1 of 2
1
How was protein synthesized from amino acids in the prebiotic world?
Posted: 24 March 2017 01:17 PM   [ Ignore ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  6
Joined  2017-03-24

I am a scientist myself. Trying to figure out what’s hypothesis and what’s theory.
I feel any plausible theory has to be substantiated by obervations. My questions regard observations on protein.

Maybe somebody can be of help. For now I don’t have an answer to any of the questions I want to ask.
Here we go.

Where in the non-living nature can we observe:
Protein synthesis?
Protein?
Protein consisting of laevorotary amino acids only?
Biologically functioning protein?
Amino acids/peptides in quantities sufficient to build protein?
Places containing laevorotary amino acids/peptides only?
The availability of all amino acids necessary for life?

Where in the non-living nature can we dump amino acids/peptides and show their synthesis to protein?

Edit: Addition: Where on today’s Earth can we observe these things?

[ Edited: 27 March 2017 05:29 AM by question ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 March 2017 06:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1461
Joined  2016-12-24
question - 24 March 2017 01:17 PM

I am a scientist myself. Trying to figure out what’s hypothesis and what’s theory.

Or was it a Holiday Inn you stayed at last night?

Sorry,
I can’t imagine a real scientist formulating such a list, let alone bring it to CFI for investigation.
So what’s up.  smirk

question - 24 March 2017 01:17 PM

Where in the non-living nature can we dump amino acids/peptides and show their synthesis to protein?

We can start with the basics.
Pray tell where would you find non-living nature here on this Earth?  long face

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 March 2017 06:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1461
Joined  2016-12-24

“Question”  would you care to offer a definition or description of Non-living Nature.
It seems like such a totally bizarre concept, gotta give you credit, it’s original.
Can you explain what thought process got you to formulate the concept of “non-living nature”

Its grabbed my curiosity because for me one of the most powerful “enlightenment moments” of my life was when
I viscerally grasped the fact that in geology life and non-living are often only time apart. 
Being a scientist I’m sure you know about stromatolites and lime stone formation, or the Dover Cliffs and those sorts of things.
Follow what I’m saying,... asking?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 March 2017 01:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  6
Joined  2017-03-24
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 25 March 2017 06:27 AM

Or was it a Holiday Inn you stayed at last night?

Sorry,
I can’t imagine a real scientist formulating such a list, let alone bring it to CFI for investigation.
So what’s up.  smirk

We can start with the basics.
Pray tell where would you find non-living nature here on this Earth?  long face

On another forum 3 people responded. They were able to do that without being disrespectful.

A scientist is someone who is openminded and always wants to learn more. Sorry if I let you down on your expectation of what a scientist is supposed to be like.

 

“Non-living” nature stands for life just before it appeared on earth. Possibly for life just after it appeared for those who want to believe protein was synthesized only after life first appeared.

The way protein is synthesized now (cellular life) is not the way many researchers envision it to be when life first started. Theory goes synthesis would have happened from simpler molecular building blocks: CO2, H2O and N2 (possibly with small amounts of H2, CH4, or NH3) they think were available in the prebiotic atmosphere.

I studied a fair amount of full text studies where researchers tried to create amino acids/peptides from these simpler molecules. But this is as far as they can go. And being able to build bricks (racemic amino acids) is somewhat different from being able to build a house (biologically functional protein build from laevorotary amino acids only).

The questions I ask regard some of the the scientific gaps in knowledge, regarding abiotic protein synthesis as imagined by researchers.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 March 2017 06:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1461
Joined  2016-12-24
question - 24 March 2017 01:17 PM

Where in the non-living nature can we observe:

question - 26 March 2017 01:09 AM

“Non-living” nature stands for life just before it appeared on earth. Possibly for life just after it appeared for those who want to believe protein was synthesized only after life first appeared.

Who here at CFI might have the capability, or ability, to observe Earth in its first few hundred thousand years?

Excuse me for taking this line of questioning with a touch cynicism. It’s simply me thinks you’re playing games.

[ Edited: 26 March 2017 06:59 AM by Citizenschallenge-v.3 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 March 2017 06:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6640
Joined  2007-10-05

Seems to me a real scientist would open a biology journal to find the answers to these questions. Posting on unrelated internet forums reeks of crackpottery. If you want to ask on a forum I suggest you find a science site and post in its biology forum.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 March 2017 08:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  6
Joined  2017-03-24
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 26 March 2017 06:38 AM

Who here at CFI might have the capability, or ability, to observe Earth in its first few hundred thousand years?

Excuse me for taking this line of questioning with a touch cynicism. It’s simply me thinks you’re playing games.

It’s okay.

I may not have cleared up the perspective of the questions. With the observations, I mean current observations.
Why do I ask? If we cannot observe any of these things in non-cellular-life nature. There should be valid reasons to assume we would have been able to observe these things a few billion years ago.

Let’s say the odds of observing any of these things in nature are immensely small. What would the odds need to be to observe the accumulated sum of all these improbable things in nature in 1 place and time.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 March 2017 09:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6640
Joined  2007-10-05

Seeing as how we are here observing I’d say the odds are 100 percent.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 March 2017 10:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  6
Joined  2017-03-24
DarronS - 26 March 2017 09:02 AM

Seeing as how we are here observing I’d say the odds are 100 percent.

Haha. Agreed. But from random chance using abiotic synthesis as the causal factor…........... That’s another story.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 March 2017 05:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4256
Joined  2014-06-20
question - 26 March 2017 10:20 AM
DarronS - 26 March 2017 09:02 AM

Seeing as how we are here observing I’d say the odds are 100 percent.

Haha. Agreed. But from random chance using abiotic synthesis as the causal factor…........... That’s another story.

We’re all ears. Fire away. We demand evidence, though, not just speculations.

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 March 2017 05:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6640
Joined  2007-10-05

He doesn’t have answers, Lois, just questions. I have a hard time taking anyone seriously when their tone matches the religious zealots that shoot through here every few months.

[ Edited: 27 March 2017 07:25 AM by DarronS ]
 Signature 

You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 March 2017 07:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  45
Joined  2007-05-25
question - 26 March 2017 10:20 AM

Haha. Agreed. But from random chance using abiotic synthesis as the causal factor…........... That’s another story.

Its kind of similar to the principle of “survival of the fittest ” in biology.
Stated in more detail the principle refers to differential survival of organisms in specific environments.
A lizard is more likely to survive in a desert than monkey, and lizard would be less likely to survive in a jungle.

The same could be said of things.
The stability, the survival of things depends upon their environment that they are in.

Right after the big bang the environment was so hot that the only things that could survive were protons, neutrons and electrons. 
These things collided with each other, but even the few that managed to stick together were instantly destroyed by the hot environment.
The fittest things in that environment were these subatomic particles.

As the universe cooled when neutrons, protons and electrons collided they started to stick and formed Helium.
In that environment, that was the most stable thing around and the universe was filled with helium.
as time went on 3 helium atoms would bang together and every so often a carbon atom was formed.

This is how random interactions in different environments results in increased complexity.
In our Sun at 10,000 degrees, Helium is more likely to survive.  Its stable at that temperature, a methane molecule would be instantly destroyed.

On the surface of our planet, billions of years ago, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur atoms interacted and formed increasingly complex molecules.  The survival of these molecules depended upon the environment that they formed in.
Some formed in water and some in other liquids.

Over the course of time more complex molecules formed.  hydroxyl ions, methyl ions, methane, propane, long chains of carbons (fats).  These things (molecules) would stick together forming increasingly complex structures.

At some point structures which we call amino acids would form. These would combine to form even more complex structures.
Some Groups of complex molecules were more stable than other groups of complex molecules.

It isn’t like “tyrosine Reductase” (a protein enzyme) randomly popped into existence, rather these complex molecular structures coalesced and became more stable because of their chemistry.
Complex chemical structures that could catalyze things might have been more able to last longer than complex structures that were inert.

I know that advocates of intelligent design will have none of this.
They are notorious for “Reversing the sense of cause and effect”    Its like saying that   “it’s a miracle that everyone’s legs are exactly long enough to reach the ground.”

If you want to understand more, buy Campbells Biology, its very readable and its the Freshman college textbook for the academic biology course in a lot of colleges.  Also consider buying Leningers Biochemistry.

I hope this was helpful,

Jeff

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 March 2017 08:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1461
Joined  2016-12-24
jdrnd - 26 March 2017 07:30 PM

I hope this was helpful,

Jeff

Well said!
Welcome.
Hope to hear more.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 March 2017 08:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1461
Joined  2016-12-24

Now that we got some ground under our feet.
Here’s a cool introduction to the early years on Earth and what may have been.

Origin of Life - How Life Started on Earth
Cosmology Today™
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyhZcEY5PCQ&t=2527s

Published on Jun 2, 2016
Four and a half billion years ago, the young Earth was a hellish place—a seething chaos of meteorite impacts, volcanoes belching noxious gases, and lightning flashing through a thin, torrid atmosphere. Then, in a process that has puzzled scientists for decades, life emerged. But how? Mineralogist Robert Hazen ...  he advances a startling and counterintuitive idea—that the rocks beneath our feet were not only essential to jump-starting life, but that microbial life helped give birth to hundreds of minerals we know and depend on today. It’s a theory of the co-evolution of Earth and life that is reshaping the grand-narrative of our planet’s story.

This one is a lecture

ROBERT HAZEN - CHANCE, NECESSITY, AND THE ORIGINS OF LIFE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlAQLgTwJ_A&t=1910s

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 March 2017 05:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  6
Joined  2017-03-24
DarronS - 26 March 2017 05:51 PM

He doesn’t have answers, Lois, just questions. I have a hard time taking anyway seriously when their tone matches the religious zealots that shoot through here every few months.

Indeed I have questions. Unanswered questions sofar. Questions about requirements for synthesis of protein at some stage of early Earth.

Think of me what you want. You don’t know me and never will. I am only reflecting what is unkown in the theory. Aka the questions asked in the first post.

Theory says protein must have formed from simple organic precursors available in abundance. This leaves some requirements:
-Amino acids must have been available in large quantities and high density.
-There must have been a constant energy source for creating the peptides and from there on the protein.
-Water must have been eliminated from the organic mix to allow bridging of the amino acids/peptides.

There is zero religion in these statements. All textbook science. For I write down the current assumptions.

So this is the official hypothesis/theory/idea of how protein first came to be. From there on I am asking normal common sense questions.

It we assume this to be the theory. Then we must make the switch to observations. Are there any observations today that fuel the official hypothesis?

 

If you think I am religious for asking unanswered questions what does that tell you about your idea of scientists? Shouldn’t a scientist do just that? Trying to ask unanswered questions? Science is trying to explain what we don’t (yet) know.

Aren’t religious people according to you not just people who will not look at the facts and ignore them? Look at what you are doing in response to my questions. You know you cannot answer them so you ignore them and try to make me look bad. How scientific of you.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 March 2017 05:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  6
Joined  2017-03-24
jdrnd - 26 March 2017 07:30 PM

On the surface of our planet, billions of years ago, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur atoms interacted and formed increasingly complex molecules.  The survival of these molecules depended upon the environment that they formed in.
Some formed in water and some in other liquids.

Over the course of time more complex molecules formed.  hydroxyl ions, methyl ions, methane, propane, long chains of carbons (fats).  These things (molecules) would stick together forming increasingly complex structures.

At some point structures which we call amino acids would form. These would combine to form even more complex structures.
Some Groups of complex molecules were more stable than other groups of complex molecules.

It isn’t like “tyrosine Reductase” (a protein enzyme) randomly popped into existence, rather these complex molecular structures coalesced and became more stable because of their chemistry.
Complex chemical structures that could catalyze things might have been more able to last longer than complex structures that were inert.

I know that advocates of intelligent design will have none of this.
They are notorious for “Reversing the sense of cause and effect”    Its like saying that   “it’s a miracle that everyone’s legs are exactly long enough to reach the ground.”

If you want to understand more, buy Campbells Biology, its very readable and its the Freshman college textbook for the academic biology course in a lot of colleges.  Also consider buying Leningers Biochemistry.

I hope this was helpful,

Jeff

Thank you for taking the time to give me a serious answer. But please take a look at the questions I am asking. I am not asking about what we some people think that might have happened. I am asking about current observations on Earth.


Where on Earth can we observe the things I ask regarding protein in my first post?

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1