Self-Replicating Molecules.

[Khandro]

How did certain chemicals combine to produce the first self-replicating molecules?

[solvitquick]

In my earlier contribution before last I concentrated on the need to include speed-up factors like catalysis, heat etc. This was to avoid the old statistical idea that monkies playing with typewriters would eventually write the whole works of Shakespeare.
True or not, it is no help to us trying to grasp what we can of the concept of life's early beginnings and abilty to replicate via DNA (sorry hypo I stick with DNA as the sole original self reproducer - using Occam's Razor). The monkies are no use because they have a universal eternity to type. But the earth did not have that time to exist let alone spawn life. Well that's settled me back on my own track and that's what I'll follow.
Regards,
SIQ.

[jim360]

"//it doesn't really solve the problem of how life emerged, just means that "it happened somewhere else".//

That grossly underestimates the impact that such a discovery would have upon this planet. It would demonstrate very clearly indeed that evolution is an undeniable fact – and imagine the ramifications of that upon religion."

I think you definitely have a point there -- though I imagine that some religious groups would find a way to twist around this issue.

I suppose I was speaking from a different perspective, that of wondering what the answer to the question of "what is the origin of life?" Perhaps a part of the answer will turn out to involve amino acids on meteorites and the like. But not the whole answer. That would answer where, but not how. Though, perhaps, the two are linked in more ways than I give them credit for. As you might imagine, this certainly isn't something I know all that much about.

Are we on speaking terms again?

[Khandro]

"It [life originating outside the planet] would demonstrate very clearly indeed that evolution is an undeniable fact – and imagine the ramifications of that upon religion."
I didn't think that evolution was contentious, but it would impact on some religions, (and I'm aware that this strays away from Science toward R&S), but in the post-scientific era in which we find ourselves, few believe in the opening of Biblical Genesis, and see it as an metaphor for a force (no need to mention the 'G' word) which may or may not be quantifiable, but resides outside of ourselves and our universe as we currently view it.

[jomifl]

And what created the mystical 'force'? and how did it create life? there is a bit of question begging here. If a satisfactory and plausible explanation of the origin of life that doesn't require a 'force' can be assembled can we then forget about the 'force' and resurrect it only when we need it? I know Khandro is champing at the bit to expound his much hinted at cosmic conscience ideas in more detail, so come on Khandro spill the beans what really happened? can we have a go a rubbishing your ideas as much as you rubbish ours?

[Khandro]

As I sit doing nothing,
Spring comes and grass grows by itself. - Zenrin Kushu

:-)

[jomifl]

“Watch your thoughts; they become words. Watch your words; they become actions. Watch your actions; they become habit. Watch your habits; they become character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.”
Lao tzuw2So, no thoughts, no actions. no destiny....
"just another brick in the wall"
Waters

[Khandro]

Hey jomifl! Are we getting somewhere? (Holds breath).

[jomifl]

Just thought you might like some apparently profound quotes to add to you collection of non answers...OK you can breath out now but don't bother to breath in if it means committing yourself to anything :o)

[Khandro]

Gasps, sighs, and looks heavenward.

[naomi24]

Khandro, //I didn't think that evolution was contentious//

In the world of religion, it is highly contentious - but it is not my intention to move this discussion away from science and into the realms of R&S. I was simply pointing out that for the religious such a discovery would not mean that it just happened somewhere else – it would demolish the foundation of their faith.

[solvitquick]

I agree Naomi. Evolution is religiously cotentious e.g Is the Adam and Eve fairy tale now out of the religious belief system? - don't answer anybody, rhetorical only. Evolution apart, Adam & Eve should be out because they must confuse even theists - i.e. how did "all that begatting" that apparently happened later happen?
For the immediate latter, my thanks to US lawyer, Clarence Darrow in the notorious Scopes trial.
That said I want to keep religion out of my progressing argument. Religionists can just modify their song to say: "OK, forget some early stories, god is now recognised as a super physico-biochemist playing around with his universe and more!". Not my cup of primeval soup but some theists might rightly feel free from attack as I'm not contadicting them.
Regards,
SIQ.
P.S. Thanks for your great extraterrestrial reference Naomi, along with other referenced issues from others - I'm not dismising these just leaving much of them out of my earth life-origin argument, notably "the" self replicating molecule, as per question.

[solvitquick]

OK let's try to get a rough end in sight. The end can't be a simple few word answer - there isn't one. If you trace my steps, I have been trying to to show there is only one known molecule, DNA, which can (today, with helper and controller molecules) self replicate.
I hear mutterings: "Hello this guy's using words like 'today','helpers' and 'controllers' - sounds dodgy"
Well no, no dodgyness. If our body's DNA could replicate willy-nilly we would not exist. This is 'cos DNA codes for our whole structure by holding the code for our proteins (including protein catalysts). Messenger RNA (ribonucleic acid) is copied from the unzipped DNA sequence to make proteins, with help.. Hypo has cited other helper molcules. From this protein synthesis can flow a cascade of molecular building, re-building and even demolition.
But that's today - we weren't just created like Adam - that would need an omnipotent god. So that's why the molecular soup idea is so critical - a series of chemical reactions some "right" some "wrong". Evolution is more than archeology about homo erectus. That's easy (lol). The really dark secret is held by the organisationary evolution of the early molecules into bacteria and amoeba - our real origins.
I believe the answer lies mainly in that most beautiful of all the sciences: chemistry.
More next time (plus lots of input, I hope).
SIQ.

[solvitquick]

Oh dear it looks as though this thread might have run its course which I think would be a pity. However that does happen.
There is no point in me pursuing it if no-one is listening or if I've bored everyone - I'm getting a bit tired of my own detailed story.
I was particularly interested in jomifl's statement that "Khandro is champing at the bit to expound his much hinted at cosmic concience". Actually if this means what I think it might, then it strikes a chord with me surprise, surprise eh?).
I am happy to end the current argument I have been pursuing and would welcome a brief discussion on cosmic concience as I have some sympathy with this concept.
SO I NEED GUIDANCE OR ADVICE FROM ANOTHER CONTRIBUTOR ESPECIALLY KHANDRO.
So is anyone still there? Please indicate if so ("aye" will do) and we can then define a neat end or switch the nature of this thread.
Critical question here: Anyone still there?
Kind regards,
SIQ.

[jomifl]

SIQ, I'm still here and following the thread, but I feel there is little point in trying to answer the original question as the questioner has either died lost interest or is struggling to understand the answers. The problem with answering a question like this from a questioner like this is that it is necessary to make assumptions about the level of understanding of the questioner. Khandro does a good line in pithy quotations from various sources , some of them from scientists, but I think that is as far as his understanding of scientific / technical issues goes. Since the only feedback from Khandro has been scorn and scoffing I can only imagine that the answers he got were not to his liking (as if liking an answer makes it true). Unless he asks a follow up question that indicates a degree of comprehension or says 'thank you guys that has answered my question, no need to put any more effort into trying to enlighten me' I am as they say 'outa here'. :o(

[jomifl]

NEWS UPDATE, Khandro is still alive as he is responding to other threads, he seems to have found a thread more in keeping with his area of expertise.

[Khandro]

jomifl; Despite your waspish insults no one has (or ever can) answer the question. Gravity exists now and so does DNA and were there to be understood. Unless you can show success running about with your plastic buckets hoping for a lightening strike, you will never be able to replicate your theory that it all originated from chemical action here on this planet.
As I said earlier; what you ask for is a leap of faith no different from that asked by followers of (some) religions.

[jomifl]

Kjandro, so why did you ask the question, when you don't want to or can't understand the answer, you are just wasting peoples time as ever.

[jim360]

The leap of faith you speak of Khandro is actually very different. No-one in any religion has ever demonstrated that their ideas are even remotely plausible, except through wordy arguments that are often vague on details and tend to beg the question, really. On the other hand, the fact that lightning (well, electricity, but there is no difference) shooting through a bucket filled with various gases produces life, or that we can demonstrate that there are amino acids on space rocks that can apparently survive an impact, means that these ideas are at the very least plausible. We will never know, to be sure -- but such theories built up through actual experiments are worlds away from any religious faith.

[Khandro]

jomifl; I asked the question to see if there was a plausible reason for me to change my view, but so far I haven't had that.
As far as your unwarranted personal and public attack denigrating my "understanding of scientific / technical issues", I was probably a regular reader of Scientific American when you were in your nappies, and what do you find wrong with attributed quotations? perhaps you don't make any because of your limited intellectual outlook.

[jim360]

On a separate but related note, in a different thread I made the grandiose but perfectly accurate statement that "Physics ... provides the most complete and accurate description of the Universe to date". I'm fairly sure your response was terse, dismissive, and also entirely wrong. It's on those grounds, rather than "I've read Scientific American", that I'm not really sure you understand Scientific issues and topics as well as you might think you do.

Even so, I'm slightly curious: why did you dismiss that claim so completely and quickly? I'm fairly sure your response amounted to "bull".