Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Stanley Miller debunked?
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4943 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 28 of 34 (255591)
10-30-2005 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by compmage
08-04-2005 11:34 AM


I know this topic has been inactive for quite some time, but I just wanted to make a comment on the following point in the OP.
Half of the amino acids he produced were right-handed and just one right-handed amino acid would destroy the possibility of any life being "produced.
This point probably sounds very impressive to lay-people who don't fully understand the point, but it is simply wrong. I have no idea exactly what was produced in the Urey-Miller experiment, but I assume a 50-50 split between left and right handed anisomers is about right. This in no way makes the formation of life impossible.
For those who don't know, handedness of a molecule is known as chirality. As a demonstration of this, place your right hand over your left hand. You'll notice that both hands are compositionally identicle, but fundamentally different structurally. One is the mirror image of the other. The same thing is true of certain molecules.
Now it's true that DNA requires homochirality. If you took a DNA strand of left handed anisomers and replaced one of the units with a right handed amino acid the strain would snap the strand. But it certainly is not true that long chains of homochiral molecules can't form from an even mix of anisomers.
For example the electroweak interaction is not symetirical, it favours left handed amino acids over right handed amino acids when it comes to forming chains. The effect is tiny, but investigations into possible natural ways to amplify this are being studied. This could account for the homochirality found in DNA.
Also, there is no reason that I know of why life requires one particular anisomer over another. (I may be wrong on that, so if there IS a reason could someone point it out?). I vaguely remember reading that primitive forms of life have been found with the opposite chirality to us, but unfortunately I don't know where I read this. Can anyone shed any light on it? Hopefully it's not just a figment of my imagination.
Anyway, the point of this is that it is possible for purely stochastic bifurcation processes to go from an even mixture of single anisomers to longer chains of homochiral molecules. The particular handedness that occurs is random, not predetermined, but since there are only two possibilites that leaves a 50-50 probability that life would have the homochirality that we observe today.
Obviously I can't point to any particular method that could lead from a mixture of anisomers to homochiral chains like DNA and say that "this is the way it happened", but to imply that that it COULDN'T happen is simply ignoring the research that is ongoing and is like sticking your head in the sand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by compmage, posted 08-04-2005 11:34 AM compmage has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Brad McFall, posted 10-30-2005 8:15 AM happy_atheist has replied

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4943 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 30 of 34 (255608)
10-30-2005 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Brad McFall
10-30-2005 8:15 AM


Re: 51 OR 49?
Are there really only two possibilities here? What if proteins add different "weight" to the symmetrical distribution of form in a GALTON POLYGON
Evolution by Jumps: Francis Galton and William Bateson and the Mechanism of Evolutionary Change | Genetics | Oxford Academic
tipped during biological change by the 50-50 perversion of DNA?
Well I was talking about the homochirality of DNA, so assuming some process caused a racemic mixture to become homochiral, and assuming that there are two anisomers present, then there are two endpoints that it can reach. Is there an endpoint that i'm missing? Or is it the discussion of endpoints that you were questioning?
I assume you are STILL a "happy" atheist.
Definately, thank you for asking

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Brad McFall, posted 10-30-2005 8:15 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Brad McFall, posted 11-03-2005 7:12 AM happy_atheist has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024