Explanation of How Chemical and Physical Processes Established Foundation for Life
 

Model explains how simple chemical and physical processes may have laid foundation for life - “The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.” (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0703522104v1)


Before life emerged on earth, either a primitive kind of metabolism or an RNA-like duplicating machinery must have set the stage – so experts believe. But what preceded these pre-life steps?

A pair of UCSF scientists has developed a model explaining how simple chemical and physical processes may have laid the foundation for life. Like all useful models, theirs can be tested, and they describe how this can be done. Their model is based on simple, well-known chemical and physical laws.

The basic idea is that simple principles of chemical interactions allow for a kind of natural selection on a micro scale: enzymes can cooperate and compete with each other in simple ways, leading to arrangements that can become stable, or “locked in,” says Ken Dill, PhD, senior author of the paper and professor of pharmaceutical chemistry at UCSF.

The scientists compare this chemical process of “search, selection, and memory” to another well-studied process: different rates of neuron firing in the brain lead to new connections between neurons and ultimately to the mature wiring pattern of the brain. Similarly, social ants first search randomly, then discover food, and finally build a short-term memory for the entire colony using chemical trails.

They also compare the chemical steps to Darwin’s principles of evolution: random selection of traits in different organisms, selection of the most adaptive traits, and then the inheritance of the traits best suited to the environment (and presumably the disappearance of those with less adaptive traits).
Like these more obvious processes, the chemical interactions in the model involve competition, cooperation, innovation and a preference for consistency, they say.

The model focuses on enzymes that function as catalysts – compounds that greatly speed up a reaction without themselves being changed in the process. Catalysts are very common in living systems as well as industrial processes. Many researchers believe the first primitive catalysts on earth were nothing more complicated than the surfaces of clays or other minerals.
In its simplest form, the model shows how two catalysts in a solution, A and B, each acting to catalyze a different reaction, could end up forming what the scientists call a complex, AB. The deciding factor is the relative concentration of their desired partners. The process could go like this: Catalyst A produces a chemical that catalyst B uses. Now, since B normally seeks out this chemical, sometimes B will be attracted to A -- if its desired chemical is not otherwise available nearby. As a result, A and B will come into proximity, forming a complex.

The word “complex” is key because it shows how simple chemical interactions, with few players, and following basic chemical laws, can lead to a novel combination of molecules of greater complexity. The emergence of complexity – whether in neuronal systems, social systems, or the evolution of life, or of the entire universe -- has long been a major puzzle, particularly in efforts to determine how life emerged.

Dill calls the chemical interactions “stochastic innovation” – suggesting that it involves both random (stochastic) interactions and the emergence of novel arrangements.

“A major question about life’s origins is how chemicals, which have no self-interest, became ‘biological’ -- driven to evolve by natural selection,” he says. “This simple model shows a plausible route to this type of complexity.” Dill is also a professor of biophysics and associate dean of research in the UCSF School of Pharmacy.
Source: University of California - San Francisco

Interesting article. trekkor should be along any time now to dismiss this out of hand.

odds are 10¹¹³ to 1, Brah


KT

LOL! Now back to work.

only takes one :)

And Ken Dill is quite a bright guy. I did my postdoc in the pharm chem dept at UCSF, but was in Charly Craik's lab...

Let's see, I have to decide between "their model is based on simple, well-known chemical and physical laws" and "brah." Which is the better argument? Tough one, perhaps you guys can help me out. I'm leaning towards brah right now, it's so logically consistent, and you can't really argue against it.

On a more serious note, it would seem that if “their model is based on simple, well-known chemical and physical laws” then the odds are no longer 10¹¹³ to 1, are they?

"time, surface area, and random multiple non-specific bonds"

---1988, Carolyn Cohen, Structural Molecular Biochemistry


almost went into research because of her.

The only problem I have with all these "scientific" theories of how life started? Reduce them all to the most basic elements...all the way back to the "big bang". Then I ask...okay, who made THAT? And WHY?

Your position is that man was created 6,000 years ago, yes?

And, from what I have gathered, you place little credence in science, yes?

So, what is your source or how do you derive your very specific odds against life starting out as described in the clip from Mike H.?


Curiously,

Kurt

The engines in trekkors cars were not designed with science.

They were made with Jesus's love.

OK how about a non-GOD creator

something like a space tourest
who drops a samwich rapper
and a few microbes on it do their thing
creation but no GOD

BTW NO STUPID RULES ABOUT SEX EATHOR

Thanks for that post.

I really "laughed out loud".

( remember the "brah" thread? )


KT

You also have to ask, "What preceded the Big Bang?" You also have to question whether a "who" was involved.

Even if the odds of a specific chemical arrangement occurring were small by what we typically understand as "small", you have to look at the billions and billions of "coin flips" that were going on every minute over the surface of the entire primordial Earth. If it took the equivalent getting "heads" 100 times in a row, with billions and billions of coin flips going on continually for hundreds, thousands...maybe millions of years, it starts to become more probable that eventually 100 coin flips in a row would result in heads.

The odds really aren't that small when you consider the simply *staggering* number of trials that were going on.

I, myself, have had a number of staggering trials.

Jeff, are we talking about civil, criminal, or working on MFI? ;)

Finding the bathroom, finding the next bar, finding my hotel room...

posting on PPOT...

Nothing wrong with science.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1181747678.jpg