Article <vjas9j$16l6r$2@dont-email.me>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<vjas9j$16l6r$2@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.xs3.de!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_OoL_=E2=80=93_out_at_first_base=3F?=
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 13:09:55 +1100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 100
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <vjas9j$16l6r$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vj60ng$9f3v$1@dont-email.me>
 <nncdlj5tvdt2jkb7i33edajva72rtmrfg4@4ax.com> <vj6egq$bkct$1@dont-email.me>
 <svjeljtpcbi4c9shucn42f5a992ek5lkds@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="34246"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ca79geIvu/JwqhWFx8qv62kPGys=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <svjeljtpcbi4c9shucn42f5a992ek5lkds@4ax.com>
	HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,SPF_HELO_NONE,
	SPF_PASS,USER_IN_WELCOMELIST,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
	smtp.eternal-september.org
Bytes: 7043

On 10/12/2024 8:08 am, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 20:50:18 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 9/12/2024 8:11 pm, jillery wrote:
>>> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 16:54:56 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> We need prebiotic formation and supply of nucleotides for RNA world, and
>>>> other models at some stage. The scope of the problem of the supply of
>>>> these precursors is prone to underestimation.
>>>>
>>>> Nucleotides are chemically challenging in terms of the prebiotic
>>>> synthesis and assembly of their three constituents of nitrogenous base,
>>>> sugar and phosphate group.
>>>>
>>>> Harder again are the requirements for supply of these building blocks.
>>>> You need (eventually) all canonical bases in sufficient concentration,
>>>> purity, chirality, activation, distribution, location, etc.
>>>>
>>>> But the greatest problem I think is this: time. How long must you
>>>> maintain the supply described above in order to assemble a
>>>> self-replicating RNA strand? And even if you managed that, how much more
>>>> time is needed before reaching a protocell capable of self-synthesising
>>>> nucleotides? One million years? One hundred million years?
>>>>
>>>> A hypothised little warm pond with wetting/drying cycles (say) must
>>>> provide a far-from-equilibrium system...for a million years...or
>>>> hundreds of millions of years. You can’t pause the process, because any
>>>> developing polymers will fall apart and reset the clock.
>>>>
>>>> What are the chances of that kind of geological and environmental
>>>> stability and continuity?
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, the formation of an autonomous protocell naturalistically has
>>>> vanishingly small probability.
>>>
>>>
>>> There were many warm little ponds, spread throughout the young Earth,
>>> all multiplying that probability.  Try to keep that in mind.
>>>
>>
>> Of course, but that doesn't solve the problem of time:
>>
>>      10 million ponds x 10 years != 1 pond x 100 million years
> 
> 
> 
>> You need to develop a self-replicating entity that also self-synthesises
>> nucleotides (i.e. no longer depends on environmental supply). Aka a
>> protocell. This requires an unbroken development process (lineage) over
>> millions of years, i.e. one pond, or connected ponds.
>>
>> And this one pond continuously pumping in a supply fresh nucleotides for
>> MILLIONS of years.
>>
>> No floods, droughts or interruption of supply allowed. For MILLIONS of
>> years.
>>
>> Not a chance on a young Earth (or any Earth for that matter).
> 
> 
> Your arguments above assume unnecessary requirements.  It's not clear
> what you mean by "self-synthesises".  There are no life systems that
> don't depend on the environment; even autotrophs need to pull raw
> materials and energy from it.  It's also not clear what you expect
> your presumptive "protocell" had to do.
> 
> My understanding is current research assumes the first
> self-reproducing *systems* would have been very dependent on the
> environment to provide the conditions they needed to sustain
> themselves, ex. proton gradients, before they eventually evolved
> more-or-less independent protocells.

Broadly, the steps would be:

1. Self-replicating polymer - environment supplies monomers

2. Non-autonomous protocell - environment supplies monomers, lipids, 
etc, which are used directly by the cell

3. Autonomous protocell	- environment supplies food which the cell 
converts into monomers, lipids, etc

I'm referring to reaching step 3.

> 
> It's unsurprising that the closer to modern life you specify your
> presumptive "protocell", the less likely unguided natural processes
> would create them.  Pasteur was quite right that modern life can't
> generate spontaneously, with or without the aid of intelligent
> designers.   So yes, the first protocells almost certainly didn't use
> complex biochemical feedback systems on which modern life relies.  The
> whole point is life evolved them over time, after unguided natural
> processes organized the first self-reproducing *systems*.
> 
> WRT floods and droughts and other environmental events, they would
> have been part of the *systems* that eventually evolved more-or-less
> independent protocells.  And yes, there are many environments on Earth
> which have existed for MILLIONS of years; ex. oceans.
>