshwater lake, rather than a broiling deep-sea hydrothermal vent or the “warm little pond” proposed by Charles Darwin. And perhaps the frigid, icy surfaces of other planets are not as barren as they appear, proposes the research team from the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, England.
Click to expand...
LINK
 
Perpetual Student said:
Another interesting theory for abiogenesis: ICE
Click to expand...

cute......

most anyone can walk on H2O when ICE

as well to comprehend how mass/energy work, then abiogenesis is elementary


Kind of like to comprehend an abiogenesis to the molecular level, makes an evolution a natural progression within an environment.


The fractal is a fine method to identify the analogy of how energy combines mass (crystals). The old consider the combining a reduction, the correct comprehension is the energy is sustaining upon mass.

ie...... abiogenesis is not a matter of proof but a matter of comprehending how mass/energy (em) works.
 
Bishadi said:
cute......

most anyone can walk on H2O when ICE

as well to comprehend how mass/energy work, then abiogenesis is elementary


Kind of like to comprehend an abiogenesis to the molecular level, makes an evolution a natural progression within an environment.


The fractal is a fine method to identify the analogy of how energy combines mass (crystals). The old consider the combining a reduction, the correct comprehension is the energy is sustaining upon mass.

ie...... abiogenesis is not a matter of proof but a matter of comprehending how mass/energy (em) works.
Click to expand...
My hovercraft is full of eels.
 
I knew about this ideology and why i posted like i did in the first approach.

here is another view of the same

The theory is that small amounts of liquid persists even at sixty below
(Fahrenheit) and simple molecules could have assembled into longer
chains. To the doubters, the article states: ..."strange things happen
when you freeze chemicals in ice. Some reactions slow down, but others
actually speed up -- especially reactions that involve joining small
molecules into larger ones .. by a process called eutectic freezing. As
an ice crystal forms, it stays pure: Only molecules of water join the
growing crystal, while impurities like salt or cyanide are excluded.
These impurities become crowded in microscopic pockets ... caus[ing] the
molecules to collide more often. Chemically speaking, it transforms a
tepid seventh-grade school dance into a raging molecular mosh pit."

Normally chemical reaction rates slow down as temperature falls, but
eutectic freezing can create liquid pockets of highly concentrated
chemicals, and reaction rates *increase* when concentrations increase,
more than compensating for the slowdown.
Click to expand...


http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.bio.evolution/2008-01/msg00112.html



my addition but from anothers words
 
Bishadi said:
cute......

most anyone can walk on H2O when ICE

as well to comprehend how mass/energy work, then abiogenesis is elementary


Kind of like to comprehend an abiogenesis to the molecular level, makes an evolution a natural progression within an environment.


The fractal is a fine method to identify the analogy of how energy combines mass (crystals). The old consider the combining a reduction, the correct comprehension is the energy is sustaining upon mass.

ie...... abiogenesis is not a matter of proof but a matter of comprehending how mass/energy (em) works.
Click to expand...
And the abiogenesis is molecular energy level sustaining crystals progression environment of fractal mass.
:rolleyes:
 
Perpetual Student said:
And the abiogenesis is molecular energy level sustaining crystals progression environment of fractal mass.
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

are you not familiar with fractals?

see basic wiki

In nature
Approximate fractals are easily found in nature. These objects display self-similar structure over an extended, but finite, scale range. Examples include clouds, snow flakes, crystals, mountain ranges, lightning, river networks, cauliflower or broccoli, and systems of blood vessels and pulmonary vessels. Coastlines may be loosely considered fractal in nature.

Trees and ferns are fractal in nature and can be modeled on a computer by using a recursive algorithm. This recursive nature is obvious in these examples—a branch from a tree or a frond from a fern is a miniature replica of the whole: not identical, but similar in nature. The connection between fractals and leaves are currently being used to determine how much carbon is contained in trees.[5]

In 1999, certain self similar fractal shapes were shown to have a property of "frequency invariance"—the same electromagnetic properties no matter what the frequency—from Maxwell's equations (see fractal antenna).
Click to expand...


remember the important of Phi (golden ratio) and fractals for the rest of your life


http://www.miqel.com/fractals_math_patterns/visual-math-phi-golden.html


Most everything that exists renders evidence.








.:cool:
 
Nonsense is not on-topic. Therefore, communicating with Bishadi will generally not provoke on-topic responses. Thus, it would be unwise to communicate with Bishadi.
 
Twiler said:
Nonsense is not on-topic. Therefore, communicating with Bishadi will generally not provoke on-topic responses. Thus, it would be unwise to communicate with Bishadi.
Click to expand...



if you dont comprehend snowflakes are fractals and that ice crystalization is the same, then i can see why you dont comprehend much of how any of it makes sense.

if you can't stay thread focused, then no wonder you have a tough time contributing to much of anything on any thread.


ie....found in areas ranging from leonardo de vince to einstein himself, the golden ratio and fractal patterns of nature are fixtures to science/knowledge.


But some dont have enough material knowledge to even comprehend a simple snowflake.



If i was of irresponsibility i would lean on Freud and claim 'it's mom's fault'

but i know better as each are responsible for their own actions!
 
Twiler said:
Nonsense is not on-topic. Therefore, communicating with Bishadi will generally not provoke on-topic responses. Thus, it would be unwise to communicate with Bishadi.
Click to expand...
That's why I killfiled him.
 
There are two questions that immediately pop into my mind about this. First, ice cools things down, which slows reaction rates in wet chemistry. RNA/DNA are almost always in a wet environment, so they'd be slowed down as well, right?

Secondly, was there really that much ice back then? I mean, we have evidence of life at 3.9 billion years ago, towards the end of the Hadean. That time period's name says all there really is to tell about that time period--the Earth had just gained its solid shell (for the last time; could have been re-melted a few times prior to that). There's always the possibility that the protocontinents had water on them (I'm imagining a raft of mafic rock in a sea of lava, with a water sea in the middle), but I somehow doubt that. How much ice was there?
 
Dinwar said:
There are two questions that immediately pop into my mind about this. First, ice cools things down, which slows reaction rates in wet chemistry. RNA/DNA are almost always in a wet environment, so they'd be slowed down as well, right?

Secondly, was there really that much ice back then? I mean, we have evidence of life at 3.9 billion years ago, towards the end of the Hadean. That time period's name says all there really is to tell about that time period--the Earth had just gained its solid shell (for the last time; could have been re-melted a few times prior to that). There's always the possibility that the protocontinents had water on them (I'm imagining a raft of mafic rock in a sea of lava, with a water sea in the middle), but I somehow doubt that. How much ice was there?
Click to expand...

Here is one answer:

Without sufficient greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere, the early Earth would have become a permanently
frozen planet because the young Sun was less luminous than it
is today. Several resolutions to this faint young Sun-frozen
Earth paradox have been proposed, with an atmosphere rich in
CO2 being the one generally favored. However, these models
assume that there were no mechanisms for melting a once
frozen ocean. Here we show that bolide impacts between about
3.6 and 4.0 billion years ago could have episodically melted an
ice-covered early ocean. Thaw-freeze cycles associated with
bolide impacts could have been important for the initiation of
abiotic reactions that gave rise to the first living organisms.
Click to expand...

FROM: LINK
 
Perpetual Student said:
Here is one answer:
Click to expand...

I share Dinwar's skepticism about this theory - also, I think I have seen it around before and I do not see how it fits onto the fossil time line.

The very early earth was full of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases and was warmer than it is now; there is not thought to have been any ice around at the time. The first, not very clear, microfossil evidence of life on earth was about 3.8 Bya; much clearer evidence dates from about 3.5 Bya. This is likely to have arisen in an ice free environment. The great oxygenation event was about 2.3 to 1.8 Bya, when the carbon dioxide levels were falling and the oxygen levels began to rise. The first snowball earth events followed the decline in the CO2.

How does this theory fit with that time line?
 
John Hewitt said:
I share Dinwar's skepticism about this theory - also, I think I have seen it around before and I do not see how it fits onto the fossil time line.

The very early earth was full of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases and was warmer than it is now; there is not thought to have been any ice around at the time. The first, not very clear, microfossil evidence of life on earth was about 3.8 Bya; much clearer evidence dates from about 3.5 Bya. This is likely to have arisen in an ice free environment. The great oxygenation event was about 2.3 to 1.8 Bya, when the carbon dioxide levels were falling and the oxygen levels began to rise. The first snowball earth events followed the decline in the CO2.

How does this theory fit with that time line?
Click to expand...

According to the authors of the above paper, "the early Earth would have become a permanently frozen planet because the young Sun was less luminous than it is today." I have no expertise in this area. Is there evidence to the contrary?
 
Perpetual Student said:
According to the authors of the above paper, "the early Earth would have become a permanently frozen planet because the young Sun was less luminous than it is today." I have no expertise in this area. Is there evidence to the contrary?
Click to expand...

The temperature of the early earth was, and probably still is, determined by two factors, the sun's luminosity, which is progressively increasing, and its atmospheric composition. The currently prevailing opinion is that it is the atmospheric composition that has dominated the earth's temperature history and that the early earth was hotter than it is today.

See for example, this link
http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/2232/earths-early-temperature
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom