The Simplest Protein of Life

So ... does your cat read these things and then tell you about them? Or do you think you are a cat????????????????HBD

It is a statement of the problem. You really can't have life appearing until you have a place where life can thrive. That necessarily limits this whole problem to the age of the Earth. I think we all agree that Panspermia is still an option, but that is merely moving the problem away from Earth to another planet/planetoid. If we can solve the problem for Earth or our Solar System then we can solve the problem for anywhere else where life originates. Then life originated in another solar system, but we still have the same problems and using our solar system as a model seems like a valid choice.

No, you said that you have no clue about death avoiding machines which in my wildest imaginations I interpret as living organisms.So, you have no clue about living organisms? Well that's fine: I have no clue about quantum physics. Consequently I don't pontificate about it with an air of smug self satisfaction. That's what I don't do.That is why you should not contribute to this thread.

Hi Percy, Let me see if I have got this straight.Statement "the simplest proteins could not have formed naturally".Reason: All the amino acids would have to come together in the correct order spontaneously by chance for that to happen. Message 157So no other reason for or against is forbidden, is that what you are saying?Just to refresh the OP. Message 1
RIDICULOUSLY UNLIKELY INCREDIBLY UNLIKELYIt seems you agree 100% with BoredomSetsIn.I also agree.I gave my reason for why I agree.The only known method of creating a protein is that the information in DNA for a specific protein be sent to a receiver called a ribosome which produces the protein.Anything else is incredibly unlikely as you have said and ridiculously unlikely as BoredomSetsIn says.Since there is no evidence to examine for how the simplist protein was created anything other than the known method is an assumption made by pure speculation.God Bless,

Damnit. I was 10 seconds away from posting a correction for this to you before I "got it." Mistakes
"It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others."You and your tricksy ways. I'll get you next time, and your little cat too!!

{sigh} You still do not understand.I have a pencil on my desk next to me. How did it come into being and what is the probability of that? Somebody opens the discussion by claiming to have calculated the probability that some free energy spontaneously coalesced into matter consisting of just the right elements and compounds and in just the right shape to form that pencil and he found that event to be extremely improbable. Everybody agrees that that kind of event is extremely improbable. However, the OP of that discussion strongly implies that we on the side of science believe that that is how pencils come into existence and we inform him that his assumption that we do is highly incorrect. Then others who feel themselves to be on his side start chipping in insisting that we on the side of science do indeed believe that the OP's assumption of what we think is correct and we have to informed as well that that assumption is highly incorrect. But they keep deafening themselves to the truth and maintain their false assumption regardless of how many times we have to repeat that they are wrong.ICANT, open your eyes and engage your brain. The OP of this topic started with the assumption that we think that modern proteins first came into existence through the spontaneous and random self-assembly of amino acids. No, we do not think anything like that! What part of that are you incapable of understanding? Yes, such an event as he described would indeed be very improbable, but such an event has nothing to do with anything.

Yes, that's right. This has been stated many times in this thread, for example, Message 84 where I said: If you think that the "simplest protein of life" could not have formed naturally because of information theory then you should open a new thread over at Proposed New Topics.--Percy

No one is proposing that proteins from modern organisms were present 4 billion years ago when abiogenesis might have occurred. You are beating on a strawman. That is false."Addressing the still open question of the prebiotic origin of sequential macromolecules (peptides, nucleic acids) on the primitive Earth, we describe a molecular engine (the primary pump), which works at ambient temperature and continuously generates, elongates and complexifies sequential peptides."
SourceAbiotic processes can produce sequential peptides. We simply don't know how many different combinations of molecules will result in life, so any calculation of any probabilities is based on pure speculation. For all we know, given the volume of water on a planet and the number of reactions that can occur the emergence of life may be guaranteed within 100 million years.

That's different from quanta, silly. I am a death escaping machine myself. I may have no clue about the prospects of chemical evolution you propose but I can read languages so I can read enough of what you write to conclude that first you have even less of a clue and second is that you cheat on top of that. That's my communication to you and that is quite different from the method snowflakes pass information to the same you. Got it?
You don't like the cat? Poor dear. You want the circle jerk with your mates undisturbed here? Is that what you want? Or you rather fancy a back-patting competition with them?
For the sake of overkill. All causal action is passing of information. Not all causal action is coded passing of information. What is the purpose of the code? To modify and neutralise the way the chemical interactions of the inert would run otherwise. That is very cunning of the living machines. None of the causal action of the inert is cunning in that fashion. Why? It has no purposes to stay in one intricate piece. Molecules just don't care one way or the other. None of the chemical interactions however intricate and complicated exhibit that cunning. Some of the causal action of the death escaping machines is coded in that way and some is not. Some is going the way the snowflake communicates.
That leads to the conclusion that all life is intelligent in principle and in a way none of non-life is. How do you explain that? Either the intelligence is imparted by an outside agent like the ID people want to believe or it is intrinsic to life which is always present. If you contest that you need to show the mechanism of transition of the inert into the intelligent and that is exactly what you lot fail to do to the delight of ID folks.

No, problem, Taq. The only objection is the use of we. If you need to move the assumed origin further away, no problem. Just don't say we because it is only who assumes anything as a fact. I don't. I see life coming from life only. Other scenarios I do not observe so just take note of them without taking anything for granted.

I could care less what you see or don't see. What I care about is what you can demonstrate with evidence. Comparing beliefs is a laughable excersize. Proclaiming your beliefs may work from a pulpit, but it just doesn't work in the arena of science.

No you aren't. You will die someday just like all organisms. Do you even understand how you contradicted yourself here? If something is inert it does not go through chemical reactions.The problem you are having in these conversations is that you describe aspects of nature using contradictory descriptors. You describe organisms that die as death escaping machines. You describe reactive matter as inert matter. This is why people frown on your posts. They are jibberish. Nowhere have you shown that this intelligence can not occur through natural mechanisms.

Sorry, that is your trouble not mine. It is your beliefs that are immaterial. My belief that life comes from another life is easy to support. Apart from your words the evidence life has come from non-life that are in your possession is zero exactly. Zilch, remember? So trim your chutzpah down in accordance to that magnitude. Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.

I already explained that but you failed to pay attention or your memory is selective so I repeat. Death-escaping does not mean immortal. It is continuous tense. An individual machine like you escapes death while it can only. It's the aim of its actions only not hitting the target always. Understand? No eternal guarantee of success. Not forever. A system of death escaping machines might last longer or indefinitely and so on. That is open.
Inert in this context means not alive and not completely still or not chemically reacting.

I agree which is why I don't post beliefs. It is your belief that life can ONLY come from life is a claim that you have not supported with evidence. I agree. The evidence is very small to non-existent. What we do have is evidence that life started out as simple unicellular organisms. What we don't see is the sudden emergence of zebras and bats in the earliest parts of the fossil record. This is certainly consistent with life starting out as simple organisms which is consistent with abiogenesis.What is occuring now within the scientific community is an effort to see if life can come about through abiogenesis. I think most people agree that we will never be able to figure out how exactly life started on Earth. All we can do is see if there are pathways by which abiogenesis can occur.