Dr.GH

Well. I think that the above seems very reasonable.

Generally, I would like references, as I always try to read the primary literature (or at least know what/where it is). When there are not actual references I tend to take any assertion with a grain (or block) of salt, unless I already know the relevent literature. Unless some point is "common" knowledge, I try to provide references.

As to the proteinoid microspheres per se:

I do wonder what some of the mechanical inputs might do to them? Specifically, what might be the result of the foams produced by wave action. I think I recall from my semi-ancient days as a polymer-chemist that we used foams to capture other molecules. Reactions that were difficult to produce otherwise occured in the foams, and we used pressure to express the products.

Imagine ten thousand miles of wave swept beaches, with 10^100 bubbles trapping and concentrating and providing a reaction environment for poloymers changing every few seconds to a new combination of 10^100 bubbles.

(I should get at least 10% of any grant or contract or invention based on foams and abigenesis) !!!

pz

The only thing said about your comment on microspheres was a statement in agreement. It takes a remarkably paranoid state of mind to turn that into a suspicion that everyone else must be disagreeing with you.

Lighten up. Relax. Stop worrying about it.

Doubting Didymus

What do you think of microspheres, pz? Could prions affect them?


-Didymus, refusing to let a probably worthless idea drop.

DNAunion

DNAunion: Imagine it you'd have to do. Since there are only about 10^80 fundamental particles in the entire observable Universe, I don't see how there could be 10^100 bubbles on a beach. Perhaps you meant something a few dozen orders of magnitude smaller?

Anyway, I am trying to focus on what the original poster asked about: proteinoids (and their microspheres) alone. Are they actual living cells? Do they actually metabolize in a biological sense? Do they actually grow in a biological sense. Do they actually reproduce in a biological sense?

Nic Tamzek

I dunno about prions, but all you really need to get evolution going is replication and inheritance. For proteinoid bubbles, replication is simple -- mechanical action can break them up. And they do have a limited form of inheritance: a split bubble will have a similar composition to it's parent.

What you need is a way for the bubble to preferentially add molecules of a particular type, and have this preference inherited. The details are complex but here is one take on it:

Lipid World articles, freely online

Or this article:

Obcells as proto-organisms: membrane heredity, lithophosphorylation, and the origins of the genetic code, the first cells, and photosynthesis.

RufusAtticus

Unless the microspheres are made of prions. The type of prions that can replicate themselves, do so by converting the "normal" prion type into their type. IOW, they happen to have the enzymatic ability to give other prions the enzymatic ability to give other prions the enzymatic ability to give . . . .

Secular Pinoy

Thanks, but I might not be able to use it after all. The side comments from some of the posters got heated and the thread was closed.

But thanks still. I'll be copying the references and add it to my list.

pz

They're interesting as a small piece of the puzzle, and as an example of the spontaneous generation of order, but I wouldn't go out on a limb for them.Sure, of course. Since their constitution is going to determine their pattern of growth, a prion would be something like a contaminant.They aren't worthless. They're suggestive. Maybe they'll even be important someday.

There just isn't enough data to say one way or the other yet.

Fiach

My computer is the result of purely natural processes. It was made by a natural, bipedal, bimanual primate with a large brain. That primate evolved over several million years from a primate ancestor of apes and man. That ancestral primate evolved from prosimians, and a probable tree dwelling insectivore, which evolved from a burrowing ground dwelling rodent like mammal of the Mesozoic. That primitive mammal evolved by purely natural processes of nucleotide mutations and adaptations from mammal-like reptiles of the Permian and Triassic. And the series goes back to amphibians, lung or lobe fin fishes, to chordates, to a series of creatures whose names evade me now to the Cambrian. In the Precambrian molecules formed from water, in a rich atmosphere of Methane, Ammonia, and Carbon Dioxide. These molecules recombined until some of them had the property of replication.

At a certain point the nucleotides made a lipoprotein perhaps initially as a repellent or waste product but one form stuck in layers forming a cell membrane. Tiny little germs invaded the akaryotic cells to form mitochondria and Golgi, nucleotides grouped into a protective nucleus.

And where did the atoms of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, calcium, sodium, and potassium come from? They were in a condensing cloud that formed our solar system with one planet the right distance from the sun for life. The atoms of the cloud had been around for billions of years since being formed in giant proto-stars that went supernova 100 million years after the big bang. Prior to that there was just hydrogen and helium that eventually clung together and by gravity formed those stars whose nuclear furnaces made the heavier elements of which our computers and we are composed.

No, we don't know the exact mechanism of the Big Bang but we know in general terms much of what followed. Theists feel an emotional need to attribute any and all mysteries to God or gods. Atheist are honest and admit, "I don't know" how the Big Bang occurred.

From the Big Bang to mankind we have rational hypotheses and theories of how we became us. The computer is easy, because it was a by-product of human evolution. We made it. We were made by natural processes in billions of steps over billions of years.

"If it is the god of the bible then you must believe he knows all and will tell the truth."

If I believed in the God of the Bible, I am not convinced that he knows all. In his Jesus form, he didn't know that bacteria cause Leprosy, that neuronal spikes of depolarisation cause epilepsy not daemons. In his Jesus form, he was taken to a mountain by Satan and shown all the nations of the Earth, duh? He didn't know Earth was a sphere. He couldn’t see the Amerindian empires of Central and South America, the Kingdom of Hawaii, The Maori Nations of New Zealand. He also mistakenly thought he would return before those in his audience had passed away. HE WAS WRONG. The Gullible are still waiting.

If God wrote the Bible by proxy, then we must assume that he thought he created the Earth by magic a mere 60 centuries ago. But all we need to disprove that is in my attic. Rocks and fossils over 6000 years old. Some are actually 240 million, 2 billion, and 500 million.

The morality of the Christian God is another huge topic that needs a different thread, but is a major reason for refuting this weird and crazy god. He is also very bad.

“The story of creation then is true. For all of the bible hangs on the beginning and God telling the truth.”

In other words, if you discredit the Biblical Creation Myth, you loose Original Sin, the Fall of Man, the necessity of human sacrifice (god-human to be most valuable), and eternal life. For you to maintain your delusion of immortality, you must accept everything in the Biblical myths or it all collapses. For that reason, no matter how barmy it sounds, if it is Biblical it is true for you.

Fiach

Doubting Didymus

I was under the impression that prions convert other proteins, that don't have to be prions themselves, into prions. Cows, after all, are not made of prions, yet prions are the cause of foot and mouth.

Is there something wrong with my definition of prion? Is it a term in wider use than I've been led to believe?