Posted on 08/11/2017 7:20:35 AM PDT by Heartlander
Life should not exist. This much we know from chemistry. In contrast to the ubiquity of life on earth, the lifelessness of other planets makes far better chemical sense. Synthetic chemists know what it takes to build just one molecular compound. The compound must be designed, the stereochemistry controlled. Yield optimization, purification, and characterization are needed. An elaborate supply is required to control synthesis from start to finish. None of this is easy. Few researchers from other disciplines understand how molecules are synthesized.
Synthetic constraints must be taken into account when considering the prebiotic preparation of the four classes of compounds needed for life: the amino acids, the nucleotides, the saccharides, and the lipids.1 The next level beyond synthesis involves the components needed for the construction of nanosystems, which are then assembled into a microsystem. Composed of many nanosystems, the cell is natures fundamental microsystem. If the first cells were relatively simple, they still required at least 256 protein-coding genes. This requirement is as close to an absolute as we find in synthetic chemistry. A bacterium which encodes 1,354 proteins contains one of the smallest genomes currently known.2
Consider the following Gedankenexperiment. Let us assume that all the molecules we think may be needed to construct a cell are available in the requisite chemical and stereochemical purities. Let us assume that these molecules can be separated and delivered to a well-equipped laboratory. Let us also assume that the millions of articles comprising the chemical and biochemical literature are readily accessible.
How might we build a cell?
It is not enough to have the chemicals on hand. The relationship between the nucleotides and everything else must be specified and, for this, coding information is essential. DNA and RNA are the primary informational carriers of the cell. No matter the medium life might have adopted at the very beginning, its information had to come from somewhere. A string of nucleotides does not inherently encode anything. Let us assume that DNA and RNA are available in whatever sequence we desire.
A cell, as defined in synthetic biological terms, is a system that can maintain ion gradients, capture and process energy, store information, and mutate.3 Can we build a cell from the raw materials?4 We are synthetic chemists, after all. If we cannot do it, nobody can. Lipids of an appropriate length can spontaneously form lipid bilayers.
Molecular biology textbooks say as much. A lipid bilayer bubble can contain water, and was a likely precursor to the modern cell membrane.5 Lipid assembly into a lipid bilayer membrane can easily be provoked by agitation, or sonication in a lab.
Et voilà. The required lipid bilayer then forms. Right?
Not so fast. A few concerns should give us pause:6
The lipids are just the beginning. Proteinlipid complexes are the required passive transport sites and active pumps for the passage of ions and molecules through bilayer membranes, often with high specificity. Some allow passage for substrates into the compartment, and others their exit. The complexity increases further because all lipid bilayers have vast numbers of polysaccharide (sugar) appendages, known as glycans, and the sugars are no joke. These are important for nanosystem and microsystem regulation. The inherent complexity of these saccharides is daunting. Six repeat units of the saccharide D-pyranose can form more than one trillion different hexasaccharides through branching (constitutional) and glycosidic (stereochemical) diversity.8 Imagine the breadth of the library!
Polysaccharides are the most abundant organic molecules on the planet. Their importance is reflected in the fact that they are produced by and are essential to all natural systems. Every cell membrane is coated with a complex array of polysaccharides, and all cell-to-cell interactions take place through saccharide participation on the lipid bilayer membrane surface. Eliminating any class of saccharides from an organism results in its death, and every cellular dysfunction involves saccharides.
In a report entitled Transforming Glycoscience, the US National Research Council recently noted that,
very little is known about glycan diversification during evolution. Over three billion years of evolution has failed to generate any kind of living cell that is not covered with a dense and complex array of glycans.9
What is more, Vlatka Zoldoš, Tomislav Horvat, and Gordan Lauc observed: A peculiarity of glycan moieties of glycoproteins is that they are not synthesized using a direct genetic template. Instead, they result from the activity of several hundreds of enzymes organized in complex pathways.10
Saccharides are information-rich molecules. Glycosyl transferases encode information into glycans and saccharide binding proteins decode the information stored in the glycan structures. This process is repeated according to polysaccharide branching and coupling patterns.11 Saccharides encode and transfer information long after their initial enzymatic construction.12 Polysaccharides carry more potential information than any other macromolecule, including DNA and RNA. For this reason, lipid-associated polysaccharides are proving enigmatic.13
Cellular and organelle bilayers, which were once thought of as simple vesicles, are anything but. They are highly functional gatekeepers. By virtue of their glycans, lipid bilayers become enormous banks of stored, readable, and re-writable information. The sonication of a few random lipids, polysaccharides, and proteins in a lab will not yield cellular lipid bilayer membranes.
Mes frères, mes semblables, with these complexities in mind, how can we build the microsystem of a simple cell? Would we be able to build even the lipid bilayers? These diminutive cellular microsystemswhich are, in turn, composed of thousands of nanosystemsare beyond our comprehension. Yet we are led to believe that 3.8 billion years ago the requisite compounds could be found in some cave, or undersea vent, and somehow or other they assembled themselves into the first cell.
Could time really have worked such magic?
Many of the molecular structures needed for life are not thermodynamically favored by their syntheses. Formed by the formose reaction, the saccharides undergo further condensation under the very reaction conditions in which they form. The result is polymeric material, not to mention its stereo-randomness at every stereogenic center, therefore doubly useless.14 Time is the enemy. The reaction must be stopped soon after the desired product is formed. If we run out of synthetic intermediates in the laboratory, we have to go back to the beginning. Nature does not keep a laboratory notebook. How does she bring up more material from the rear?
If one understands the second law of thermodynamics, according to some physicists,15 You [can] start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant.16 The interactions of light with small molecules is well understood. The experiment has been performed. The outcome is known. Regardless of the wavelength of the light, no plant ever forms.
We synthetic chemists should state the obvious. The appearance of life on earth is a mystery. We are nowhere near solving this problem. The proposals offered thus far to explain lifes origin make no scientific sense.
Beyond our planet, all the others that have been probed are lifeless, a result in accord with our chemical expectations. The laws of physics and chemistrys Periodic Table are universal, suggesting that life based upon amino acids, nucleotides, saccharides and lipids is an anomaly. Life should not exist anywhere in our universe. Life should not even exist on the surface of the earth.17
H/T - Uncommon Descent
I applaud the article for its breadth of knowledge.
Now the author needs to find a way to say it all, just as accurately, in a way the lay person will follow easily and understand that the author is not just talking scientific gibberish.
Let me make it simple for you. “in the beginning God....
Further, to paraphrase the Bible he was before all things he created all things and by him all things are held together.
So much for gluons
Good day to you, and God bless
Let me make it simple for you. “in the beginning God....
Further, to paraphrase the Bible he was before all things he created all things and by him all things are held together.
So much for gluons
Good day to you, and God bless
Your answer was a given. The authors were attempting to explain a scientific foundation for why your answer is the reason for life. MY POINT was that they can explain the science in a way that is easier for the layman to understand THEIR SCIENCE.
To say “in the beginning there is G-d” is not a relevant point to my criticism of the article, which is not about the conclusion but the poor communication for the lay person in the verbal path the author took.
It is good for folks to see that even science has no real answer for life. It is even better when that is demonstrated with greater clarity for the lay person.
A term that I had to look up is “Gedankenexperiment” which translates from German as ‘Thought Experiment’ where a hypothesis, theory or principle is regarded in depth for the purpose of thinking through its consequences.
The most famous may be Einstein’s 1916 General Theory of Relativity which included the hypothesis that time slows as speed increases. Given that maximum speeds of that day were mere 200mph, this was an impossible experiment to prove. Now with extremely stable portable atomic clocks, it has been proved valid in long distance air travel as well as space flight.
As for the thrust of this author’s writing, you know that the general concept in ‘science’ is that almost anything is possible give enough time and the 4.5 billion years of the Solar System is an enormous amount of time. Yet, I find it kind of funny that the herd of ‘science’ fights so very hard to avoid anything that might be regarded as religious or metaphysical yet readily accepts the ‘Big Bang’ and inevitable existence of life!
Through all the scientificese here, I did understand the more we study life, the more we know it is intricately designed thus can’t be the result of random processes. It is the very essence of a Very Intelligent Creator’s handiwork... who I will name God, till a better names comes along.
As was observed by the late Dr. D. James Kennedy: Evolution is nothing but the atheists creation myth.
The Left already embraces this idea as the destruction of life on Earth underlays many of its facets. PETA, BLM, Socialism, Communism, AI, organized crime, islam and the list goes on.
To them life is unnatural.
The Left already embraces this idea as the destruction of life on Earth underlays many of its facets. PETA, BLM, Socialism, Communism, AI, organized crime, islam and the list goes on.
To them life is unnatural.
Amen, brother.
Now the author needs to find a way to say it all, just as accurately, in a way the lay person will follow easily and understand that the author is not just talking scientific gibberish.
...
The article is dishonest and is meant to fool people. That’s why it has the appearance of gibberish.
Evolution is God’s way of creating life which seems crazy to us.
Did you know James Kennedy started his career as a dance instructor?
No argument with your point. I think the author of the piece can say what they had to say in a way the lay person will understand the scientific points better - clearer to the lay person.
I recommend you check out “Signature in the Cell” by Stephen Meyer for a more layman’s type of explanation.
It is a real tour de force - very compelling.
My head swims when biologists speak in terms of “...cides” and the like. In my discipline, as in any, I am sure I could lose peoples’ attention with certain concepts and the terminology. Nevertheless, that which I do understand is this: all the ingredients for baking a cake exist, by prior purpose and acquisition, in my well equipped kitchen. Yet somehow with all the right ingredients, there would not be cause capable, in some fashion, to produce a cake outside of one of intelligent design and ability. I would grow exceedingly hunger if I had to wait for some mindless force to serve it up. And what impersonal, heartless, random “baker” would be pleased to serve me cake?
“... is not just talking scientific gibberish.”
To be fair, the author addresses his letter to “my colleagues” - other chemists, who speak his language.
Good recommendation - I never finished the book - need to pick it up again...
Thanks for your reply. I hope Stephen Meyer’s work is good, for the lay person, and has/gets a large public audience if it is. Because, it is the communication (that life does not “just happen”) to the lay person - the masses - that is important.
Enlightening and profound. We should not exist. I agree.
Well, that is the thing. The deeper our knowledge of physical science, the more it all points to a design, not a random chance. Conditions are too perfect for earth and life to be anyrhing but a deliberate design. Science is confirming God by what it can’t explain and as discoveries accelerate, they just confirm God all the more. You have to be wilfully blind to miss it.
Great article.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.