04 Jun 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungHere something interesting:
No, not magic. Nucleotide triphosphates spontaneously form under certain conditions as the Miller experiment showed. Nucleotide triphosphates spontaneously polymerize into RNA. RNA should be self replicating in the presence of nucleotide triphosphates. I am not aware of any experimentation that's been done to verify this, but this does not mean w ...[text shortened]... nd doesn't mean God has to do magic to make it work. It's all perfectly reasonable chemistry.
http://www.surrey.ac.uk/qe/Outline.htm
04 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by yousersOne possible explanation for why life uses molecules of certain chiralities only has to do with some pretty esoteric physics that calculates that the chiralities that exist in life are actually slightly more stable than the chiralities that do not:
You make a good point, but you must realise that there are no biological systems at this point. We are creating them from non-living chemicals. We have no chiral surfaces that are one pure enantiomer. These things are arising spontaneously in a 1:1 ratio.
It is well known that biomolecules are all of one hand, but what determines which hand? Why are animals made of L-amino acids and not D-amino acids? This asymmetry in biology may be a feature of fundamental physics, because it turns out that the "natural" L-amino acids are slightly more stable than their "unnatural" D mirror images, due to the weak force. The weak force, carried by the Z boson recently discovered at CERN, is one of the four forces of nature - electromagnetic, weak, strong and gravity - and it is the only one of the four which can tell the difference between left and right. Due to the weak force, L and D molecules have slightly unequal energies because they are not in fact true mirror images: the true enantiomer of an L-amino acid is the D-amino acid made of anti-matter. We calculate these small energy differences between enantiomers using ab initiomolecular orbital methods. In most cases our calculations do indeed predict the correct sign: not only are the L-amino acids more stable than the D, but the natural D-sugars are more stable than the L, and the right-hand DNA double helix is also more stable than its left-hand mirror image. We believe the slight enantiomeric excess from these "parity-violating energy differences" could be amplified kinetically in the pre-biotic soup to preferentially select today's L-amino acid/D-sugar biochemistry over D-amino acid/L-sugar "mirror life". The parity-violating energy difference between enantiomers is not the only way in which the weak force could select biomolecular chirality. Radioactive beta decay is mediated by the weak force, and this causes a polarization of the electrons emitted in beta decay, which could produce selective destruction of one enantiomer.
http://www.ch.cam.ac.uk/CUCL/staff/ajm.html
04 Jun 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe hypothesis needs a bit more fleshing out before I'd take it under my wing though.
Yes, that is kind of interesting, but it's long and dense. I am afraid I only skimmed part of it.
Possibly some form of manifold with its associated knots and links C60 stretched out along a coiled superstring with the double helix being instantiated by the spin of exchange particles. A rigorous treatment of the gauge fields involved would probably be quite involved.
What I find strange is why people make an argument that "life chemicals act so different then non-life chemicals, why?" as if that has some postulatory weight to it. Restating that in question form: "why does DNA act differently than a rock?" which is analogous to " why does hydrazine act diffently than a rock?"
Before the semantic players play on the word "act" I better say act =manifests it's properties
04 Jun 05
Originally posted by frogstompThat arcticle was pretty deep, went quite a way further than my understanding in both biology and physics at the same time! As you say though, it looks like a bit of a guess at present, and some fleshing out (and possibly simplification for the masses!) may aid its cause. I completely agree with you on the whole "why does hydrazine act differently to a rock" thing though; organic chemistry, complex and varied as it is, is merely a subset of inorganic chemistry which, quite a lot of the time is a study of rocks!
The hypothesis needs a bit more fleshing out before I'd take it under my wing though.
Possibly some form of manifold with its associated knots and links C60 .... [text shortened]....that in question form: "why does DNA act differently than a rock?" which is analogous to " why does hydrazine act diffently than a rock? ...[text shortened]... semantic players play on the word "act" I better say act =manifests it's properties
05 Jun 05
Originally posted by corp1131and more support for ATY here
That arcticle was pretty deep, went quite a way further than my understanding in both biology and physics at the same time! As you say though, it looks like a bit of a guess at present, and some fleshing out (and possibly simplification for the masses!) may aid its cause. I completely agree with you on the whole "why does hydrazine act differently to a ro ...[text shortened]... s, is merely a subset of inorganic chemistry which, quite a lot of the time is a study of rocks!
Schrodinger's equation for molecular systems can only be solved approximately. The approximation methods can be categorized as either ab initio or semiempirical. Semiempirical methods use parameters that compensate for neglecting some of the time consuming mathematical terms in Schrodinger's equation, whereas ab initio methods include all such terms. The parameters used by semiempirical methods can be derived from experimental measurements or by performing ab initio calculations on model systems. The differences between these methods are described in more detail in the next section. Their practical differences are listed below:
Ab initio
Limited to tens of atoms and best performed using a supercomputer.
Can be applied to organics, organo-metallics, and molecular fragments (e.g. catalytic components of an enzyme).
Vacuum or implicit solvent environment.
Can be used to study ground, transition, and excited states (certain methods).
Specific implementations include: GAMESS and GAUSSIAN.
Semiempirical
Limited to hundreds of atoms.
Can be applied to organics, organo-metallics, and small oligomers (peptide, nucleotide, saccharide).
Can be used to study ground, transition, and excited states (certain methods).
Specific implementations include: AMPAC, MOPAC, and ZINDO.
Quantum mechanics methods are based on the following principles:
Nuclei and electrons are distinguished from each other.
Electron-electron (usually averaged) and electron-nuclear interactions are explicit.
Interactions are governed by nuclear and electron charges (i.e. potential energy) and electron motions.
Interactions determine the spatial distribution of nuclei and electrons and their energies.
http://cmm.info.nih.gov/modeling/guide_documents/quantum_mechanics_document.html
I needed a bottle of asprin to read this site.
05 Jun 05
Originally posted by frogstompA complete wavefunction, , is composed of a space function ( and a spin function.
and more support for ATY here
Schrodinger's equation for molecular systems can only be solved approximately. The approximation methods can be categorized as either ab initio or semiempirical. Semiempirical methods use parameters that compensate for neglecting some of the time consuming mathematical terms in Schrodinger's equation, whereas ab init ...[text shortened]... ments/quantum_mechanics_document.html
I needed a bottle of asprin to read this site.
"There are four possible antisymmetric atomic spin orbitals for a 1s(1) 2s(2) configuration:"
seems to be heading toward modeling DNA at how it is bonded.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
06 Jun 05
Originally posted by frogstompDo you know how much information there is in one DNA strand?
A complete wavefunction, , is composed of a space function ( and a spin function.
"There are four possible antisymmetric atomic spin orbitals for a 1s(1) 2s(2) configuration:"
seems to be heading toward modeling DNA at how it is bonded.
Well just for an idea, try filling up the grand-canyon with encyclopoedias a few times.
Are you saying that this amount of information just arranged itself into something useful just by chance?
I admire your faith!
06 Jun 05
1 edit
Are you kidding!
The Mycobacterium genetalium bacteria has 580,000 DNA bases in its genome. The Bible has about 3,500,000 letters.
Also remember that DNA bases can only have 4 possible values. An English letter can have 26 possible values (and this is ignoring spaces and punctuation).
All in all that means a text the size of the Bible can store billions of times more information in it than this bacterias genome.
So your claim about DNA having more information than a grand canyon full of encyclopedias is totally incorrect.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
06 Jun 05
Originally posted by PotatoErrorSorry. I forgot. I should have said "one teaspoon full of DNA..."
Are you kidding!
The Mycobacterium genetalium bacteria has 580,000 DNA bases in its genome. The Bible has about 3,500,000 letters.
Also remember that DNA bases can only have 4 possible values. An English letter can have 26 possible values (and this is ignoring spaces and punctuation).
All in all that means a text the size of the Bible can store ...[text shortened]... bout DNA having more information than a grand canyon full of encyclopedias is totally incorrect.
06 Jun 05
Originally posted by dj2beckersince youre talking about sometihing a nano-meter in diameter: Do you have any idea how many chances that each valance electron has to bond with a nucleus in a billion years?
Sorry. I forgot. I should have said "one teaspoon full of DNA..."
And just for starters:
all the elements were already present so any part of a premise that uses a probability calculation that includes their distribution has to set that at unity.
And btw the elements present were not there by random chance.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
07 Jun 05
Originally posted by frogstompValence electrons bonding with nuleuses does not form life.
since youre talking about sometihing a nano-meter in diameter: Do you have any idea how many chances that each valance electron has to bond with a nucleus in a billion years?
And just for starters:
all the elements were already present so any part of a premise that uses a probability calculation that includes their ...[text shortened]... that at unity.
And btw the elements present were not there by random chance.