An issue with the origin of life

[Memeticemetic]

Just a quick note, species is not defined by two organisms that can interbreed (are two human men the same species) but whether or not gene transfer can occur through the population.

The chiwawa and great dane probably can't mate, but a great dane can probably mate with a collie, which can probably mate with a chiwawa, hence not different species.

There is no line when specation occurs. Species is useful for defining a present state, can it occur now, but not so useful for determining when speciation takes place. Speciation, by its very nature, is a tricky thing to pin down. Extinction of intermediates in ring species would nail it down, but thats about it.

Species is an attempt to classify a continuous variable, to break it up into chunks.

Okay, then... would that mean we could properly define chihuahuas, collies, and great danes as ring species? Or am I way off base on that?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Just a quick note, Squawk, any breed of dog can breed with another - the size difference notwithstanding: a big female could "get down" for a smaller male. There'd be no problem for a big male and a small female mating - giving birth however...

Although, having said that, the size of the pup would tend to suit the female rather than the male - evolution would tend towards that, as pups being too large would tend to kill off smaller females in cross-breeding. I'd imagine the same could be said for any other species. Cue the biologists on the site...!

Kindest regards,

James

 

[ExeFBM]

It is inevitable that inorganic chemistry will give rise to organic chemistry, given the right conditions.

Kindest regards,

James

Just a quick note. Inorganic chemistry can never give rise to organic chemistry. Organic chemistry refers to compounds almost entirely made out of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen (although some definitions might include nitrogen and sulphur), not the chemistry of things that are/were alive. Formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide are organic molecules that can react to form nitrogenous bases, and eventually RNA, but they're pretty unpleasant to most life on the planet.

 

[ProcInc]

Just a quick note. Inorganic chemistry can never give rise to organic chemistry.

What do you mean? Organic compound form out of inorganic chemicals all the time, its just a matter of forming carbon compounds.

Where else would these compounds have come from? They haven't been organic since the beginning of time have they?

Organic chemistry refers to compounds almost entirely made out of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen (although some definitions might include nitrogen and sulphur), not the chemistry of things that are/were alive

How can you understand this but not understand how basic a process it is for organic compounds to form?

Formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide are organic molecules that can react to form nitrogenous bases, and eventually RNA, but they're pretty unpleasant to most life on the planet.

But not all, eh? That's the thing. Early life and even a lot of modern life thrives in very different conditions to those we deem unpleasant.

 

[ExeFBM]

What do you mean? Organic compound form out of inorganic chemicals all the time, its just a matter of forming carbon compounds.

Where else would these compounds have come from? They haven't been organic since the beginning of time have they?

Give me an example of an organic compound forming from an inorganic compound.

Organic compounds have existed since very nearly the beginning of time, since carbon was formed in stars. But personally I wouldn't refer to nuclear fusion as chemistry. In chemistry the term 'organic' doesn't refer to life.

How can you understand this but not understand how basic a process it is for organic compounds to form?

Again, give me an example of an organic compound forming solely from inorganic reactants.

But not all, eh? That's the thing. Early life and even a lot of modern life thrives in very different conditions to those we deem unpleasant.

I'm fully aware of the survivability of life, I have an interest in extremophiles, that's why I said 'most life'. My point was that the building blocks of life can be formed from basic organic compounds, without the involvement of inorganic chemistry.

 

[scienceguy8888]

well how about C6H12O6 +6O2--->6CO2 +6H2O, organic compound going to inorganic! (i don't think CO2 is generally considered an organic compound, neither is elemental carbon for that matter)

 

[ExeFBM]

well how about C6H12O6 +6O2--->6CO2 +6H2O, organic compound going to inorganic! (i don't think CO2 is generally considered an organic compound, neither is elemental carbon for that matter)

CO2 is kind of inorganic, as a weird exception, but that's a combustion reaction, which would be taught in the organic section of an A level chemistry lesson (in the UK). I'm not suggesting elemental carbon is organic, but that would have been the starting point of organic compounds.
You have an organic and an inorganic, going to an inorganic and an inorganic, so you've just formed inorganics, which was not the challenge.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Organic chemistry involves compounds containing carbon, hydrocarbons and their derivatives (the primary bond being C-H). Inorganic chemistry involves the study of compounds involving anything except carbon-based compounds (those involving the C-H bond).

For example, ExeFBM, the formation of bone involves inorganic, as well as organic, chemistry.

There is no absolute distinction between inorganic and organic chemistry - organometallic chemistry is the meeting point between the two, involving compounds comprising, at least, one carbon atom and a metal.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[ExeFBM]

Greetings,

Organic chemistry involves compounds containing carbon, hydrocarbons and their derivatives (the primary bond being C-H). Inorganic chemistry involves the study of compounds involving anything except carbon-based compounds (those involving the C-H bond).

For example, ExeFBM, the formation of bone involves inorganic, as well as organic, chemistry.

There is no absolute distinction between inorganic and organic chemistry - organometallic chemistry is the meeting point between the two, involving compounds comprising, at least, one carbon atom and a metal.

Kindest regards,

James

I completely agree, my PhD is based around organometallic synthesis (platinum and heterocycles). My objection was that it sounded as if you were saying that life came from inorganic compounds, rather than from compounds "that-were-never-involved-in-life". If you understand the distinction, then great. Just one of my pet peeves, like volatile meaning 'it evaporates easily" instead of "is explosive", and the whole 'theory' bs.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I admit my usage was somewhat loose and may have given the wrong impression - if so, I apologize to all here. [My background is in computing, though I am interested in the A-Z of Science.]

We can agree, I think, that "life-chemistry" needs both branches to occur.

Pure inorganics (metallic compounds, for example) could bind with a carbon atom (becoming organometallic) and then release the carbon atom in a reaction with other compounds allowing the atom to form a organic compound (for example, various alcohols and polymers).

Thus, inorganic to organometallic to organic.

[As I'm sure you're aware, there are also "metalicorganics", including naturally-occurring organic coordination compounds - haemoglobin (iron centre) and chlorophyll (comprising magnesium-centred chlorin).]

The current "best-guess" hypothesis for biogenesis involves sea-floor "smokers" made of a suitably porous material - to "trap and hold" molecules (including hydrocarbons) long enough for other molecules passing by to react and form the first forms of "life".

I've been wondering if these molecules would also include inorganics - including organometallics.

For example, the (liquid) metal core of the Earth could form organometallics at its boundary with the non-matallic layer, which could be circulated up to the crust and through these self-same vents, giving rise to organics and - eventually - "life".

I grant you that this is pure speculation on my part!

Kindest regards,

James

 

[ExeFBM]

Pure inorganics (metallic compounds, for example) could bind with a carbon atom (becoming organometallic) and then release the carbon atom in a reaction with other compounds allowing the atom to form a organic compound (for example, various alcohols and polymers).

Thus, inorganic to organometallic to organic.

You can use metal atoms to alter the reactivity of organic groups. I'm using platinum complexes to activate nitriles, so that they're more susceptible to cycloadditions, but the platinum is essentially a catalyst, and the organic components need to exist in the first place. In your example, you have a carbon bonding to a metal, but elemental carbon doesn't exist by itself, and carbon-carbon covalent bonds are strong and stable. I can't think of any metal reactions that would be strong enough to extract a carbon atom from a compound.

Also you have the carbon leaving the organometallic to form alcohols/polymers etc. but the alcohols and polymers would need to already be there to remove the carbon, so the inorganic-organometallic part seems like a convoluted way of adding a carbon to an already existing organic compound.

There are many inorganic catalysts that can be used for polymerisation, but they're catalysts in the reaction, and are there to re-organise organic compounds into different forms. In a chemical reaction a catalyst would be not be written in as a reactant, but placed with the reaction arrow, as part of the required conditions.

 

[Squawk]

Okay, then... would that mean we could properly define chihuahuas, collies, and great danes as ring species? Or am I way off base on that?

Off base I'm afraid. Ring species are defined by geographical location. The various breeds of dog are kept discreet by human intervention, and tbh I'm not really sure if there is a term for that. The concept is the same, just not the mechanism that leads to genetic separation.

 

[ProcInc]

Give me an example of an organic compound forming from an inorganic compound.

Organic compounds have existed since very nearly the beginning of time, since carbon was formed in stars. But personally I wouldn't refer to nuclear fusion as chemistry. In chemistry the term 'organic' doesn't refer to life.

Many already have but you seem very confused here. Carbon alone is not an organic compound, nor is a compound (it is an element).

If you have a reaction in which you start with either Carbon or an inorganic Carbon compound and wind up with a more complex organic chemical then you have formed organic molecules out of inorganic chemicals.

For a list of good examples have a look at the multiple reactions resulting from the Miller-Urey experiment.

All of the Carbon based compounds came originally from Carbon Dioxide which is usually deemed inorganic.

Furthermore, you report that carbon was formed in stars (which is true) but it was obviously chemistry, not fusion that caused the existence of the first organic compounds. I hinted at this earlier by pointing out that if you believe that Inorganic compounds (elemental carbon) never gave/give rise to organic compounds then the present and past existence (and therefore origin) of organic compunds must either:

-Have always existed in that state (in eternal regression into the past)
-Came from nothing
-Were the original state of matter/energy after the big bang

These are all absurd hypothesis but the only alternative explanations to a chemical origin of organic compounds.

Again, give me an example of an organic compound forming solely from inorganic reactants.

A different answer to this and the previous question is this:

Every organic molecule in existence today is an example as they all had an inorganic origin.

I'm fully aware of the survivability of life, I have an interest in extremophiles, that's why I said 'most life'. My point was that the building blocks of life can be formed from basic organic compounds, without the involvement of inorganic chemistry.

The basic organic compounds came from inorganic chemicals.

 

[Kevin R Brown]

"Miller failed Moron..he a Toxic mess of amino acids..that could not be used to make anything...to try to get amino acids to self assemble is impossible..there is no natural process.to make a cell evolve ..it would be easier to build a the space shuttle..blindfolded while riding a unicycle...and drug resistant bacteria ..use pre existing information..they, dont become any new form of bacteria...its still a bacteria cell..and, well removed from the drug..they are the same type of cell"

Miller did not 'fail'. The objective of the experiment was not to create an organism; the objective was to find out if, under certain conditions, amino acids & other compounds would spontaneously form carbon molecules.

As it turns out...

http://www.youtube.com/embed/yet1xkAv_HY


You might also want to remind this 'person' that even if the experiment did not yield a reaction, it would not be a 'failure'. It was just be a negative result.

 

[Darkchilde]

"Miller failed Moron..he a Toxic mess of amino acids..that could not be used to make anything...to try to get amino acids to self assemble is impossible..there is no natural process.to make a cell evolve ..it would be easier to build a the space shuttle..blindfolded while riding a unicycle...and drug resistant bacteria ..use pre existing information..they, dont become any new form of bacteria...its still a bacteria cell..and, well removed from the drug..they are the same type of cell"

Miller did not 'fail'. The objective of the experiment was not to create an organism; the objective was to find out if, under certain conditions, amino acids & other compounds would spontaneously form carbon molecules.

As it turns out...

[Youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/yet1xkAv_HY[/Youtube]


You might also want to remind this 'person' that even if the experiment did not yield a reaction, it would not be a 'failure'. It was just be a negative result.

Not to mention that when the solutions from Miller's experiment were re-checked many years later (if I remember correctly it was about 20 years later), it was found that Miller was even more successful than he himself thought. More amino-acids were found in those solutions. Of course in 20 years the technology had changed and researchers were able to detect more amino-acids.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

With all due respect, ExeFMB, I'm with ProcInc on this.

My basic point was that the Big Bang occurred roughly 13.6 billion years ago.

"Life" - based on organic chemistry - did not exist then.

The formation of planets, as a result of stars, involved inorganic chemistry.

The Earth started out about 4.6 billion years ago - again, without life.

Ergo, life (organic chemistry) could only have arisen out of/occurred due to inorganic chemistry.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Inferno]

I suck at chemistry, so kindly correct me if I'm wrong (I probably am) but as a response to Dragon:
Life and Organic Chemistry are not the same. Organic Chemistry is basically any chemistry involving carbon. Carbon itself had to be formed, so is this what you call "inorganic to organic chemistry"?
If so, I agree with you. If not (If you're thinking that other thing that I hope you're not thinking) then I'll probably have to disagree with you.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I suck at chemistry, so kindly correct me if I'm wrong (I probably am) but as a response to Dragon:
Life and Organic Chemistry are not the same. Organic Chemistry is basically any chemistry involving carbon. Carbon itself had to be formed, so is this what you call "inorganic to organic chemistry"?
If so, I agree with you. If not (If you're thinking that other thing that I hope you're not thinking) then I'll probably have to disagree with you.

Life, as we understand it, is based on organic chemistry, which is based on chemical bonds involving, at least, one carbon atom - hence, "carbon-based life-form". If there are naturally-occurring silicon-based life-forms elsewhere in the galaxy, that would be highly improbable - though not necessarily impossible.

Carbon is an element, and - like all the elements - was formed in the interior of generations of suns through nuclear reactions. Whatever elements exist in a planetary system come from exploded stars - through novae and supernovae. Carbon compounds have been part of the Earth from its earliest beginning.

So, from your post, I think you'll find we disagree - unless you've changed your mind having read the article!?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Ad Initium]

@CosmicJoghurt

I would not go into the discussion in the first place. Mainly because I do know how to argument it, as my biological knowledge is too limited.

What I would do, is question and atttack his approach.

Ask him why he attacks the working theory of biologists and evolution, that are trying to find how stuff works, and why they themselves are to lazy to do that for their own religious believes.

Because ... what theory do they have? God <BOOM> and a few day's later mankind.

But, believer's are actually totally clueless on how things really started. Existance did not start when God did his magic. Existance already existed and they (believers) call it God. I'd prefer use the word existance in his case rather then life, for obvious reasons, to prevent it from turning into an argument about words and their meaning, as he could claim life started when God did his magic, as that is what it says in the bible. He'd have a more difficult time disputing the word existance. God exists in his mind. He can not deny his existance.

Believer's have no right to question working theory on biology and evolution, if they themselfs are to lazy to finish their own theory first.

Sure ... for me ... he would only be allowed to dispute that theory, if he is so kind enough to explain the existance of God first. Or rather "how did God came into existance" ... He was always there, he is infinite (they like to say this means something else actually) or he is eternal.

Read up on infinity and eternal first though, Google "God is eternal" or "God is infinite" ... and you get stuff like this:
http://atheism.about.com/od/whatisgod/a/eternal.htm
...because they have spinned a web around these words already as a defence for when ever asked about it.


In Dutch we have a saying: "Gelijke monikken, gelijke kappen" ... which means in english "All monks wear the same hoods" ... and it means kinda like "do not unto other's what you would not see happen to you" ... so judge as you would like to be judged, basically.

Perhaps it'll be a stalemate if you approach it like that, but seeing as in the eyes of science, them attacking the working theories in unjustly, stupid and unfair, ... their is no reason to debate them on it. Though it is always fun ofcourse, and I do that sometimes too if it concerns something I do have knowledge of. Which would not have been this debate, me lacking knowledge on the subject matter.

There are a lot of thing's I do not know. So if all thing's fail I will revert to this. If they are more "knowlegable", more knowledgable then you to confuse what you know about the science, and they show an obvious glory of fulfilment kinda like "yeah, I got the evolutionist" ... I will always fall back to this. They will start quoting the Bible, which is meaningless to me, as God existed before the Bible. So if the explaination is not in there, then it must be something God hasn't told them yet, on .... how stuff works. ... Or they are just lazy to admit they are wrong. :lol: ... And of the latter I will inform them.

 

[Inferno]

So, from your post, I think you'll find we disagree - unless you've changed your mind having read the article!?

I suck too much at Chemistry to make a clear argument. I think you're wrong, but I'll have to take your word that you're not. I should really take that Chemistry course at Uni...