Re: OOL II - Building Blocks
- From: "Tom Hendricks" <tomhendricks474@xxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 13:57:39 -0400 (EDT)
(snipped)
> > It's my understanding that several percent of the carbon got
> > incorporated into a few amino acids, and that this quantity is much
> > larger than expected per Beilstein prediction. Please comment.
>
> You should read Shapiro's book. I think you have been misled by soup
> apologists. Actually glycine is the only biological amino acid
produced
> with much more than 1% yield. Alanine was also produced - all three
> forms - L-alpha-alanine, R-alpha-alanine, and beta-alanine. The
biological
> form L-alpha-alanine was at about 1%. No other biological amino
acids
> were produced in quantities greater than 0.25%. Excluding glycine,
which
> comes in only one form, the production of non-biological amino acids
was
> greater than that of non-biological ones. Production of both kinds
of
> amino acids is much lower than the production of formate and
unanalyzed
> tars.
One scientist (forgot who) suggested that the unanalyzed tars acted
like time release capsules - that would replenish the soup (for those
of us
who still think prebiotic soup was important) as the environment broke
it down.
(snipped)
> Yes, you would probably expect that, since you have obviously gotten
your
> information from soup apologists. I would expect nothing of the
sort.
>
> To state my position as bluntly as possible:
> 1. A soup never existed, or if it did exist, it existed in parts of
the
> world remote from the origin of life.
> 2. Life was never sloppy.
> 3. The earliest life was autotrophic. The carbon source was C1.
>
> This set of beliefs is common, but not universal, among serious
modern
> OOL theorists. It has apparently not yet spread to the layman.
>
> The continued prominence of references to the Miller experiment in
> communications to the layman is a subject of interest in the
sociology
> of science. The Miller experiment is also of some interest in the
> history and philosophy of science as a negative example. It
illustrates
> just what can go wrong if scientists look for confirming evidence
rather
> than looking for refuting evidence.
>
> The Miller experiment is of absolutely no interest in any scientific
theory
> regarding the origin of life on earth.
OUCH. We differ here. I think what the M-U experiments showed beyond a
doubt
is that a heat cycle using UV/Sun began the origin process.
He, Miller used lightning (it was easier and more Frankensteinian! -
but he also used it in a precise way that would NOT recreate
nature. No broth could be hit with such lightning regularity! Folow ups
that
used UV/sun work well and we know the sun was there and shined on a
very regular
basis.
I again challenge you by asking if your chemistry could happen without
a sun/star?
And at any temperature from absolute zero to say temp inside the sun.
Tom
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: OOL II - Building Blocks
- From: Perplexed in Peoria
- Re: OOL II - Building Blocks
- Prev by Date: Re: Precision is not likely in the OOL
- Next by Date: Re: OOL X - The origin of the RNA world.
- Previous by thread: Re: OOL II - Building Blocks
- Next by thread: Re: OOL II - Building Blocks
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
