Prebiotic Soup--Revisiting the Miller Experiment [biogenesis]

Science Magazine ^ | May 2003 | Jeffrey L. Bada and Antonio Lazcano

[js1138]

I am neither George, nor Right. I am BatBoy. Fear me.

[VadeRetro]

Never understood that "Bat Boy found in cave" business anyway. Everyone knows Bat Boys are found in ball parks.

[VadeRetro]

Found!

[js1138]

I've seen the musical. It was doing quite well in NY, but the theater was closed due to 911.

[VadeRetro]

Saw a few shows up there on a trip in 94. It would be fun to do again but it's a bit out of my beaten path.

[PatrickHenry]

Meanwhile, on the planet Mongo:

[VadeRetro]

Auuggh!! Ardent for Arden! (Except she won't even be born until the 25th century. That inconvenient fact would make any lust for her extremely politically incorrect, pedophilia to the nth degree.)

[VadeRetro]

OTOH, if she looked like that in 1940, she'd be how old now? I'm confused.

[PatrickHenry]

Cross-chrono perversion is the very worst kind. It's not only the mutations, and the unknowable possibility of incest, but the temporal paradoxes! You are truly a sicko.

[carlo3b]

Geeeze, I thought it was going to tell us that we are from noodle soup.. :(

[PatrickHenry]

Jean Rogers as Dale Arden in Flash Gordon
(Her expression is presumably triggered by learning that Vade lusts after her.)

[PatrickHenry]

... from noodle soup

Nope. Pond scum is much more nutritious.

[js1138]

I never knew Flash was name for his performance issue.

[PatrickHenry]

Look what I found:

[VadeRetro]

(Her expression is presumably triggered by learning that Vade lusts after her.)

Hmmmmm. I suppose if I were to be a weakling and give in to a silly old irrational, mindless, reproductive urge, I might want to do so with Dale Arden/Jean Rogers. Until her her brains pushed her ear wax out.

[VadeRetro]

I suppose you ate all the Cracker Jack already?

[Loc123]

Please notice that I said "highly improbable."

Also please notice I didn't used any specific language; I used mathematical symbols (specifically geometry, which can hopefully be understood universally). You are correct that an alien intellince might not understand x-12, etc. At least the Voyager designers predicted aliens could understand math.

And we don't live in a universe where mathematical symbols behave like particles, occasionally combining and decomposing to form randomness.

Complex molecules self-organize in an energy gradient? To a point perhaps...but the energy gradient on Earth would have to be perfectly calibrated to allow for complex molecules to form in the presence of that gradient. Even the highest endothermic complex molecule will decompose given enough "activation energy."

[Loc123]

Do I really need to explain the fundamentals of chemistry to you? Valence shell collapse--either through complete filling, partial filling, or evacuation of the valence shell--is the basis for all of chemistry and is an extension of the second law of thermodynamics (that the overall change of the universe is towards disorder). Collapse means the potential energy decreases dramatically and non-linearly once those conditions are met.

Hydrogen loses its electron in its s orbital and hence has an unrestrained z effective (nuclear charge). It is essentially a proton that will be attracted to a region with an overall negative charge (as in an anion or polar molecule).

And are implying there is any evidence that a catalyst--a highly complex molecule that is not self-replicating--"evolved" along side a potentially self-replicating molecule by pure chance? And also that these two discrete molecules would someday meet? That is far-fetched to me.

That is why I suggested there must be an energy gradient (don't get upset over that word--JS used it too). However, then please look at my reply to JS for why a energy gradient is quite finicky.

What are the two types of polymerization. 1) Dehydration: basically a simple molecule is "booted" from an end of a carbon-based monomer on two molecules and the resulting opposite polarities (on the two ends of the two monomers) join together. I don't exactly know the cause of this for inorganic chem, but for organic chem it is usually a catalyst that performs this (IE in DNA's replication process a catalyst goes down the strands and separates their hydrogen bonds). Dehydration, as far as I know (and I will ask my professor, Dr. Martin Zanni, tomorrow), cannot occur in the presense of water.

2) Addition: you start of with a surplus of some doubled bonded (C=C) organic molecules. You then add a free radical of your choice (has an unpaired single electron). It contacts with the recess (think female component) of the organic molecule, breaks the double bond (by "stealing" the pie bond electrons) and causes the attached carbon (also part of that former double bond) to have an unpaired electron). Now, this carbon is a free radical of sorts and will do the same thing to neighboring carbons in a cascade. You stop this procedure by adding another free radical to bond with the radicalized carbons (and neutralize the cascade). Examples of this type of polymerization are making long synthetic polymers. This is not used in cellular metabolism or composition (hence why it is essentially irrelevant to this topic).

VadeRetro, your self-justification for not understanding chemistry amuses me greatly. Even the simplest of chemical concepts (entropy, polymerization (both kinds), bonding physics) are unfamiliar to you--so you call them babble or nonsense. Trust me, a simple google search won't teach you chemistry. Attend a university and take the science route. It is certainly not to late--especially if you are motivated to learn it.

I don't know why this has turned into a personal issue for you. Despite your claims, I have never "scream[ed]," "pouted," or shown any such negative emotions. If I have and am unaward, please quote me. Despite what donh says, this is not a "battleground" for my "creationist" ambitions; I am here to apply what I've learned to the topic. This topic perked my interest because it seemed so out of place, with its points being either irrelevant or archane.

Believe me, I never wanted to assail any of you--that would be quite against my morals.

That all said, I no longer have time to devote the 1+ hours to this topic per night. You might choose not to believe me, but I do study science and mathematics very hard at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. I am currently in a very demanding class (Chem 109--Advanced Chem) and I have a lab and exam coming up shortly. As much as I enjoy relaying what I have already modelled (aka conceptualized) from class, it really seems unnecessary to do in this debate. This is especially true when you close your mind to learning and instead prefer mocking. I'm sorry, but I don't have more time to teach basic chemistry.

Good luck to all of you (including Patrick Henry). The one parting advice I have for this thread is this: don't merely remember someone else's generalizations or a talking points; conceptualize and understand the mechanics of the system in question (ie energy ---> complex molecules). This is the true way to learn and apply what you are taught. If you don't do this, you are essentially just remembering someone's words.

Godspeed guys,

Loc123

[js1138]

Why don't you go for broke and ask Dr. Zanni whether the laws of chemistry forbid evolution or abiogenesis under any and all possible conditions. I'll be holding my breath to hear what he has to say. By the way which Dr. Zanni is it?

[PatrickHenry]

Meanwhile, events on Mongo are heating up: