| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Bob White" |
| Date: |
12 Nov 2003 11:07:05 AM |
| Object: |
formation of first cells |
A role for clay in formation of the first cells
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/11.06/01-liveclay.html
.
|
|
| User: "Dr. DuFonet" |
|
| Title: Re: formation of first cells |
14 Nov 2003 05:07:48 AM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MMtsb.133535$9E1.666025@attbi_s52...
A role for clay in formation of the first cells
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/11.06/01-liveclay.html
This is not new. I heard about it many years ago. Are you saying man was
made from earth?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Uhrich" |
|
| Title: Re: formation of first cells |
12 Nov 2003 11:17:31 AM |
|
|
Bob White wrote:
A role for clay in formation of the first cells
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/11.06/01-liveclay.html
Clay is evidence of intelligent design. :-)
--
Richard Uhrich
---
"so skeptical, I can hardly believe it" -- Penn Jillette quoting Chip Denman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill, The Avender" |
|
| Title: Re: formation of first cells |
12 Nov 2003 09:41:29 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:17:31 +0000 (UTC), Richard
Uhrich <uhrich@san.rr.com> wrote:
Bob White wrote:
A role for clay in formation of the first cells
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/11.06/01-liveclay.html
Clay is evidence of intelligent design. :-)
Explain? Or were you being sarcastic?
--
L8r,
Bill, the Avender
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
The older I get, the more I realize that each new generation is
defined by the manner in which it's irritated the previous one.
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
.
|
|
|
| User: "observa" |
|
| Title: Re: formation of first cells |
12 Nov 2003 09:54:36 PM |
|
|
"Bill, The Avender" <Avender@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message
news:3fb8fd4c.10605956@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
In alt.atheism on Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:17:31 +0000 (UTC), Richard
Uhrich <uhrich@san.rr.com> wrote:
Bob White wrote:
A role for clay in formation of the first cells
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/11.06/01-liveclay.html
Clay is evidence of intelligent design. :-)
Explain? Or were you being sarcastic?
--
He was being sarcastic (I think) and refering to the biblical creation myth.
Adam made from clay (coal?).
Alan Jeffery
L8r,
Bill, the Avender
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
The older I get, the more I realize that each new generation is
defined by the manner in which it's irritated the previous one.
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.538 / Virus Database: 333 - Release Date: 10/11/2003
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Uhrich" |
|
| Title: Re: formation of first cells |
12 Nov 2003 11:09:59 PM |
|
|
Bill, The Avender wrote:
In alt.atheism on Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:17:31 +0000 (UTC), Richard
Uhrich <uhrich@san.rr.com> wrote:
Bob White wrote:
A role for clay in formation of the first cells
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/11.06/01-liveclay.html
Clay is evidence of intelligent design. :-)
Explain? Or were you being sarcastic?
The smiley face indicates I was being facetious.
--
Richard Uhrich
---
"so skeptical, I can hardly believe it" -- Penn Jillette quoting Chip Denman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill, The Avender" |
|
| Title: Re: formation of first cells |
13 Nov 2003 04:56:47 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Thu, 13 Nov 2003 05:09:59 +0000 (UTC), Richard
Uhrich <uhrich@san.rr.com> wrote:
Bill, The Avender wrote:
In alt.atheism on Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:17:31 +0000 (UTC), Richard
Uhrich <uhrich@san.rr.com> wrote:
Bob White wrote:
A role for clay in formation of the first cells
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/11.06/01-liveclay.html
Clay is evidence of intelligent design. :-)
Explain? Or were you being sarcastic?
The smiley face indicates I was being facetious.
Oh, okay. :-) I've seen plenty of fundamentalists use smiley faces
like that just to be irritating, rather than to indicate that they
were be facetious. Sorry 'bout that! :-)
--
L8r,
Bill, the Avender
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
The older I get, the more I realize that each new generation is
defined by the manner in which it's irritated the previous one.
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Uhrich" |
|
| Title: Re: formation of first cells |
13 Nov 2003 05:26:00 PM |
|
|
Bill, The Avender wrote:
In alt.atheism on Thu, 13 Nov 2003 05:09:59 +0000 (UTC), Richard
Uhrich <uhrich@san.rr.com> wrote:
Bill, The Avender wrote:
In alt.atheism on Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:17:31 +0000 (UTC), Richard
Uhrich <uhrich@san.rr.com> wrote:
Bob White wrote:
A role for clay in formation of the first cells
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/11.06/01-liveclay.html
Clay is evidence of intelligent design. :-)
Explain? Or were you being sarcastic?
The smiley face indicates I was being facetious.
Oh, okay. :-) I've seen plenty of fundamentalists use smiley faces
like that just to be irritating, rather than to indicate that they
were be facetious. Sorry 'bout that! :-)
--
No problem. Glad to clarify.
L8r,
Bill, the Avender
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
The older I get, the more I realize that each new generation is
defined by the manner in which it's irritated the previous one.
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
--
Richard Uhrich
---
"so skeptical, I can hardly believe it" -- Penn Jillette quoting Chip Denman
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "catshark" |
|
| Title: Re: formation of first cells |
13 Nov 2003 06:34:33 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:17:31 +0000 (UTC), Richard Uhrich
<uhrich@san.rr.com> wrote:
[Probably not worth it, but this got lost the 1st time . . . ]
Bob White wrote:
A role for clay in formation of the first cells
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/11.06/01-liveclay.html
Clay is evidence of intelligent design. :-)
Clay is as intelligent as most design advocates.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
The peril of negative arguments is that they may rest on
our lack of knowledge, rather than on positive results.
- Michael J. Behe -
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marty Erwin" |
|
| Title: Re: formation of first cells |
12 Nov 2003 07:04:37 PM |
|
|
Clays are in suspension in the water as very fine particles(think future
shales). Deposition of clays on benthic surfaces is not essential for
substrate catalyzed reactions to occur. Indeed, greater surface area (at
least 2x) is available when clays are in suspension, increasing both the
probability and rate of substrate catalyzed reaction. Ironic in a way, the
same substance (clay) which beautifully preserves soft-bodied fauna in the
fossil record might be involved in the intial rise of life.
M. Erwin
Dept. of Biological Sciences
UNLV
I believe that history might be, and ought to be, taught in a new fashion so
as to make the meaning of it as a process of evolution intelligible to the
young.
Thomas Henry Huxley
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MMtsb.133535$9E1.666025@attbi_s52...
A role for clay in formation of the first cells
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/11.06/01-liveclay.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wade Hines" |
|
| Title: Re: formation of first cells |
13 Nov 2003 10:57:24 PM |
|
|
"Marty Erwin" <thunnus@cox.net> allegedly scribed
Clays are in suspension in the water as very fine particles(think
future shales). Deposition of clays on benthic surfaces is not
essential for substrate catalyzed reactions to occur. Indeed, greater
surface area (at least 2x) is available when clays are in suspension,
increasing both the probability and rate of substrate catalyzed
reaction. Ironic in a way, the same substance (clay) which beautifully
preserves soft-bodied fauna in the fossil record might be involved in
the intial rise of life.
That's all well and good but now consider the advantages afforded by
reaction occuring in films on surfaces rather than in suspension. Refer
if you will to the standard thinking on why membranes associated
reactions in cells. A very modest increase in surface area is
completely countered by the advantages of limiting diffusion.
So say'th a Pooh-bear of very little brain.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marty Erwin" |
|
| Title: Re: formation of first cells |
14 Nov 2003 02:11:40 AM |
|
|
"Wade Hines" <wade.hines@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9432F341783FCwadehinesrcncom@199.184.165.241...
"Marty Erwin" <thunnus@cox.net> allegedly scribed
Clays are in suspension in the water as very fine particles(think
future shales). Deposition of clays on benthic surfaces is not
essential for substrate catalyzed reactions to occur. Indeed, greater
surface area (at least 2x) is available when clays are in suspension,
increasing both the probability and rate of substrate catalyzed
reaction. Ironic in a way, the same substance (clay) which beautifully
preserves soft-bodied fauna in the fossil record might be involved in
the intial rise of life.
That's all well and good but now consider the advantages afforded by
reaction occuring in films on surfaces rather than in suspension. Refer
if you will to the standard thinking on why membranes associated
reactions in cells. A very modest increase in surface area is
completely countered by the advantages of limiting diffusion.
So say'th a Pooh-bear of very little brain.
Wade,
Your points are valid and if I was proposing a full mechanism for the
formation of a proto-cell I'd tend to agree with you. As it is, I've
considered it, and initially, at any rate, I'm thinking that the
probabilities are higher in suspension than as films. 2X is not an
insignificant nor modest increase in surface area and the reactants are also
in solution. I'm not particularly concerned about the formation of micelles
at his point, instead thinking about the possible "pre-assembly" of
components that may later be integrated into proto-cells.
ME
As a natural process, of the same character as the development of a tree
from its seed, or of a fowl from its egg, evolution excludes creation and
all other kinds of supernatural intervention.
Thomas Henry Huxley
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wade Hines" |
|
| Title: Re: formation of first cells |
15 Nov 2003 11:05:57 AM |
|
|
"Marty Erwin" <thunnus@cox.net> allegedly scribed
"Wade Hines" <wade.hines@rcn.com> wrote in message
"Marty Erwin" <thunnus@cox.net> allegedly scribed
Clays are in suspension in the water as very fine particles(think
future shales). Deposition of clays on benthic surfaces is not
essential for substrate catalyzed reactions to occur. Indeed,
greater surface area (at least 2x) is available when clays are in
suspension, increasing both the probability and rate of substrate
catalyzed reaction. Ironic in a way, the same substance (clay) which
beautifully preserves soft-bodied fauna in the fossil record might
be involved in the intial rise of life.
That's all well and good but now consider the advantages afforded by
reaction occuring in films on surfaces rather than in suspension.
Refer if you will to the standard thinking on why membranes associated
reactions in cells. A very modest increase in surface area is
completely countered by the advantages of limiting diffusion.
So say'th a Pooh-bear of very little brain.
Your points are valid and if I was proposing a full mechanism for the
formation of a proto-cell I'd tend to agree with you. As it is, I've
considered it, and initially, at any rate, I'm thinking that the
probabilities are higher in suspension than as films. 2X is not an
insignificant nor modest increase in surface area and the reactants are
also in solution. I'm not particularly concerned about the formation of
micelles at his point, instead thinking about the possible
"pre-assembly" of components that may later be integrated into
proto-cells.
I think you missed my point. I'm not concerned with formation of cells
or protocells but with diffusion. The significance of chemistry on
membranes is effective concentration. For a reaction that proceeds
as A -> B -> C, B is both a product and a reactant, quite obviously
(I go pedantic for clairity). The significance of reactions occuring
in films is that B can be produced at a significantly enhanced
effective concentration thus driving the formation of C.
My meager understanding of cellular biochemistry notes that co-ordiantion
of reactions. Finding nicely specific stereo-selective catalyzed
reactions on inorganic clays is a small part of the challenge of
prebiotic chemistry. Compound reactions are key. So are co-ordinated
redox reactions. Micelles are noteworthy for their ability to
house compounds to keep them from diffusing away in a macroscopic
sense but the microstate hand off of the product of one reaction
as a substrate for a subsequent reaction is more significant - in
my opinion. Thus, suspensions of clay particles is less favorable
than films on clay surfaces.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill, The Avender" |
|
| Title: Re: formation of first cells |
14 Nov 2003 10:04:43 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Fri, 14 Nov 2003 08:11:40 +0000 (UTC), "Marty Erwin"
<thunnus@cox.net> wrote:
I'm not particularly concerned about the formation of micelles
at his point, instead thinking about the possible "pre-assembly" of
components that may later be integrated into proto-cells.
While I'm far from being a professional in the field, I nonetheless
love the organic sciences. As any such person would, I've
contemplated the origin of the first proto-membranes. Since the
subject's come up, I figured I might as well ask about one scenario
that's run through my mind on occasion:
A pre-biotic self-replicating chemical reaction emerges. As these
reactions become increasingly complex, the molecules begin emitting
more interesting types of "waste". Some of these molecules eventually
evolve to "excrete" their waste in the form of an outgrowth -
something like hair, horns or fingernails, but on a molecular level.
As with many (most?) organic molecules, the waste product grows from
the primary molecule with a curve. Eventually, such a growth would
end up curving back onto itself. It would be an almost certainty that
such a growth would eventually evolve to fuse shut once it's curled
back onto itself. There is no reason an outgrowth would need to form
as a strand, it very well could emerge as a curved "sheet" of
molecules (like human fingernails). Such an outgrowth fusing itself
shut around a central self-replicating molecule would almost be the
very definition of a cell, as far as I can see. The continued growth
of this membrane even once it's fused shut could easily evolve into
the process we see as cellular division. It might be a little more
difficult for this system to evolve in such a way that each "sloughed
off" proto-cell carries with it a copy of the original source
molecule, but the molecule is self-replicating any way. It would
still be generating "offspring", and its offspring would have to go
'somewhere'. Going with one of the sloughed-off membranes - or
perhaps being formed as part of the excess membrane as it's developing
- wouldn't be too big a stretch. Once you have proto-cells, it should
be a very swift evolution into true cells as we know them today. Now
this is going to sound _really_ "way off", but just keep in mind that
I've done no professional study in the matter. However, iirc, most
basic chemical reactions occur very rapidly on a molecular scale.
With the right molecules being energized in the right way, it almost
seems like they should be able to reach at least a "quasi-membranous"
stage in a matter of days. But it sounds far too simple to be true,
so I'm sure I'm missing something.
Anyway, there it is. With so many chemical reactions possible, I
would be hard pressed to believe that the any of the reactions
described above would be impossible. But not being a chemist of _any_
sort, let alone an organic chemist, I don't know for sure. Whatcha'
think? Is such a concept even remotely plausible? :-?
--
L8r,
Bill, the Avender
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
"I'm not an actor, but I play one on T.V...."
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marty Erwin" |
|
| Title: Re: formation of first cells |
12 Nov 2003 08:00:12 PM |
|
|
Clays are in suspension in the water as very fine particles(think future
shales). Deposition of clays on benthic surfaces is not essential for
substrate catalyzed reactions to occur. Indeed, greater surface area (at
least 2x) is available when clays are in suspension, increasing both the
probability and rate of substrate catalyzed reaction. Ironic in a way, the
same substance (clay) which beautifully preserves soft-bodied fauna in the
fossil record might be involved in the intial rise of life.
M. Erwin
Dept. of Biological Sciences
UNLV
I believe that history might be, and ought to be, taught in a new fashion so
as to make the meaning of it as a process of evolution intelligible to the
young.
Thomas Henry Huxley
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MMtsb.133535$9E1.666025@attbi_s52...
A role for clay in formation of the first cells
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/11.06/01-liveclay.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
