Organic Compounds found in Meteorite

[The Dark Lord]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8516319.stm

 

Scientists say they have confirmed that a meteorite that crashed into earth 40 years ago contains millions of different organic compounds.

 

It is thought the Murchison meteorite could be even older than the Sun.

 

"Having this information means you can tell what was happening during the birth of the Solar System," said lead researcher Dr Philippe Schmitt-Kopplin.

 

The results of the meteorite study are published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

 

"We are really excited. When I first studied it and saw the complexity I was so amazed," said Dr Schmitt-Kopplin, who works at the Institute for Ecological Chemistry in Neuherberg, Germany.

 

 

"Meteorites are like some kind of fossil. When you try to understand them you are looking back in time," he explained.

 

The researchers says the identification of many different chemicals shows the primordial Solar System probably had a higher molecular diversity than Earth.

 

The Murchison meteorite landed in a town of that name in Australia in 1969. It has been examined before by scientists looking for specific compounds but this is the first non-targeted analysis and has confirmed a huge variety of carbon-based chemicals.

 

A study using high resolution analytical tools including spectroscopy allowed the team to identify 14,000 different compounds including 70 amino acids in a sample of the meteorite.

 

They extrapolated this on the basis of knowledge of how similar organic molecules are arranged in space and calculated that the meteorite should contain several million different chemicals.

 

But the analysis technique is still limited, as Dr Schmitt-Kopplin explained: "We have to crush a few milligrams from the core of the meteorite to enable the extractions with solvents and thus we only see the extractable fraction."

 

"In addition we are only seeing the ions we can generate with the ionisation source of our mass spectrometer. With different types of ionisation sources we could see even more."

 

 

Scientists believe the Murchison meteorite could have originated before the Sun was formed, 4.65 billion years ago. The researchers say it probably passed through primordial clouds in the early Solar System, picking up organic chemicals.

 

Dr Schmitt-Kopplin hopes the findings might contribute to the debate over how life on Earth originated.

 

"I guess many people working in these fields with access to this knowledge will have some further hypothesis and will possibly be having some of their hypotheses confirmed."

 

"Where did we come from and what happened before? We all have that question inside us."

 

The team is also analysing other meteorites but say Murchison is probably the most complex they have studied.

 

I think this is pretty awesome.

[Asmodeous4]

Woah, that's pretty darned cool. I can't wait to see the results of this.

[armourdilo]

I wonder where exactly the meteorite came from, perhaps the start of ALL life in the universe? Maybe if we can fully understand the meteorite we'll know how to MAKE life - That would be pretty cool.

[Asmodeous4]

I wonder where exactly the meteorite came from, perhaps the start of ALL life in the universe? Maybe if we can fully understand the meteorite we'll know how to MAKE life - That would be pretty cool.

Erm, not quite. In fact we are already working out how to make life. I can't quite remember, but scientists have currently found most of the proteins and how to make them etc. etc.

But the consequences of being able to create life? Have you read no Sci-Fi? It would be simply disastrous. And we wouldn't learn anyhting new about making life from the metorite anyway I guess.

[Alg]

Interesting. Will have to see what comes from it though.

[Zilla]

I remember a while back, I believe a few years ago reading an article of something like this. Its amazing what is in space, maybe life forms very easily when the conditions is right, it could be for only a few days and maybe life forms; eventually if the conditions stay favorable it forms into the everyday complex life we see.

[Asmodeous4]

I'm just wondering if anyone else saw Horizon on the BBC the other day. It was on infinity and was absoluely fascinating. If we live in an infinite universe, then anything that is possible is happening infinite times right now. They even worked out how far away you would be from your exact replica although I can't remember the equation and answer. Somehow it is comforting to know that there is so much out there, in fact, infinitely "much". But still disconcerting, because it is still simply mind-boggling. We can't comprehend it. This is of course assuming that the Universe is infinite. ;)

[topham]

As they say 70 amino acids I suddenly found myself intrigued, as we only have 20ish on earth that occur naturally in animals, with some exceptions, another 50 that have somehow occurred naturally is pretty astonishing.

I would like to see some of the natural organic molecules they've discovered/extracted as I think it'd be interesting to see how they're structured.

[fastortoise]

As they say 70 amino acids I suddenly found myself intrigued, as we only have 20ish on earth that occur naturally in animals, with some exceptions, another 50 that have somehow occurred naturally is pretty astonishing.

I would like to see some of the natural organic molecules they've discovered/extracted as I think it'd be interesting to see how they're structured.

I was taught that there were only 20 amino acids that make up life in general, so this too astonished me. I guess it was naive of me to think that there are only 20 that actually existed, whilst it was perfectly possible for them to not be used but still exist.

 

Don't get confused people - this experiment was probably not the first to identify other, non-used amino acids. It's just the first time I've heard of them.

[stevepole]

I wonder where exactly the meteorite came from, perhaps the start of ALL life in the universe? Maybe if we can fully understand the meteorite we'll know how to MAKE life - That would be pretty cool.

Erm, not quite. In fact we are already working out how to make life. I can't quite remember, but scientists have currently found most of the proteins and how to make them etc. etc.

But the consequences of being able to create life? Have you read no Sci-Fi? It would be simply disastrous. And we wouldn't learn anyhting new about making life from the metorite anyway I guess.

 

Basing your knowledge around fictional work isn't very creditable.. First off it is a fake world and no one can say for certain what could happen if someday we started "creating life", which is a very broad to begin with since we "create new life" through sexual reproduction.

[warri0r45]

I've heard about this before - it's very interesting. I wonder, if there is other life out there, is it based on proteins? What amino acids do they use? I'd love to be alive when we discover some of these things.

[1230abcz]

Well, these finds aren't anything new. Amino acids and several other complex organic compounds have been found in meteorites before, but that doesn't really prove anything. Given enough circumstances (elements, liquid medium, energy), anything can be formed. Probability dictates that organic compounds would have to form sooner or later, with heavy emphasis on the former, since carbon is just such a versatile element that basically everything bonds to it.

 

The problem with using this and extrapolating that creating life is just around the corner is that we don't have the faintest clue as to how organic compounds "get together" and form life. Sure, we could always label this magical assemblance of compounds as an emergent property of nature, but that doesn't explain anything. There isn't a single theory out there that explains how the materials in a living cell combine and then carry out functions that label said cells as living entities. All this means is that humans probably don't have the mental capacity to explain or even rationalize the process in which chemicals can form life, and I doubt we ever will. We might be able to replicate life in an enclosed environment, but explaining the emergent properties involved is probably akin to trying to explain the creation of time.

[warri0r45]

Well, these finds aren't anything new. Amino acids and several other complex organic compounds have been found in meteorites before, but that doesn't really prove anything. Given enough circumstances (elements, liquid medium, energy), anything can be formed. Probability dictates that organic compounds would have to form sooner or later, with heavy emphasis on the former, since carbon is just such a versatile element that basically everything bonds to it.

 

The problem with using this and extrapolating that creating life is just around the corner is that we don't have the faintest clue as to how organic compounds "get together" and form life. Sure, we could always label this magical assemblance of compounds as an emergent property of nature, but that doesn't explain anything. There isn't a single theory out there that explains how the materials in a living cell combine and then carry out functions that label said cells as living entities. All this means is that humans probably don't have the mental capacity to explain or even rationalize the process in which chemicals can form life, and I doubt we ever will. We might be able to replicate life in an enclosed environment, but explaining the emergent properties involved is probably akin to trying to explain the creation of time.

 

I take it you've never studied biochemistry or molecular biology? We know that lipids agglomerate to form cell membranes due to hydrophobicity, we know that hydrophobic amino acids cluster together in the centre of proteins by the same mechanism. We also know this is how different proteins can cluster together to avoid the aqueous environment in which they find themselves. We know that certain amino acids can donate protons/react with certain molecules in other ways to facilitate chemical reactions in cells (i.e. catalysis). We know that complementary, single stranded DNA molecules join by hydrogen bonding and this is the basis of reproduction (four bases where A binds T and G binds C leaves few options for mistakes or deviations from this plan). We know that adding a phosphate group to certain proteins can modulate their shape due to local electrostatic interference, hence changing the active site of the protein and changing it's ability to do its job. We know how amino acids join by dehydration reactions and even the biochemical pathways by which they are formed (either from sugars or other amino acids, mostly). We know how inactive proteins can be activated by having part of their amino acid sequence chopped off by other proteins. We know that certain charged amino acids are attracted to others of an opposite charge, and we know how hydrogen bonding between amino acids can take place to form secondary structure, both helping form the shape of proteins. We know the pathways by which sugars can be broken down for energy or stored, or how they can be partly broken down and converted to fats. We know how oxygen can complex with the heam group of hemoglobin in red blood cells and be carried around the body.. We know all this, and a heck of a lot more.

 

The problem in creating life from scratch is not with our knowledge, it's with the application of that knowledge. It's just impossibly impractical to create life at this stage.

[Asmodeous4]

I wonder where exactly the meteorite came from, perhaps the start of ALL life in the universe? Maybe if we can fully understand the meteorite we'll know how to MAKE life - That would be pretty cool.

Erm, not quite. In fact we are already working out how to make life. I can't quite remember, but scientists have currently found most of the proteins and how to make them etc. etc.

But the consequences of being able to create life? Have you read no Sci-Fi? It would be simply disastrous. And we wouldn't learn anyhting new about making life from the metorite anyway I guess.

 

Basing your knowledge around fictional work isn't very creditable.. First off it is a fake world and no one can say for certain what could happen if someday we started "creating life", which is a very broad to begin with since we "create new life" through sexual reproduction.

The Sci-Fi thing was a joke, but potentially, being able to create life as we wish it to be, is not a good road to go down in my opinion.

[The Dark Lord]

I wonder where exactly the meteorite came from, perhaps the start of ALL life in the universe? Maybe if we can fully understand the meteorite we'll know how to MAKE life - That would be pretty cool.

Erm, not quite. In fact we are already working out how to make life. I can't quite remember, but scientists have currently found most of the proteins and how to make them etc. etc.

But the consequences of being able to create life? Have you read no Sci-Fi? It would be simply disastrous. And we wouldn't learn anyhting new about making life from the metorite anyway I guess.

 

Basing your knowledge around fictional work isn't very creditable.. First off it is a fake world and no one can say for certain what could happen if someday we started "creating life", which is a very broad to begin with since we "create new life" through sexual reproduction.

The Sci-Fi thing was a joke, but potentially, being able to create life as we wish it to be, is not a good road to go down in my opinion.

 

We can choose who we have sex with. Therefore, we can choose what traits that we want our children to have. ;)

[topham]

 

I was taught that there were only 20 amino acids that make up life in general, so this too astonished me. I guess it was naive of me to think that there are only 20 that actually existed, whilst it was perfectly possible for them to not be used but still exist.

 

Don't get confused people - this experiment was probably not the first to identify other, non-used amino acids. It's just the first time I've heard of them.

 

In the lab we use some unnatural ones, and then work on modifying those, but last year one of the courses I took showed how they are currently incorporating unnatural amino acids into cells, and choosing specific codons to code for these novel AAs. Also, as everyone can express 64 different possibilities, one of the papers and research groups we were told about had incorporated quite a few unnatural ones into being expressed regularly.

 

Oh, and as far as I'm aware they have produced a bacteria in a lab from scratch, although at the moment I'm not sure because I've moved away from that area because it didn't interest me as much as the area I'm currently working in.

[SeanyTheSailor]

Not to kill the vibe but scientifically "organic" means it contains Carbon.... so.... is it really all that exciting?

[topham]

Not to kill the vibe but scientifically "organic" means it contains Carbon.... so.... is it really all that exciting?

 

Yes, yes it is...

Well to me anyway, dont want to speak for other people. But, as all life on this planet is carbon based, aswell as there being predominantly all of the common drugs, many many natural products and many plastics that is carbon based it is pretty incredible. Also, the amount of things that can be made is remarkable, and the diversity between compounds with the same amounts of atoms can be phenominally large as there are many different way the atoms can bond.

[fastortoise]

 

I was taught that there were only 20 amino acids that make up life in general, so this too astonished me. I guess it was naive of me to think that there are only 20 that actually existed, whilst it was perfectly possible for them to not be used but still exist.

 

Don't get confused people - this experiment was probably not the first to identify other, non-used amino acids. It's just the first time I've heard of them.

 

In the lab we use some unnatural ones, and then work on modifying those, but last year one of the courses I took showed how they are currently incorporating unnatural amino acids into cells, and choosing specific codons to code for these novel AAs. Also, as everyone can express 64 different possibilities, one of the papers and research groups we were told about had incorporated quite a few unnatural ones into being expressed regularly.

 

Oh, and as far as I'm aware they have produced a bacteria in a lab from scratch, although at the moment I'm not sure because I've moved away from that area because it didn't interest me as much as the area I'm currently working in.

Yeah, changing what codons code for sparked my interest when I learned about translation. Since the genetic code is redundant, I thought we could potentially alter what some codons code for without damaging the universal code. But then they told me there were only 20 amino acids, so I gave up the idea.

 

So (this is off the top of my head) to change what a codon codes for, you need to alter the according tRNA, right?

[spoiler=aside]

I'm talking about the clover shaped molecule that has a specific RNA arm which binds to the transcribed RNA on ribosomes and also carries the appropriate amino acid with it. My teachings about how a tRNA molecule "knows" that it's the next tRNA needed to match the transcribed codon was sketchy. I remember hearing something like they all take turns trying to fit their pieces, but that's ridiculously inefficient. There's probably newer, recent studies that explains the process, I'll check it out.

 

 

If there are only 20 used amino acids, then are there only 20 tRNAs too?

 

As for the bacteria - I know they made a synthetic bacteria genome by combining different genomes across similar species. Or was that in yeast? Looks like I'll be doing lots of research on these things, I'm way too behind in the times.

[SeanyTheSailor]

Not to kill the vibe but scientifically "organic" means it contains Carbon.... so.... is it really all that exciting?

 

Yes, yes it is...

Well to me anyway, dont want to speak for other people. But, as all life on this planet is carbon based, aswell as there being predominantly all of the common drugs, many many natural products and many plastics that is carbon based it is pretty incredible. Also, the amount of things that can be made is remarkable, and the diversity between compounds with the same amounts of atoms can be phenominally large as there are many different way the atoms can bond.

To me that's why its not exciting..... since life here is carbon based is it a stretch to imagine that there are other carbon-based bodies in space? What IS exciting is that Platinum is supposed to be very common in asteroids and some people think that is where most of the Earth's platinum came from. (Fun Fact: All the Platinum mined on the Earth would probably barely fill your living room!!!) I've also heard about a professor who designed a car that ran completely on water, but it required a lot of Platinum, so it isn't a viable option at present. But imagine if we had platinum form asteroids, though I'm not really an eco-nut it would be great for the environment and from what I understand since it only gives off water vapor you'd never run out of fuel! I think this is FAR more exciting than finding carbon..... maybe its just me....

[lordkafei]

Serephurus, I notice in your quotation a mention of 70 amino acids. But in the link you posted, there is no mention of amino acids whatsoever.

 

It says:

 

A study using high resolution analytical tools including spectroscopy allowed the team to identify 14,000 different compounds.

 

The scientists extrapolated the number on the basis of previous analyses done on natural organic matter.

 

 

Perhaps the story has had a correction?

[1230abcz]

Well, these finds aren't anything new. Amino acids and several other complex organic compounds have been found in meteorites before, but that doesn't really prove anything. Given enough circumstances (elements, liquid medium, energy), anything can be formed. Probability dictates that organic compounds would have to form sooner or later, with heavy emphasis on the former, since carbon is just such a versatile element that basically everything bonds to it.

 

The problem with using this and extrapolating that creating life is just around the corner is that we don't have the faintest clue as to how organic compounds "get together" and form life. Sure, we could always label this magical assemblance of compounds as an emergent property of nature, but that doesn't explain anything. There isn't a single theory out there that explains how the materials in a living cell combine and then carry out functions that label said cells as living entities. All this means is that humans probably don't have the mental capacity to explain or even rationalize the process in which chemicals can form life, and I doubt we ever will. We might be able to replicate life in an enclosed environment, but explaining the emergent properties involved is probably akin to trying to explain the creation of time.

 

I take it you've never studied biochemistry or molecular biology? We know that lipids agglomerate to form cell membranes due to hydrophobicity, we know that hydrophobic amino acids cluster together in the centre of proteins by the same mechanism. We also know this is how different proteins can cluster together to avoid the aqueous environment in which they find themselves. We know that certain amino acids can donate protons/react with certain molecules in other ways to facilitate chemical reactions in cells (i.e. catalysis). We know that complementary, single stranded DNA molecules join by hydrogen bonding and this is the basis of reproduction (four bases where A binds T and G binds C leaves few options for mistakes or deviations from this plan). We know that adding a phosphate group to certain proteins can modulate their shape due to local electrostatic interference, hence changing the active site of the protein and changing it's ability to do its job. We know how amino acids join by dehydration reactions and even the biochemical pathways by which they are formed (either from sugars or other amino acids, mostly). We know how inactive proteins can be activated by having part of their amino acid sequence chopped off by other proteins. We know that certain charged amino acids are attracted to others of an opposite charge, and we know how hydrogen bonding between amino acids can take place to form secondary structure, both helping form the shape of proteins. We know the pathways by which sugars can be broken down for energy or stored, or how they can be partly broken down and converted to fats. We know how oxygen can complex with the heam group of hemoglobin in red blood cells and be carried around the body.. We know all this, and a heck of a lot more.

 

The problem in creating life from scratch is not with our knowledge, it's with the application of that knowledge. It's just impossibly impractical to create life at this stage.

 

 

I have taken those classes, but those concepts are still all elementary Biology and Chemistry. What I'm talking about isn't the chemistry within living cells. We can recreate these things, yes, but it's not practical or even possible for us to comprehend how all of these properties come together to form an entity that can preserve itself and reproduce. One of the main things I find most "alarming" is that nature ALWAYS does things that require the least use of energy, but reproduction and the creation of life basically kicks Nature in the balls. DNA and proteins shouldn't be coding for and creating other proteins when it's obviously more efficient to just hang around in a liquid medium in a shape that minimizes polar/non-polar interactions. And even if this were possible, why do these chemicals (after all, life is just a jumble of chemicals) insist upon recreating copies of themselves? This expends vast amounts of energy and it isn't beneficiary to the individual cell in any case. Think of how efficient bacteria would be if they didn't feel the need to devote a large portion of their cell cycle into reproducing. Sure, it creates genetic variability, but what does that contribute to the individual?

 

Think of all the things you posted, and then think of how emergent properties could possibly combine all of those things and contrive what we call life. It's just not within our current knowledge.

[The Dark Lord]

Serephurus, I notice in your quotation a mention of 70 amino acids. But in the link you posted, there is no mention of amino acids whatsoever.

 

It says:

 

A study using high resolution analytical tools including spectroscopy allowed the team to identify 14,000 different compounds.

 

The scientists extrapolated the number on the basis of previous analyses done on natural organic matter.

 

 

Perhaps the story has had a correction?

 

Probably. I just copied and pasted my quotation from the site itself, minus some captions.

[fastortoise]

Well, these finds aren't anything new. Amino acids and several other complex organic compounds have been found in meteorites before, but that doesn't really prove anything. Given enough circumstances (elements, liquid medium, energy), anything can be formed. Probability dictates that organic compounds would have to form sooner or later, with heavy emphasis on the former, since carbon is just such a versatile element that basically everything bonds to it.

 

The problem with using this and extrapolating that creating life is just around the corner is that we don't have the faintest clue as to how organic compounds "get together" and form life. Sure, we could always label this magical assemblance of compounds as an emergent property of nature, but that doesn't explain anything. There isn't a single theory out there that explains how the materials in a living cell combine and then carry out functions that label said cells as living entities. All this means is that humans probably don't have the mental capacity to explain or even rationalize the process in which chemicals can form life, and I doubt we ever will. We might be able to replicate life in an enclosed environment, but explaining the emergent properties involved is probably akin to trying to explain the creation of time.

 

I take it you've never studied biochemistry or molecular biology? We know that lipids agglomerate to form cell membranes due to hydrophobicity, we know that hydrophobic amino acids cluster together in the centre of proteins by the same mechanism. We also know this is how different proteins can cluster together to avoid the aqueous environment in which they find themselves. We know that certain amino acids can donate protons/react with certain molecules in other ways to facilitate chemical reactions in cells (i.e. catalysis). We know that complementary, single stranded DNA molecules join by hydrogen bonding and this is the basis of reproduction (four bases where A binds T and G binds C leaves few options for mistakes or deviations from this plan). We know that adding a phosphate group to certain proteins can modulate their shape due to local electrostatic interference, hence changing the active site of the protein and changing it's ability to do its job. We know how amino acids join by dehydration reactions and even the biochemical pathways by which they are formed (either from sugars or other amino acids, mostly). We know how inactive proteins can be activated by having part of their amino acid sequence chopped off by other proteins. We know that certain charged amino acids are attracted to others of an opposite charge, and we know how hydrogen bonding between amino acids can take place to form secondary structure, both helping form the shape of proteins. We know the pathways by which sugars can be broken down for energy or stored, or how they can be partly broken down and converted to fats. We know how oxygen can complex with the heam group of hemoglobin in red blood cells and be carried around the body.. We know all this, and a heck of a lot more.

 

The problem in creating life from scratch is not with our knowledge, it's with the application of that knowledge. It's just impossibly impractical to create life at this stage.

 

 

I have taken those classes, but those concepts are still all elementary Biology and Chemistry. What I'm talking about isn't the chemistry within living cells. We can recreate these things, yes, but it's not practical or even possible for us to comprehend how all of these properties come together to form an entity that can preserve itself and reproduce. One of the main things I find most "alarming" is that nature ALWAYS does things that require the least use of energy, but reproduction and the creation of life basically kicks Nature in the balls. DNA and proteins shouldn't be coding for and creating other proteins when it's obviously more efficient to just hang around in a liquid medium in a shape that minimizes polar/non-polar interactions. And even if this were possible, why do these chemicals (after all, life is just a jumble of chemicals) insist upon recreating copies of themselves? This expends vast amounts of energy and it isn't beneficiary to the individual cell in any case. Think of how efficient bacteria would be if they didn't feel the need to devote a large portion of their cell cycle into reproducing. Sure, it creates genetic variability, but what does that contribute to the individual?

 

Think of all the things you posted, and then think of how emergent properties could possibly combine all of those things and contrive what we call life. It's just not within our current knowledge.

Jumping in here.

 

If you take the Richard Dawkins view on genetics/evolution of the genetic code, all this makes sense. Taking your bacteria for example: it's not the bacteria that cares about reproduction - indeed, he'd have more resources for himself if he just lived. However, if you turn the answer on its head and reason that it's the genes that care about reproduction, it kinda fits it all in place. It's the genes that decide a bacteria will reproduce after x amount of growth at a time x. He argues, basically, that all living things are machines built by genes to become the predominant gene. I'm not the best at explaining these things because I forget the details, sorry about that.

 

As for the entropy question - the second law of thermodynamics (right?) clearly shows that everything will indeed assume the state of least energy, and that going from the energy of high energy to low energy will produce heat. So obviously going from a zygote to a full blown adult human goes against this law, but if you take a step back in the time scale of things, we still in the end increase entropy. Our metabolic processes (those that build up molecules) revert entropy, but in the long run it'll all just be heat anyways. So (this is my own theory) maybe living things (which as I just argued do not revert entropy) accelerate the entropy of the universe faster? This is clear in the example of humans, who are currently breaking down everything in their past. Sure, we've built cities and spaceships, but we've mostly just degraded things and produced lots of heat. I'm not sure this long-run entropy increasing lifestyles are in all of nature, but that's what would make sense to me.

[1230abcz]

[hide]

Well, these finds aren't anything new. Amino acids and several other complex organic compounds have been found in meteorites before, but that doesn't really prove anything. Given enough circumstances (elements, liquid medium, energy), anything can be formed. Probability dictates that organic compounds would have to form sooner or later, with heavy emphasis on the former, since carbon is just such a versatile element that basically everything bonds to it.

 

The problem with using this and extrapolating that creating life is just around the corner is that we don't have the faintest clue as to how organic compounds "get together" and form life. Sure, we could always label this magical assemblance of compounds as an emergent property of nature, but that doesn't explain anything. There isn't a single theory out there that explains how the materials in a living cell combine and then carry out functions that label said cells as living entities. All this means is that humans probably don't have the mental capacity to explain or even rationalize the process in which chemicals can form life, and I doubt we ever will. We might be able to replicate life in an enclosed environment, but explaining the emergent properties involved is probably akin to trying to explain the creation of time.

 

I take it you've never studied biochemistry or molecular biology? We know that lipids agglomerate to form cell membranes due to hydrophobicity, we know that hydrophobic amino acids cluster together in the centre of proteins by the same mechanism. We also know this is how different proteins can cluster together to avoid the aqueous environment in which they find themselves. We know that certain amino acids can donate protons/react with certain molecules in other ways to facilitate chemical reactions in cells (i.e. catalysis). We know that complementary, single stranded DNA molecules join by hydrogen bonding and this is the basis of reproduction (four bases where A binds T and G binds C leaves few options for mistakes or deviations from this plan). We know that adding a phosphate group to certain proteins can modulate their shape due to local electrostatic interference, hence changing the active site of the protein and changing it's ability to do its job. We know how amino acids join by dehydration reactions and even the biochemical pathways by which they are formed (either from sugars or other amino acids, mostly). We know how inactive proteins can be activated by having part of their amino acid sequence chopped off by other proteins. We know that certain charged amino acids are attracted to others of an opposite charge, and we know how hydrogen bonding between amino acids can take place to form secondary structure, both helping form the shape of proteins. We know the pathways by which sugars can be broken down for energy or stored, or how they can be partly broken down and converted to fats. We know how oxygen can complex with the heam group of hemoglobin in red blood cells and be carried around the body.. We know all this, and a heck of a lot more.

 

The problem in creating life from scratch is not with our knowledge, it's with the application of that knowledge. It's just impossibly impractical to create life at this stage.

 

 

I have taken those classes, but those concepts are still all elementary Biology and Chemistry. What I'm talking about isn't the chemistry within living cells. We can recreate these things, yes, but it's not practical or even possible for us to comprehend how all of these properties come together to form an entity that can preserve itself and reproduce. One of the main things I find most "alarming" is that nature ALWAYS does things that require the least use of energy, but reproduction and the creation of life basically kicks Nature in the balls. DNA and proteins shouldn't be coding for and creating other proteins when it's obviously more efficient to just hang around in a liquid medium in a shape that minimizes polar/non-polar interactions. And even if this were possible, why do these chemicals (after all, life is just a jumble of chemicals) insist upon recreating copies of themselves? This expends vast amounts of energy and it isn't beneficiary to the individual cell in any case. Think of how efficient bacteria would be if they didn't feel the need to devote a large portion of their cell cycle into reproducing. Sure, it creates genetic variability, but what does that contribute to the individual?

 

Think of all the things you posted, and then think of how emergent properties could possibly combine all of those things and contrive what we call life. It's just not within our current knowledge.

Jumping in here.

 

If you take the Richard Dawkins view on genetics/evolution of the genetic code, all this makes sense. Taking your bacteria for example: it's not the bacteria that cares about reproduction - indeed, he'd have more resources for himself if he just lived. However, if you turn the answer on its head and reason that it's the genes that care about reproduction, it kinda fits it all in place. It's the genes that decide a bacteria will reproduce after x amount of growth at a time x. He argues, basically, that all living things are machines built by genes to become the predominant gene. I'm not the best at explaining these things because I forget the details, sorry about that.

 

As for the entropy question - the second law of thermodynamics (right?) clearly shows that everything will indeed assume the state of least energy, and that going from the energy of high energy to low energy will produce heat. So obviously going from a zygote to a full blown adult human goes against this law, but if you take a step back in the time scale of things, we still in the end increase entropy. Our metabolic processes (those that build up molecules) revert entropy, but in the long run it'll all just be heat anyways. So (this is my own theory) maybe living things (which as I just argued do not revert entropy) accelerate the entropy of the universe faster? This is clear in the example of humans, who are currently breaking down everything in their past. Sure, we've built cities and spaceships, but we've mostly just degraded things and produced lots of heat. I'm not sure this long-run entropy increasing lifestyles are in all of nature, but that's what would make sense to me.

[/hide]

 

Taking your gene example raises the same question. Why did chemistry arrange itself to accept and utilize those changes when they seem so dependent on higher thought? The only thing that explains this is emergent properties, but then again, that's about as good of an answer as magic. This doesn't necessarily move into the realm of God (though this would be a very good pro-God argument that I don't see used very often, or at all for that matter), but into the realm of we don't know what the hell is going on.

 

 

Also, the entropy thing... Never thought of it that way, but it seems like an insignificant step forward to increase entropy by an even more insignificant amount. Even then, viewing entropy as a logical process in which entropy plans out "moves" that will lead to a higher rate of increase in entropy doesn't really make any sense to me, but eh. Never thought about it that way.