Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Metabolism appears in lab without cells

drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 11:50:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://www.newscientist.com...

This is a pretty big step forward for abiogenesis, and it looks like they used a very simple method to get it to work. Thoughts?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 4:31:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 11:50:22 PM, drhead wrote:
http://www.newscientist.com...

This is a pretty big step forward for abiogenesis, and it looks like they used a very simple method to get it to work. Thoughts?

I'm unsurprised... the RNA world hypothesis seemed a bit empty by itself, with just replication driving the process. With a metabolism-first or metabolism-driven processs it is actually the 2nd law of thermodynamics that drives the formation of life, rather than driving the destruction of.

I'm not sure about the significance of ribose being formed, are there pathways to producing RNA from high concentrations of ribose abiotically?
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 5:16:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is the actual paper that slanted "news" feed is dealing with

http://msb.embopress.org...

It's obvious what they did was take the metabolites (which are the starting complex molecules) dump them in water with iron floating around heated to 70.

It's not proof of anything except that we can the process can occur in sterile water with iron as the catalyst. That is a far cry from an archaic ocean.
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 9:54:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 5:16:35 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
This is the actual paper that slanted "news" feed is dealing with

http://msb.embopress.org...

It's obvious what they did was take the metabolites (which are the starting complex molecules) dump them in water with iron floating around heated to 70.

It's not proof of anything except that we can the process can occur in sterile water with iron as the catalyst. That is a far cry from an archaic ocean.

Really? How so?
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 10:10:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
This was bio chemistry in a tube. Starting with the molecules doesn't give any evidence to how those molecules came to float around the ocean to begin with. Nor does it address the chirality of the metabolites. The solution they put these chemicals share 2 attributes of the archaic ocean. Impurities and other chemicals in the real archaic ocean would interfere with the metabolic synthesis. They describe the temperature of 70 degrees could be reached near a thermal vent. Thermal vents spit out a lot more than just heat. These additional impurities would have a higher likely hood to chemically react with the metabolites they started with.
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 2:17:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 10:10:18 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
This was bio chemistry in a tube. Starting with the molecules doesn't give any evidence to how those molecules came to float around the ocean to begin with. Nor does it address the chirality of the metabolites. The solution they put these chemicals share 2 attributes of the archaic ocean. Impurities and other chemicals in the real archaic ocean would interfere with the metabolic synthesis. They describe the temperature of 70 degrees could be reached near a thermal vent. Thermal vents spit out a lot more than just heat. These additional impurities would have a higher likely hood to chemically react with the metabolites they started with.

What impurities are you referring to? And what is your evidence that they would interfere? What is your background in chemistry?
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 4:33:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 2:17:06 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 4/27/2014 10:10:18 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
This was bio chemistry in a tube. Starting with the molecules doesn't give any evidence to how those molecules came to float around the ocean to begin with. Nor does it address the chirality of the metabolites. The solution they put these chemicals share 2 attributes of the archaic ocean. Impurities and other chemicals in the real archaic ocean would interfere with the metabolic synthesis. They describe the temperature of 70 degrees could be reached near a thermal vent. Thermal vents spit out a lot more than just heat. These additional impurities would have a higher likely hood to chemically react with the metabolites they started with.

What impurities are you referring to? And what is your evidence that they would interfere? What is your background in chemistry?

What impurities are you referring to? At the hydrothermal vent the exotic chemicals are iron sulfide, barium, calcium, and silicon. [1] If you are revering to the archaic ocean most guesses are similarly

[1]http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov...
[2]http://www.crpg.cnrs-nancy.fr...

What is your background in chemistry? Oh my you caught me. At least you have the actual scientific paper than that news feed that did not even cite the paper. Why would that be?

I bow to your awesome knowledge why don;t you perform the experiment in a context closer to the archaic ocean? Let's see what happens to the 6R08;phosphogluconate.

Wait did it say 6R08;phosphogluconate? I googled that and it shows a picture a pretty fancy picture. http://www.sigmaaldrich.com...... I don;t even know what those different lines mean. Where does that molecule occur abioticly in nature?

Is a process for making http://www.sigmaaldrich.com... possible at 70 degrees? or is an abiotic process for making it more likely at 0 to -20 degrees.

Will those bonds stay intact in a hydrothermal environment floating freely in the aqueous solution? These questions.... too... hard... for... me... I would rather just read the news headlines of the media and spout those off as science proofing my beliefs.
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 6:54:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 4:33:52 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/27/2014 2:17:06 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 4/27/2014 10:10:18 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
This was bio chemistry in a tube. Starting with the molecules doesn't give any evidence to how those molecules came to float around the ocean to begin with. Nor does it address the chirality of the metabolites. The solution they put these chemicals share 2 attributes of the archaic ocean. Impurities and other chemicals in the real archaic ocean would interfere with the metabolic synthesis. They describe the temperature of 70 degrees could be reached near a thermal vent. Thermal vents spit out a lot more than just heat. These additional impurities would have a higher likely hood to chemically react with the metabolites they started with.

What impurities are you referring to? And what is your evidence that they would interfere? What is your background in chemistry?

What impurities are you referring to? At the hydrothermal vent the exotic chemicals are iron sulfide, barium, calcium, and silicon. [1] If you are revering to the archaic ocean most guesses are similarly

[1]http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov...
[2]http://www.crpg.cnrs-nancy.fr...

What is your background in chemistry? Oh my you caught me. At least you have the actual scientific paper than that news feed that did not even cite the paper. Why would that be?

I bow to your awesome knowledge why don;t you perform the experiment in a context closer to the archaic ocean? Let's see what happens to the 6R08;phosphogluconate.

Wait did it say 6R08;phosphogluconate? I googled that and it shows a picture a pretty fancy picture. http://www.sigmaaldrich.com...... I don;t even know what those different lines mean. Where does that molecule occur abioticly in nature?

Is a process for making http://www.sigmaaldrich.com... possible at 70 degrees? or is an abiotic process for making it more likely at 0 to -20 degrees.

Will those bonds stay intact in a hydrothermal environment floating freely in the aqueous solution? These questions.... too... hard... for... me... I would rather just read the news headlines of the media and spout those off as science proofing my beliefs.

I dont appreciate your sarcastic attitude. I asked you to back up your assertion. I will also mention that I happen to be a career scientist, so dont accuse me of blindly following the article without understanding the science behind it.

Also, none of the minerals you describe as impurities would alter the reaction.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 7:04:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 4:33:52 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/27/2014 2:17:06 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 4/27/2014 10:10:18 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
This was bio chemistry in a tube. Starting with the molecules doesn't give any evidence to how those molecules came to float around the ocean to begin with. Nor does it address the chirality of the metabolites. The solution they put these chemicals share 2 attributes of the archaic ocean. Impurities and other chemicals in the real archaic ocean would interfere with the metabolic synthesis. They describe the temperature of 70 degrees could be reached near a thermal vent. Thermal vents spit out a lot more than just heat. These additional impurities would have a higher likely hood to chemically react with the metabolites they started with.

What impurities are you referring to? And what is your evidence that they would interfere? What is your background in chemistry?

What impurities are you referring to? At the hydrothermal vent the exotic chemicals are iron sulfide, barium, calcium, and silicon. [1] If you are revering to the archaic ocean most guesses are similarly

[1]http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov...
[2]http://www.crpg.cnrs-nancy.fr...

What is your background in chemistry? Oh my you caught me. At least you have the actual scientific paper than that news feed that did not even cite the paper. Why would that be?

I bow to your awesome knowledge why don;t you perform the experiment in a context closer to the archaic ocean? Let's see what happens to the 6R08;phosphogluconate.

Wait did it say 6R08;phosphogluconate? I googled that and it shows a picture a pretty fancy picture. http://www.sigmaaldrich.com...... I don;t even know what those different lines mean. Where does that molecule occur abioticly in nature?

Is a process for making http://www.sigmaaldrich.com... possible at 70 degrees? or is an abiotic process for making it more likely at 0 to -20 degrees.

Will those bonds stay intact in a hydrothermal environment floating freely in the aqueous solution? These questions.... too... hard... for... me... I would rather just read the news headlines of the media and spout those off as science proofing my beliefs.

Here is the paper.
http://msb.embopress.org...
Had you read it, rather than make assumptions based on a magazine article (the very same thing you accuse me of doing), you would've realized that the researchers did indeed include the chemical composition of said "hydro-thermal" (since you insist on using unnecessarily complex terms to refer to a simple concept) environment in the experiments. Furthermore, the chemical composition was not guessed and speculated, rather extracted from samples dating from the period.

I ask again, What evidence do you have to back up your claims? What is your background in chemistry?
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 9:28:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I ask again, What evidence do you have to back up your claims? What is your background in chemistry? My claims should stand on the evidence not who or what I am. I have 0 knowledge of chemistry. Closest I ever got to chemistry is making jello in my kitchen. And that was pretty cool. I can't explain how it happened.

Thanks for just reinserting the same link I gave earlier. I gave the link to the paper for clarity. You will see earlier I stated they produced the results in a non-oxygenated water with dissolved in it. This is written in the paper, "These observations reveal that reaction sequences that constitute central carbon metabolism could have been constrained by the ironR08;rich oceanic environment of the early Archean" I made the observation that this is not the mixture of the Archean Ocean. The Archean Ocean includes other minerals nickel, zinc etc... I also made the observation that they started with precursor metabolites to the pathways. Which is true.

In closing the test does not describe the formation of these metabolites. These metabolites are only know to form naturally in biotic systems. and they are all right handed. Again this test does not make an hypothesis on how these molecules first appear naturally. Nor how they would appear all right handed. The Archean Ocean solution they describe does not take into account the chemicals emitted by a hydrothermal vent. I already presented links for you to see what these chemicals would be. You say these trace chemicals would have no effect. Yet you have not performed the chemical test to confirm this. I reason from my knowledge of the molecules involved that the iron sulfide emitted by the thermal vent would chemically react to the metabolites disrupting the pentose pathway.
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 10:10:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 9:28:37 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
I ask again, What evidence do you have to back up your claims? What is your background in chemistry? My claims should stand on the evidence not who or what I am. I have 0 knowledge of chemistry. Closest I ever got to chemistry is making jello in my kitchen. And that was pretty cool. I can't explain how it happened.

Thanks for just reinserting the same link I gave earlier.

My pleasure, Sir.

I gave the link to the paper for clarity.

As did I.

You will see earlier I stated they produced the results in a non-oxygenated water with dissolved in it.
Please clarify, with what dissolved in it?

Second, after reading the entire report, I fail to see where the solution was non-oxygenated.

This is written in the paper, "These observations reveal that reaction sequences that constitute central carbon metabolism could have been constrained by the ironR08;rich oceanic environment of the early Archean"
I made the observation that this is not the mixture of the Archean Ocean.

Please clarify, are you saying that the Archean Ocean was not rich in Fe(III)? Can you provide evidence for this assertion?

The Archean Ocean includes other minerals nickel, zinc etc... I also made the observation that they started with precursor metabolites to the pathways. Which is true.

I fail to see how this applies to the discussion. Are you saying that it somehow nullifies the experiment? Consider the fact the solution contained Na, Cl, K, BOSUB3, F, POSUB4, Mg, Ca, Si, Mo, Co, Ni and Fe, all in concentrations representative of the Archean environment based on previous research.

In closing the test does not describe the formation of these metabolites.

This is a perplexing assertion, considering your claim to have read and understood this report. Sir, the entire paper is dedicated to describing the formation of said metabolites. I suggest reviewing the report one more time.

These metabolites are only know to form naturally in biotic systems.

Au contraire, this experiment is evidence that they can and do indeed form in a non-enzymatic environment.

and they are all right handed.

Sir, I haven't the slightest idea as to what you mean by this.

Again this test does not make an hypothesis on how these molecules first appear naturally. Nor how they would appear all right handed.

Please clarify. Have you actually read the paper?

The Archean Ocean solution they describe does not take into account the chemicals emitted by a hydrothermal vent.

Sir, with all due respect, there is an entire section in this report detailing the fact that they do indeed take the environment chemistry into account. Please review the paper.

I already presented links for you to see what these chemicals would be.

I will overlook the fact that you post a high school worksheet to support your argument, on merit of the publisher.

You say these trace chemicals would have no effect. Yet you have not performed the chemical test to confirm this.

First off, this very test was done by the researchers in this experiment.

Second, recreating and experimenting with metabolic reactions is standard in the average undergrad biology curriculum, so in all actuality, yes I did.

I reason from my knowledge of the molecules involved that the iron sulfide emitted by the thermal vent would chemically react to the metabolites disrupting the pentose pathway.

Sir, I intend no disrespect when I say this, but you have stated yourself that the closest you have come to any sort of chemistry is making jello in your kitchen. What makes you think that you're understanding of this reaction is acute enough to make your assertions?
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 10:26:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Sir, I intend no disrespect when I say this, but you have stated yourself that the closest you have come to any sort of chemistry is making jello in your kitchen. What makes you think that you're understanding of this reaction is acute enough to make your assertions?

None, none at all I read it somewhere on Talkorigins.org. Are you saying Iron-Sulfide wouldn't react to disrupt the pentose pathway?
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 10:33:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 10:26:13 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Sir, I intend no disrespect when I say this, but you have stated yourself that the closest you have come to any sort of chemistry is making jello in your kitchen. What makes you think that you're understanding of this reaction is acute enough to make your assertions?

None, none at all I read it somewhere on Talkorigins.org. Are you saying Iron-Sulfide wouldn't react to disrupt the pentose pathway?

Not the Fe(III)SUB3 SSUB4 Stoichiometric formula described in the research cited in the paper. Talkorigins is a terrible source for scientific information. This isnt the first time ive come across a blatant lie propagated by the organization. Please note that i am a theist, i do believe in god. I just dont think he would want us to lie about science in his name.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 10:39:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The Fe(III) is an Iron Oxide. Which most evidence suggests was quite abundant in the Archean Ocean. This however is not the Iron Sulfide emitted by thermal vents. Chirality is that molecules can be right handed or left handed. IN biology all the proteins are left handed and sugars are right handed.
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 10:59:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 10:39:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
The Fe(III) is an Iron Oxide. Which most evidence suggests was quite abundant in the Archean Ocean. This however is not the Iron Sulfide emitted by thermal vents. Chirality is that molecules can be right handed or left handed. IN biology all the proteins are left handed and sugars are right handed.

You've only looked at one part of the formula, sir. The entire formula is as follows:

Fe(III)SUB3 SSUB4

This is the formula of Iron Sulfide most commonly found in and around thermal vents.

Thank you for clarifying your reference to chirality. In our lab we refer to it as orientation, not handedness, thus my confusion.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 11:28:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"The influence of ferrous iron [Fe(II)] under anoxic conditions" - the non free floating oxygen I spoke of. actually necessary cause most molecules for life oxide so easily.

one of the headers of was "Chemical constituents of the preR08;oxygenation oceans catalyse multiple complex sugar phosphate interconversion reactions" Did you read the article? if you had why did you ask why I said it was non-oxygenated or had little to none free floating oxygen.

"specifically interR08;converted by the Archean ocean mimetic, was mostly sensitive to the presence of iron. The other metal constituents (Co, Ni, Mo), as well as phosphate, contributed to the catalysis of a subset of the interconversion reactions only (Fig 2B). Indeed, iron is of particular importance in the Archean ocean, as its concentration was likely much higher than today"

"This is the consequence of the different solubility of ferric and ferrous iron: whereas ferrous iron is readily water soluble in the absence of oxygen, its oxidized form Fe(III) is not. Indeed, the geochemical record indicates that anoxic conditions were present over most of early earth's surface environment"

"To simulate an Archean ocean in the presence of ferrous iron [Fe(II)], the following series of experiments were conducted under anoxic conditions by controlling the O2 concentration below 8 ppm, and monitoring the iron redox state (Materials and Methods). Whereas iron was present as ferric iron in the normoxic solutions, the anoxic conditions preserved iron in its ferrous form"

What do is ferrous iron Fe(II) = iron oxide. What is the Fe(III) described? answer Ferric Iron, which is an iron oxide

These Iron oxides were dominant in the water (note also anoxic). Nothing in the Article points to the chemical Iron Sulfide emitted by thermal vents. Again I ask you, Are you asserting Iron Sulfide wouldn't react with the metabolites and disrupt the pentose pathway?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 11:48:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The OP is self identified Agnostic, and the 2nd Poster self identified as an Atheist. Their post make it appear they did not read or understand Scientific paper. I doubt they even tracked it down considering it was not cited in the OP's original link.

You can not reason with the unreasonable. Atheist tend to read some headline and go around espousing it as proof there is no need for a Deity in such events. This may or may not be true. But to propagate deception based on a belief (or lack of belief) based on faith, deserves to be ridiculed. Don't get me wrong belief by faith is not inherently wrong in every situation, but when applied to the physical world it is counter to the scientific claim.

I agree we should not lie about science in God's name. In most monotheistic views today God made the world. How can studying his craftsmanship be counter to him?

It is important to note that science is by its nature pragmatic about the supernatural and God in general. But the scientific method is not the only way to truth.

A reasonable mind knows it must be reasonable in the context it is exploring. Not that the process is equally valid for all contexts.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 12:28:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Case in point, Atheism means lack of belief in god. Some still adhere to that definition.

But a belief does not have to be rational. It merely denotes faith and trust. So many want to change the meaning of Atheism into : denial of god and gods. This is because they see the very nonscientific or reasoning of their position in the title atheist.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 4:23:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 10:59:13 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 4/27/2014 10:39:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
The Fe(III) is an Iron Oxide. Which most evidence suggests was quite abundant in the Archean Ocean. This however is not the Iron Sulfide emitted by thermal vents. Chirality is that molecules can be right handed or left handed. IN biology all the proteins are left handed and sugars are right handed.

You've only looked at one part of the formula, sir. The entire formula is as follows:

Fe(III)SUB3 SSUB4

This is the formula of Iron Sulfide most commonly found in and around thermal vents.

Thank you for clarifying your reference to chirality. In our lab we refer to it as orientation, not handedness, thus my confusion.

Sufficient? @PotBelliedGeek
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 4:38:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 10:59:13 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 4/27/2014 10:39:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
The Fe(III) is an Iron Oxide. Which most evidence suggests was quite abundant in the Archean Ocean. This however is not the Iron Sulfide emitted by thermal vents. Chirality is that molecules can be right handed or left handed. IN biology all the proteins are left handed and sugars are right handed.

You've only looked at one part of the formula, sir. The entire formula is as follows:

Fe(III)SUB3 SSUB4

This is the formula of Iron Sulfide most commonly found in and around thermal vents.

Thank you for clarifying your reference to chirality. In our lab we refer to it as orientation, not handedness, thus my confusion.

In the paper I did not see any Iron Sulfide. no where did I find Fe(III)SUB3 S SUB4, could you point out where this is sir?

And I could be mistaken, because all I know of chemistry was what was written on a jello box, but.. I'm pretty sure the Iron Sulfide that comes from a thermal vent is non-stoichiometric. So you would be doubly wrong.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 4:54:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 6:54:22 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 4/27/2014 4:33:52 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/27/2014 2:17:06 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 4/27/2014 10:10:18 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
This was bio chemistry in a tube. Starting with the molecules doesn't give any evidence to how those molecules came to float around the ocean to begin with. Nor does it address the chirality of the metabolites. The solution they put these chemicals share 2 attributes of the archaic ocean. Impurities and other chemicals in the real archaic ocean would interfere with the metabolic synthesis. They describe the temperature of 70 degrees could be reached near a thermal vent. Thermal vents spit out a lot more than just heat. These additional impurities would have a higher likely hood to chemically react with the metabolites they started with.

What impurities are you referring to? And what is your evidence that they would interfere? What is your background in chemistry?

What impurities are you referring to? At the hydrothermal vent the exotic chemicals are iron sulfide, barium, calcium, and silicon. [1] If you are revering to the archaic ocean most guesses are similarly

[1]http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov...
[2]http://www.crpg.cnrs-nancy.fr...

What is your background in chemistry? Oh my you caught me. At least you have the actual scientific paper than that news feed that did not even cite the paper. Why would that be?

I bow to your awesome knowledge why don;t you perform the experiment in a context closer to the archaic ocean? Let's see what happens to the 6R08;phosphogluconate.

Wait did it say 6R08;phosphogluconate? I googled that and it shows a picture a pretty fancy picture. http://www.sigmaaldrich.com...... I don;t even know what those different lines mean. Where does that molecule occur abioticly in nature?

Is a process for making http://www.sigmaaldrich.com... possible at 70 degrees? or is an abiotic process for making it more likely at 0 to -20 degrees.

Will those bonds stay intact in a hydrothermal environment floating freely in the aqueous solution? These questions.... too... hard... for... me... I would rather just read the news headlines of the media and spout those off as science proofing my beliefs.

I dont appreciate your sarcastic attitude. I asked you to back up your assertion. I will also mention that I happen to be a career scientist, so don't accuse me of blindly following the article without understanding the science behind it.

Also, none of the minerals you describe as impurities would alter the reaction.

The iron Sulfide emitted by thermal vents would interrupt the pentose pathways. that is my assertion. But you still would have a way out of this mess. Iron Sulfide is a key part in metabolic enzyme used in extremophile. thank you for playing along
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 4:57:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 4:38:51 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/27/2014 10:59:13 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 4/27/2014 10:39:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
The Fe(III) is an Iron Oxide. Which most evidence suggests was quite abundant in the Archean Ocean. This however is not the Iron Sulfide emitted by thermal vents. Chirality is that molecules can be right handed or left handed. IN biology all the proteins are left handed and sugars are right handed.

You've only looked at one part of the formula, sir. The entire formula is as follows:

Fe(III)SUB3 SSUB4

This is the formula of Iron Sulfide most commonly found in and around thermal vents.

Thank you for clarifying your reference to chirality. In our lab we refer to it as orientation, not handedness, thus my confusion.

In the paper I did not see any Iron Sulfide. no where did I find Fe(III)SUB3 S SUB4, could you point out where this is sir?

And I could be mistaken, because all I know of chemistry was what was written on a jello box, but.. I'm pretty sure the Iron Sulfide that comes from a thermal vent is non-stoichiometric. So you would be doubly wrong.

Iron sulfide as far as I understand is extremely insoluble in water, it just crashes out and crystallizes. Moreover I don't see how it would inhibit an iron-catalysed reaction even if it were water soluble, as it's just tied-up iron (sulphur is a ridiculously good transition metal binder, and basically doesn't do much once it's bound), it can reduce stuff and is pretty good at making thinks from carbon monoxide amongst other things, but I fail to see how it would inhibit stuff in the pathway, have iron sulfide so been reported to do so?

As far as I can tell, the experiment didn't test this, it may or may not be a factor, just don't know.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 5:07:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 4:57:26 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/28/2014 4:38:51 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/27/2014 10:59:13 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 4/27/2014 10:39:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
The Fe(III) is an Iron Oxide. Which most evidence suggests was quite abundant in the Archean Ocean. This however is not the Iron Sulfide emitted by thermal vents. Chirality is that molecules can be right handed or left handed. IN biology all the proteins are left handed and sugars are right handed.

You've only looked at one part of the formula, sir. The entire formula is as follows:

Fe(III)SUB3 SSUB4

This is the formula of Iron Sulfide most commonly found in and around thermal vents.

Thank you for clarifying your reference to chirality. In our lab we refer to it as orientation, not handedness, thus my confusion.

In the paper I did not see any Iron Sulfide. no where did I find Fe(III)SUB3 S SUB4, could you point out where this is sir?

And I could be mistaken, because all I know of chemistry was what was written on a jello box, but.. I'm pretty sure the Iron Sulfide that comes from a thermal vent is non-stoichiometric. So you would be doubly wrong.

Iron sulfide as far as I understand is extremely insoluble in water, it just crashes out and crystallizes. Moreover I don't see how it would inhibit an iron-catalysed reaction even if it were water soluble, as it's just tied-up iron (sulphur is a ridiculously good transition metal binder, and basically doesn't do much once it's bound), it can reduce stuff and is pretty good at making thinks from carbon monoxide amongst other things, but I fail to see how it would inhibit stuff in the pathway, have iron sulfide so been reported to do so?

As far as I can tell, the experiment didn't test this, it may or may not be a factor, just don't know.

I don't know. That's honest position. I gave an example of where the iron sulfide is used in the metabolism by extremophiles. I'm not sure but I think the anoxic water makes it more soluble. It would be an interesting test. for the sake of clarity I will change my assertion to an hypothesis.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 7:38:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 5:16:35 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
This is the actual paper that slanted "news" feed is dealing with

http://msb.embopress.org...

New Scientist did include the reference to the paper.

It's obvious what they did was take the metabolites (which are the starting complex molecules) dump them in water with iron floating around heated to 70.

It's not proof of anything except that we can the process can occur in sterile water with iron as the catalyst. That is a far cry from an archaic ocean.

Actually, they tested three cases. One of these cases was pure water, but two others were approximations of early oceans based on previous research done. Contrary to your claim that these reactions should only be expected in sterile water, the pure water tests had lower formation rate, exhibited fewer of the reactions making up metabolic pathways pathways, and were less stable.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 8:08:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 7:38:35 PM, Enji wrote:
At 4/27/2014 5:16:35 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
This is the actual paper that slanted "news" feed is dealing with

http://msb.embopress.org...

New Scientist did include the reference to the paper.

It's obvious what they did was take the metabolites (which are the starting complex molecules) dump them in water with iron floating around heated to 70.

It's not proof of anything except that we can the process can occur in sterile water with iron as the catalyst. That is a far cry from an archaic ocean.

Actually, they tested three cases. One of these cases was pure water, but two others were approximations of early oceans based on previous research done. Contrary to your claim that these reactions should only be expected in sterile water, the pure water tests had lower formation rate, exhibited fewer of the reactions making up metabolic pathways pathways, and were less stable.

on review they did provide the link. the conditions of the ocean were met not of the thermal vent. further posts with potbelliedeek show in more clarity my assesment.