Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
December 11, 2024, 01:25 PM

News From Syria
December 10, 2024, 09:35 AM

New Britain
December 08, 2024, 10:30 AM

Lights on the way
by akay
December 07, 2024, 09:26 AM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
December 06, 2024, 01:27 PM

Ashes to beads: South Kor...
December 03, 2024, 09:44 PM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
November 30, 2024, 08:53 AM

Gaza assault
by zeca
November 27, 2024, 07:13 PM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
November 24, 2024, 06:05 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
November 22, 2024, 06:45 AM

Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM

Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: First Living Cell - How life began

 (Read 8702 times)
  • Previous page 1 2« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • First Living Cell - How life began
     Reply #30 - July 14, 2013, 06:18 PM

    i asked your opinion not Douglas Adams's,
    just kidding.
    So do you believe in that the first living cell was formed by random spontaneous chemical processes?


    No I don't
  • First Living Cell - How life began
     Reply #31 - July 14, 2013, 06:21 PM

    By the way, I am not saying that because i have religion or not, but religion does not deny big bang theory. To be honest, to think that random processes can build DNA or these kind of structures, do not make sense so much to me too.


    Yes it does.
  • First Living Cell - How life began
     Reply #32 - July 14, 2013, 08:01 PM

    How's Ramadan going, Dahir?

    You beat me to it. Cheesy
  • First Living Cell - How life began
     Reply #33 - March 23, 2014, 04:47 AM

    Now we actually have a future biologist here, might be a good time to bring this back. popcorn

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • First Living Cell - How life began
     Reply #34 - March 23, 2014, 01:17 PM

    Me? I fear that biology is not all you need to know to figure out abiogenesis; I can only say how/why the parts decided to come together on a molecular level. Most people want a grand "why" of life, though. Grin
  • First Living Cell - How life began
     Reply #35 - March 23, 2014, 06:57 PM

    This is a black hole creating universe, a bi-product of this type of universe is very complex chemistry. This includes complex adaptive systems, some of which we label with this vague term "life", when in reality there is probably very little difference between living and non living stuff except levels of complexity and a fondness for carbon.

    When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.


    A.A. Milne,

    "We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
  • First Living Cell - How life began
     Reply #36 - March 23, 2014, 07:05 PM

    Food for thought:

    Martin Hanczyc: The line between life and not-life
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dySwrhMQdX4

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • First Living Cell - How life began
     Reply #37 - March 23, 2014, 08:32 PM

    Most people want a grand "why" of life, though. Grin

    I'm more interested in the how.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • First Living Cell - How life began
     Reply #38 - March 23, 2014, 09:35 PM

    This is also an interesting post/view from that TED talk site about the topic:

    "There is no such thing as LIFE, only those forms of matter which are LIFELIKE and some being even more LIFELIKE than others based on the complexity and order of their chemical interactions. The characteristics by which we define life...reproduction, metabolism, etc...are merely more of those same lifelike chemical interactions in varying complexity and order.
    Life as some separate mysterious thing that stands apart from what we call inanimate matter simply does not exist. All matter by virtue of it's fundamental forces or interactions is already in some way animate.
    Because of the fact that people to this day, even scientists view what we call Life as some great mystery, it will always be open to some sort of "mysterious" or "mystical" interpretation such as a divine act of God. In order to eliminate that mysteriousness, we must eventually draw upon the conclusion that this thing we call Life which somehow separates animate from inanimate or living from non-living matter simply does not exist. Lifelike chemical interactions DO exist. Creatures like us humans are very complex with very complex chemical interactions, therefore we are very lifelike, but we are not truly living. We are really only going through the chemical processes (going through the motions) that make us seem like we are alive, but really we are merely more lifelike. Truly inanimate matter does not exist. As Max Planck said...
    "All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of an atom together..."
    It is that fundamental force or those forces in nature that "animates" everything in our universe, and from that which all lifelike, animate forms eventually emerged. Life did not emerge mysteriously out of inanimate matter. Animate, lifelike forms emerged because matter was already animated and in some small way lifelike to begin with.


    When truth is hurled against falsehood, falsehood perishes, for falsehood by its nature is bound to perish.
  • First Living Cell - How life began
     Reply #39 - March 23, 2014, 09:51 PM

    Food for thought.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • First Living Cell - How life began
     Reply #40 - March 23, 2014, 10:04 PM

    You asked for it, Quod.  Grin

    To not get crazy about it, or to go far back into abiogenesis (at least on the atmospheric level which is the really important factor) which is not something many people are in a position to speak about confidently, it allll comes down to the chemistry and organic molecules.

    Probably prompted to some degree by something that was going on in the environment, over time we got organic chemistry. Everything in this realm is an issue of principles of chemistry, the ones that are still observable today. Things that liked to connect connected. Things that were energetically unfavorable typically didn't come together. Organic chemistry is where you start seeing complex molecules, like the building blocks for DNA and RNA, and things like lipids that form bilayers and vesicles.

    The phospholipid is something I always like to think of. It's still just an issue of chemistry. But it has one end that is hydrophobic and one end that is hydrophilic. If you put a whole bunch of phospholipids together in water, they will pretty much always fold into predictable shapes on account of polarity. They like their layers. They are happy to collectively fold into a sphere. The phospholipid bilayer that pretty much wraps up your average cell is something so critical to the cell, obviously, but something that occurs so easily.

    Similarly, getting to the real crux of the cell (proteins and eventually organelles and maybe someday even some DNA), the most important product of this chemistry will be things like nucleotides, and there are a few examples of molecules in organic chemistry that have ostensibly unnecessary nucleotides stuck to the side if it. In modern cells, we think of DNA as being more or less the language of life, but in the drafting days of the organelles and the cells, it is far more likely that RNA, which is something increddibly simple (relatively speaking), was doing the work, given that to even make DNA is an RNA process all on its own.

    RNA sounds like a kind of crazy, complex thing, but it is really still just an issue of chemistry; certain molecules like other ones, and the only thing that really comes out of left field in the early days is going to be environmental conditions. You can kind of still see both of those today. If I had a tube full DNA in an aqueous solution and boiled it, the bonds linking the complementary pairs would be broken and the DNA would denature into two separate pieces. Once I took the tube away and let it cool down, in a time that depends on the ratio of DNA to solution, the DNA would have found its way back together again.

    The first cell, undoubtedly, was one that really lacked a lot of sophistication, as there is good reason to believe that at least one of our organelles (mitochondia) were once prokaryotes just doing their own thing.

    Tl;dr:

    Chemistry, man. Chemistry.

  • First Living Cell - How life began
     Reply #41 - March 23, 2014, 10:05 PM

    Why do people keep putting Tl;dr recently? What does it mean?

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • First Living Cell - How life began
     Reply #42 - March 23, 2014, 10:06 PM

    Too long; didn't read.
  • First Living Cell - How life began
     Reply #43 - March 23, 2014, 10:16 PM

    You didn't read your own post (I'm assuming for anything you want to edit) or you didn't read chemistry? Probably not the latter, a biologist needs an understanding of chemistry.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • First Living Cell - How life began
     Reply #44 - March 23, 2014, 10:18 PM

    Sorry. I mean to say that if it was too long and someone didn't read it, it can basically be summed up by "chemistry."
  • First Living Cell - How life began
     Reply #45 - March 23, 2014, 10:18 PM

    Quod is just so not hip. Cheesy Cheesy

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • First Living Cell - How life began
     Reply #46 - March 23, 2014, 10:19 PM

     Grin Sorry, Quod.
  • First Living Cell - How life began
     Reply #47 - March 23, 2014, 10:23 PM

    I do want to add that obviously my post is a huge oversimplification of everything that would have to have gone into putting things together, even just the vesicles, but it must be appreciated that little steps of degrees such as this were taken, probably over a huge span of time. But at a certain point these components can come together quite easily, or at least this was likely the case for the most basic and primary cell.

    Nowadays, in modern cells, it is no longer so simple, and the mechanisms are extremely sophisticated in comparison.
  • First Living Cell - How life began
     Reply #48 - March 23, 2014, 10:24 PM

    I'm in my 20s, stop trying to make me feel old.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • First Living Cell - How life began
     Reply #49 - March 23, 2014, 10:31 PM

    I'm in my 50's and I knew what tl;dr: meant. Cheesy

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • First Living Cell - How life began
     Reply #50 - March 23, 2014, 11:31 PM

    ^

    Well that's because your a tech guy by profession.

    In my opinion a life without curiosity is not a life worth living
  • First Living Cell - How life began
     Reply #51 - March 23, 2014, 11:32 PM

    No. It's just because I've used the web for a few years and seen acronyms all over the place.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • First Living Cell - How life began
     Reply #52 - March 23, 2014, 11:43 PM

    To be fair,   I go to urban dictionary to look up internet acronyms slang all the time.


    In my opinion a life without curiosity is not a life worth living
  • First Living Cell - How life began
     Reply #53 - March 24, 2014, 12:34 AM

    Yeah if I see a new one I haven't seen before, I just drop it in Google and get fifteen answers straight away..

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Previous page 1 2« Previous thread | Next thread »