Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Proteins

drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 2:23:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 2:16:54 PM, Indophile wrote:
How did they form randomly from amino acids?

They don't form randomly from amino acids. They from from amino acids in accordance with the laws of biology, chemistry, and quantum mechanics (though some may accuse me of repeating myself).
kogline
Posts: 134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 11:56:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 2:23:37 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/9/2011 2:16:54 PM, Indophile wrote:
How did they form randomly from amino acids?

They don't form randomly from amino acids. They from from amino acids in accordance with the laws of physics

there you go ;)
if state farm has perfected teleportation technology why do they still sell car insurance?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 3:01:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
amino acids bond by hydrogen bonds (secondary bonds) then through the R group (the group that makes the 20 amino acid groups different).
(tertiay bonds). Some are based on S covalent bonding, polar intermolecular force, non-polar molecular force, and ionic bonding. Then you have your quarternary bonds in which amino acid chains bind to one another.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 8:03:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 11:56:33 PM, kogline wrote:
At 11/9/2011 2:23:37 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/9/2011 2:16:54 PM, Indophile wrote:
How did they form randomly from amino acids?

They don't form randomly from amino acids. They from from amino acids in accordance with the laws of physics


there you go ;)

http://xkcd.com...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 8:32:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/10/2011 8:03:29 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/9/2011 11:56:33 PM, kogline wrote:
At 11/9/2011 2:23:37 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/9/2011 2:16:54 PM, Indophile wrote:
How did they form randomly from amino acids?

They don't form randomly from amino acids. They from from amino acids in accordance with the laws of physics


there you go ;)

http://xkcd.com...

Yes, If dealing with problems in psychology, just break everything down to physics and go from there.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 10:13:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 2:23:37 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/9/2011 2:16:54 PM, Indophile wrote:
How did they form randomly from amino acids?

They don't form randomly from amino acids. They from from amino acids in accordance with the laws of biology, chemistry, and quantum mechanics (though some may accuse me of repeating myself).

I mean, how did the first proteins form? As far as I know, each protein needs a combination of amino acids in just the right position and the right shape.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 10:22:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/10/2011 10:13:41 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 11/9/2011 2:23:37 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/9/2011 2:16:54 PM, Indophile wrote:
How did they form randomly from amino acids?

They don't form randomly from amino acids. They from from amino acids in accordance with the laws of biology, chemistry, and quantum mechanics (though some may accuse me of repeating myself).

I mean, how did the first proteins form? As far as I know, each protein needs a combination of amino acids in just the right position and the right shape.

We don't know. Though I imagine it'd be because the correct combination of amino acids were in the correct conditions to form protiens.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 10:24:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/10/2011 10:22:14 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/10/2011 10:13:41 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 11/9/2011 2:23:37 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/9/2011 2:16:54 PM, Indophile wrote:
How did they form randomly from amino acids?

They don't form randomly from amino acids. They from from amino acids in accordance with the laws of biology, chemistry, and quantum mechanics (though some may accuse me of repeating myself).

I mean, how did the first proteins form? As far as I know, each protein needs a combination of amino acids in just the right position and the right shape.

We don't know. Though I imagine it'd be because the correct combination of amino acids were in the correct conditions to form protiens.

So they randomly arose, right?

But even the simplest protein need a long chain of amino acids to be in the correct place in the correct shape. So how did they randomly form?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
kogline
Posts: 134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 10:27:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
the point people are trying to make is that the process isn't just random. the forces and bonds of these molecules are just the way they behave. its kinda like saying water randomly freezes when it gets cold enough. tbh thats a very lame analogy but i cant think of anything better right now.
if state farm has perfected teleportation technology why do they still sell car insurance?
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 10:31:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The fact that we can't create life in the lab means that the chance occurence of it happening randomly must be unbelievably high - one would have to wait much longer than the current age of the universe (or the pitifully small time between when the Earth formed and life began).

I would say that this fact is pretty solid. So, starting from this point, we can either say:
1) Something else got involved (God)
2) Life simply came from outer space
3) Life indeed started randomly

God - arguments about God are pretty unweildy. You're basically retiring the science and logic and there's not much more to discuss.

Saying life came from outer space is a good argument for at least a few reasons. First, the billion years it took for microorganisms to form on Earth is about right for what we would imagine it would take for a random rock containing life to find us. 1B years is not enough for spontaneous random generation of the complex molecules necessary, by comparison. It also makes sense that life is out there somewhere (since it's here) and it allows us to put off the hard questions by simply saying we're not actually at the beginning.

If life however did start here randomly, then we can start using weak or strong anthropic principles to figure out why. Unless we are assuming that all of existance is an expanding sphere of stars 15 billion LY wide, then there are going to be an infinite number of planets for life to take hold on and no matter how big the number and how uncertain it would be for the random creation, we can only experience life on the one planet that actually achieved it so the statistical improbability is moot. Stephen Hawking likens it to a rich person looking out of his or her door and not seeing any poverty in the neighborhood.

I've heard somewhat dubious statistics that if you were to travel a googolplex units (at an order of magnitude this large, different units of measure become moot - even measuring a distance in parsecs vs. planck-units won't give you a different value) then you would end up meeting a random arrangement of atoms with your own exact atomic make-up.

Therefore, the only real factor that makes a difference is the size of the universe/superior unit to universe. Unless you plan on establishing a limit to it, then any and every possibility that can happen does in fact happen.
Rob
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 10:31:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/10/2011 10:24:16 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 11/10/2011 10:22:14 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/10/2011 10:13:41 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 11/9/2011 2:23:37 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/9/2011 2:16:54 PM, Indophile wrote:
How did they form randomly from amino acids?

They don't form randomly from amino acids. They from from amino acids in accordance with the laws of biology, chemistry, and quantum mechanics (though some may accuse me of repeating myself).

I mean, how did the first proteins form? As far as I know, each protein needs a combination of amino acids in just the right position and the right shape.

We don't know. Though I imagine it'd be because the correct combination of amino acids were in the correct conditions to form protiens.

So they randomly arose, right?

No. We don't know under what specific conditions the first proteins on this planet arose, but there is nothing to suggest that they violated the laws of physics to do so.


But even the simplest protein need a long chain of amino acids to be in the correct place in the correct shape. So how did they randomly form?

Loaded question.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 10:33:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/10/2011 10:31:20 AM, Lasagna wrote:
The fact that we can't create life in the lab means that the chance occurence of it happening randomly must be unbelievably high - one would have to wait much longer than the current age of the universe (or the pitifully small time between when the Earth formed and life began).

The fact that we can't create a star in the lab means the chance occurence of stars happening randomly must be unbelieveably high - one would have to wait much longer than the current age of the universe (or the pitifully small time between when the Earth formed and life began).


I would say that this fact is pretty solid. So, starting from this point, we can either say:
1) Something else got involved (God)
2) Life simply came from outer space
3) Life indeed started randomly

God - arguments about God are pretty unweildy. You're basically retiring the science and logic and there's not much more to discuss.

Saying life came from outer space is a good argument for at least a few reasons. First, the billion years it took for microorganisms to form on Earth is about right for what we would imagine it would take for a random rock containing life to find us. 1B years is not enough for spontaneous random generation of the complex molecules necessary, by comparison. It also makes sense that life is out there somewhere (since it's here) and it allows us to put off the hard questions by simply saying we're not actually at the beginning.

If life however did start here randomly, then we can start using weak or strong anthropic principles to figure out why. Unless we are assuming that all of existance is an expanding sphere of stars 15 billion LY wide, then there are going to be an infinite number of planets for life to take hold on and no matter how big the number and how uncertain it would be for the random creation, we can only experience life on the one planet that actually achieved it so the statistical improbability is moot. Stephen Hawking likens it to a rich person looking out of his or her door and not seeing any poverty in the neighborhood.

I've heard somewhat dubious statistics that if you were to travel a googolplex units (at an order of magnitude this large, different units of measure become moot - even measuring a distance in parsecs vs. planck-units won't give you a different value) then you would end up meeting a random arrangement of atoms with your own exact atomic make-up.

Therefore, the only real factor that makes a difference is the size of the universe/superior unit to universe. Unless you plan on establishing a limit to it, then any and every possibility that can happen does in fact happen.
kogline
Posts: 134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 10:39:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/10/2011 10:31:20 AM, Lasagna wrote:
The fact that we can't create life in the lab means that the chance occurence of it happening randomly must be unbelievably high - one would have to wait much longer than the current age of the universe (or the pitifully small time between when the Earth formed and life began).

no, it means we dont know what lab conditions to use.


I would say that this fact is pretty solid. So, starting from this point, we can either say:
1) Something else got involved (God)
2) Life simply came from outer space
3) Life indeed started randomly

God - arguments about God are pretty unweildy. You're basically retiring the science and logic and there's not much more to discuss.

possibly but like you said not much to discuss.


Saying life came from outer space is a good argument for at least a few reasons. First, the billion years it took for microorganisms to form on Earth is about right for what we would imagine it would take for a random rock containing life to find us. 1B years is not enough for spontaneous random generation of the complex molecules necessary, by comparison. It also makes sense that life is out there somewhere (since it's here) and it allows us to put off the hard questions by simply saying we're not actually at the beginning.

i dont see how it coming from outer space is better than it happening here, considering that at some arbitrary distance from earth, the earth would be outer space.


If life however did start here randomly, then we can start using weak or strong anthropic principles to figure out why. Unless we are assuming that all of existance is an expanding sphere of stars 15 billion LY wide, then there are going to be an infinite number of planets for life to take hold on and no matter how big the number and how uncertain it would be for the random creation, we can only experience life on the one planet that actually achieved it so the statistical improbability is moot. Stephen Hawking likens it to a rich person looking out of his or her door and not seeing any poverty in the neighborhood.

I've heard somewhat dubious statistics that if you were to travel a googolplex units (at an order of magnitude this large, different units of measure become moot - even measuring a distance in parsecs vs. planck-units won't give you a different value) then you would end up meeting a random arrangement of atoms with your own exact atomic make-up.

very dubious


Therefore, the only real factor that makes a difference is the size of the universe/superior unit to universe. Unless you plan on establishing a limit to it, then any and every possibility that can happen does in fact happen.

maybe in an undeterministic universe based on only probability, but in the universe as we know it these molecules are likely to form because it is in their nature to do so. so the laws that we observe are a real factor as well.
if state farm has perfected teleportation technology why do they still sell car insurance?
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 10:46:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/10/2011 10:33:18 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/10/2011 10:31:20 AM, Lasagna wrote:
The fact that we can't create life in the lab means that the chance occurence of it happening randomly must be unbelievably high - one would have to wait much longer than the current age of the universe (or the pitifully small time between when the Earth formed and life began).

The fact that we can't create a star in the lab means the chance occurence of stars happening randomly must be unbelieveably high - one would have to wait much longer than the current age of the universe (or the pitifully small time between when the Earth formed and life began).

The probability of a star forming randomly is very high. Not so for proteins. Or am I wrong?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
kogline
Posts: 134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 10:52:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/10/2011 10:46:39 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 11/10/2011 10:33:18 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/10/2011 10:31:20 AM, Lasagna wrote:
The fact that we can't create life in the lab means that the chance occurence of it happening randomly must be unbelievably high - one would have to wait much longer than the current age of the universe (or the pitifully small time between when the Earth formed and life began).

The fact that we can't create a star in the lab means the chance occurence of stars happening randomly must be unbelieveably high - one would have to wait much longer than the current age of the universe (or the pitifully small time between when the Earth formed and life began).

The probability of a star forming randomly is very high. Not so for proteins. Or am I wrong?

they are both very high under the right conditions, and very low under the right conditions. if there are no gases stars wont form, same with carbons and proteins.
if state farm has perfected teleportation technology why do they still sell car insurance?
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 10:57:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/10/2011 10:52:39 AM, kogline wrote:
At 11/10/2011 10:46:39 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 11/10/2011 10:33:18 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/10/2011 10:31:20 AM, Lasagna wrote:
The fact that we can't create life in the lab means that the chance occurence of it happening randomly must be unbelievably high - one would have to wait much longer than the current age of the universe (or the pitifully small time between when the Earth formed and life began).

The fact that we can't create a star in the lab means the chance occurence of stars happening randomly must be unbelieveably high - one would have to wait much longer than the current age of the universe (or the pitifully small time between when the Earth formed and life began).

The probability of a star forming randomly is very high. Not so for proteins. Or am I wrong?


they are both very high under the right conditions, and very low under the right conditions. if there are no gases stars wont form, same with carbons and proteins.

Apparently not.

The formation of amino acids from hydrocarbons is highly probable, but formation of proteins from amino acids is not.

However, if you have a lot of gas dust, stars randomly do form.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 10:57:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/10/2011 10:46:39 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 11/10/2011 10:33:18 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/10/2011 10:31:20 AM, Lasagna wrote:
The fact that we can't create life in the lab means that the chance occurence of it happening randomly must be unbelievably high - one would have to wait much longer than the current age of the universe (or the pitifully small time between when the Earth formed and life began).

The fact that we can't create a star in the lab means the chance occurence of stars happening randomly must be unbelieveably high - one would have to wait much longer than the current age of the universe (or the pitifully small time between when the Earth formed and life began).

The probability of a star forming randomly is very high. Not so for proteins. Or am I wrong?

First, I was commenting on the absurd notion that because something can't be duplicated in a lab, then it must occur randomnly with such a low probability as to take longer than the age of the universe to happen.

Second, I think the word "randomly" is being abused here. There are known, non-random, conditions under which stars can form. In fact, there is a whole class to describe "failed" stars. Now, we can't get past quantum uncertainty and probabilities, so with any physical system there is a non-zero element of chance (even though quantum uncertainty only becoms significant on subatomic levels). Noting this is trivial, so to specifically call something random and to be saying something of worth, then we must be talking about something above and beyond those quantum factors.

Furthermore, we should not confuse randomness with mere unpredictability (and, hence, chaos). So, excluding quantum randomness, physical systems are deterministic. If you put amino acids in the correct place and position to produce proteins, then they'll produce proteins, every single time. Any deviation can only be attributed to quantum fluctuations which we are discounting. The same goes for stars. Take the correct materials and put them in the correct place in the correct position under the correct conditions, and a star will form.

The idea that you could do this over and over and get the exact same results and call that process "random" makes no sense. Now, maybe you want to talk about how a system arives in that process in the first place. Well this ends up into an infinite regression, going back to the big bang and, ultimately to places science is ignorant about. More specifically, we are ignorant as to how proteins formed in the process of abiogenesis. If you are going to assert it was randomn (in a non-trivial manner) then you are staking claim to some knowledge no one else has. I'd suggest you reveal the justification for the claim, as you'd probably earn yourself fame and a Nobel Prize.

As it is, we are quite capable of reproducing conditions we believe were present during the Early Earth and, through reductionist techniques, have been able to duplicate elements of what we believe must have been part of the abiogenesis process. Consider the Miller-Urey experiments.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 3:50:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/10/2011 10:57:36 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/10/2011 10:46:39 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 11/10/2011 10:33:18 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/10/2011 10:31:20 AM, Lasagna wrote:
The fact that we can't create life in the lab means that the chance occurence of it happening randomly must be unbelievably high - one would have to wait much longer than the current age of the universe (or the pitifully small time between when the Earth formed and life began).

The fact that we can't create a star in the lab means the chance occurence of stars happening randomly must be unbelieveably high - one would have to wait much longer than the current age of the universe (or the pitifully small time between when the Earth formed and life began).

The probability of a star forming randomly is very high. Not so for proteins. Or am I wrong?

First, I was commenting on the absurd notion that because something can't be duplicated in a lab, then it must occur randomnly with such a low probability as to take longer than the age of the universe to happen.

Second, I think the word "randomly" is being abused here. There are known, non-random, conditions under which stars can form. In fact, there is a whole class to describe "failed" stars. Now, we can't get past quantum uncertainty and probabilities, so with any physical system there is a non-zero element of chance (even though quantum uncertainty only becoms significant on subatomic levels). Noting this is trivial, so to specifically call something random and to be saying something of worth, then we must be talking about something above and beyond those quantum factors.

Furthermore, we should not confuse randomness with mere unpredictability (and, hence, chaos). So, excluding quantum randomness, physical systems are deterministic. If you put amino acids in the correct place and position to produce proteins, then they'll produce proteins, every single time. Any deviation can only be attributed to quantum fluctuations which we are discounting. The same goes for stars. Take the correct materials and put them in the correct place in the correct position under the correct conditions, and a star will form.

The idea that you could do this over and over and get the exact same results and call that process "random" makes no sense. Now, maybe you want to talk about how a system arives in that process in the first place. Well this ends up into an infinite regression, going back to the big bang and, ultimately to places science is ignorant about. More specifically, we are ignorant as to how proteins formed in the process of abiogenesis. If you are going to assert it was randomn (in a non-trivial manner) then you are staking claim to some knowledge no one else has. I'd suggest you reveal the justification for the claim, as you'd probably earn yourself fame and a Nobel Prize.

As it is, we are quite capable of reproducing conditions we believe were present during the Early Earth and, through reductionist techniques, have been able to duplicate elements of what we believe must have been part of the abiogenesis process. Consider the Miller-Urey experiments.

I always thought "randomly" meant without any conscious intervention.

The experiments you speak of were successful in producing amino acids. But nothing could get those together to form proteins.

Anyway, I know that we actually don't know much about how life arose, but what can we deduce by the existence of proteins?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 6:29:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/10/2011 3:50:10 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 11/10/2011 10:57:36 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/10/2011 10:46:39 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 11/10/2011 10:33:18 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/10/2011 10:31:20 AM, Lasagna wrote:
The fact that we can't create life in the lab means that the chance occurence of it happening randomly must be unbelievably high - one would have to wait much longer than the current age of the universe (or the pitifully small time between when the Earth formed and life began).

The fact that we can't create a star in the lab means the chance occurence of stars happening randomly must be unbelieveably high - one would have to wait much longer than the current age of the universe (or the pitifully small time between when the Earth formed and life began).

The probability of a star forming randomly is very high. Not so for proteins. Or am I wrong?

First, I was commenting on the absurd notion that because something can't be duplicated in a lab, then it must occur randomnly with such a low probability as to take longer than the age of the universe to happen.

Second, I think the word "randomly" is being abused here. There are known, non-random, conditions under which stars can form. In fact, there is a whole class to describe "failed" stars. Now, we can't get past quantum uncertainty and probabilities, so with any physical system there is a non-zero element of chance (even though quantum uncertainty only becoms significant on subatomic levels). Noting this is trivial, so to specifically call something random and to be saying something of worth, then we must be talking about something above and beyond those quantum factors.

Furthermore, we should not confuse randomness with mere unpredictability (and, hence, chaos). So, excluding quantum randomness, physical systems are deterministic. If you put amino acids in the correct place and position to produce proteins, then they'll produce proteins, every single time. Any deviation can only be attributed to quantum fluctuations which we are discounting. The same goes for stars. Take the correct materials and put them in the correct place in the correct position under the correct conditions, and a star will form.

The idea that you could do this over and over and get the exact same results and call that process "random" makes no sense. Now, maybe you want to talk about how a system arives in that process in the first place. Well this ends up into an infinite regression, going back to the big bang and, ultimately to places science is ignorant about. More specifically, we are ignorant as to how proteins formed in the process of abiogenesis. If you are going to assert it was randomn (in a non-trivial manner) then you are staking claim to some knowledge no one else has. I'd suggest you reveal the justification for the claim, as you'd probably earn yourself fame and a Nobel Prize.

As it is, we are quite capable of reproducing conditions we believe were present during the Early Earth and, through reductionist techniques, have been able to duplicate elements of what we believe must have been part of the abiogenesis process. Consider the Miller-Urey experiments.

I always thought "randomly" meant without any conscious intervention.

random - "proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern"

So, while there may not be aim or reason to the formation of proteins, there is a pattern.


The experiments you speak of were successful in producing amino acids. But nothing could get those together to form proteins.

True. And I can't find, at the moment, any experiment that appears to have done this. Yet we have experiments that produce amino acids, that produce RNA, that produce replicating molecules without the aid of proteins. This is still a very open area, but we're getting closer every day.


Anyway, I know that we actually don't know much about how life arose, but what can we deduce by the existence of proteins?

That they had to have formed somehow.
Chthonian
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 7:15:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/10/2011 3:50:10 PM, Indophile wrote:

Anyway, I know that we actually don't know much about how life arose, but what can we deduce by the existence of proteins?

What we can deduce from the structure of protein is that more than likely the first amino acids came together in the presence of the electronically charged polar molecule, water.

The non-polar amino acids can't interact with the hydrogen or ionic bonds of water and through the phenomena known as the hydrophobic effect the nonpolar amino acids aggregated together increasing the entropy of the system (i.e., aqueous solution of amino acids).

The structure is further stabilized by the covalent bonds formed by the polar amino acids and van der Waals interactions of all the molecules, which releases heat into the surrounding system leading to a negative change in the enthalpy of the system.

When the entropy from the hydrophobic effect and the enthalopy associated with the covalent bond formation and van der Waals interactions creates an overall negative free energy the primary linear amino acid structure spontaneous folds into a functional shape enabling it to interact with other proteins.

The structure of a protein is founded on the idea that energy is neither created nor destroyed, just transferred into another form.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 8:19:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/10/2011 7:15:37 PM, Chthonian wrote:
At 11/10/2011 3:50:10 PM, Indophile wrote:

Anyway, I know that we actually don't know much about how life arose, but what can we deduce by the existence of proteins?

What we can deduce from the structure of protein is that more than likely the first amino acids came together in the presence of the electronically charged polar molecule, water.

The non-polar amino acids can't interact with the hydrogen or ionic bonds of water and through the phenomena known as the hydrophobic effect the nonpolar amino acids aggregated together increasing the entropy of the system (i.e., aqueous solution of amino acids).

The structure is further stabilized by the covalent bonds formed by the polar amino acids and van der Waals interactions of all the molecules, which releases heat into the surrounding system leading to a negative change in the enthalpy of the system.

When the entropy from the hydrophobic effect and the enthalopy associated with the covalent bond formation and van der Waals interactions creates an overall negative free energy the primary linear amino acid structure spontaneous folds into a functional shape enabling it to interact with other proteins.

The structure of a protein is founded on the idea that energy is neither created nor destroyed, just transferred into another form.

I hardly understood what you said.

But can this be recreated?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Chthonian
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 9:32:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/10/2011 8:19:08 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 11/10/2011 7:15:37 PM, Chthonian wrote:
At 11/10/2011 3:50:10 PM, Indophile wrote:

Anyway, I know that we actually don't know much about how life arose, but what can we deduce by the existence of proteins?

What we can deduce from the structure of protein is that more than likely the first amino acids came together in the presence of the electronically charged polar molecule, water.

The non-polar amino acids can't interact with the hydrogen or ionic bonds of water and through the phenomena known as the hydrophobic effect the nonpolar amino acids aggregated together increasing the entropy of the system (i.e., aqueous solution of amino acids).

The structure is further stabilized by the covalent bonds formed by the polar amino acids and van Dar Waals interactions of all the molecules, which releases heat into the surrounding system leading to a negative change in the enthalpy of the system.

When the entropy from the hydrophobic effect and the enthalopy associated with the covalent bond formation and van der Waals interactions creates an overall negative free energy the primary linear amino acid structure spontaneous folds into a functional shape enabling it to interact with other proteins.

The structure of a protein is founded on the idea that energy is neither created nor destroyed, just transferred into another form.

I hardly understood what you said.

But can this be recreated?

Protein structure is being guided by and following the Laws of Thermodynamics, thus they form from naturally occurring chemical reactions.

We have a very limited understanding of what conditions proteins evolved from or how long it took for the first proteins to appear. So, it is unlikely that our current technology can constructing a paradigm in which to test whether proteins that helped generate self-sustaining life on earth can be recreated in the lab.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 11:41:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/10/2011 9:32:48 PM, Chthonian wrote:
At 11/10/2011 8:19:08 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 11/10/2011 7:15:37 PM, Chthonian wrote:
At 11/10/2011 3:50:10 PM, Indophile wrote:

Anyway, I know that we actually don't know much about how life arose, but what can we deduce by the existence of proteins?

What we can deduce from the structure of protein is that more than likely the first amino acids came together in the presence of the electronically charged polar molecule, water.

The non-polar amino acids can't interact with the hydrogen or ionic bonds of water and through the phenomena known as the hydrophobic effect the nonpolar amino acids aggregated together increasing the entropy of the system (i.e., aqueous solution of amino acids).

The structure is further stabilized by the covalent bonds formed by the polar amino acids and van Dar Waals interactions of all the molecules, which releases heat into the surrounding system leading to a negative change in the enthalpy of the system.

When the entropy from the hydrophobic effect and the enthalopy associated with the covalent bond formation and van der Waals interactions creates an overall negative free energy the primary linear amino acid structure spontaneous folds into a functional shape enabling it to interact with other proteins.

The structure of a protein is founded on the idea that energy is neither created nor destroyed, just transferred into another form.

I hardly understood what you said.

But can this be recreated?

Protein structure is being guided by and following the Laws of Thermodynamics, thus they form from naturally occurring chemical reactions.

We have a very limited understanding of what conditions proteins evolved from or how long it took for the first proteins to appear. So, it is unlikely that our current technology can constructing a paradigm in which to test whether proteins that helped generate self-sustaining life on earth can be recreated in the lab.

this sounds reasonable. i would just add that the current theory of the origin of life actually involves an "RNA world" where RNA molecules, rather than polypeptides, catalyzed reactions, and that amino acids are actually quite common in the universe (they've been found on meteors and such) and so it wouldn't be all that unusual to find a chain of them linked together. i will admit though, its a fascinating topic...
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...