Archive for the ‘Origins of Life’ Category

Origins of Life: Scientists produces synthetic enzyme in 2017 and they suspects that it created life at 4 billions years ago!

Monday, November 13th, 2017

xxxx

Then it was me who being born at this century killed the Death Sea at 2 billions years ago… This article is at the link below and following it are the copies of our commentaires at the article’s debate: 

Chemists May Have Found the ‘Missing Link’ to the First Life on Earth

https://www.livescience.com/60907-missing-link-first-life-on-earth.html?utm_source=notification

Louis Charles Morelli · Fritador de batatas fritas at Self employed – 12:56 PM – 11/13/2017

To the authors:
You said: ” … A subset of chemists have devoted their careers to puzzling…”
I think it is clear that a new kind of information from a more complex natural system were among the matter of that water slime. I can’t understand these chemists that are working with the effects and not searching the cause, because if they want to solve the puzzle, the rational way is going after the cause.DAP – if it ever existed naturally – is an effect, containing the entire or part of the cause, not the cause. We are watching everyday how a new life emerges from water slime produced not by the slime, but by a bunch of information coming from outside the womb’s water, so, why for the first life would be different? Why scientists are mimicking mysticals that need never seen before phenomena? Our method at Matrix/DNA Theory found a possible natural force/element that could be the source of these outside informations for first life. Chemists need know the models and looking inside DAP and the other primordial elements for this “invisible” genome. We are losing time and money.
xxxxx
@Phillip Czekala –  I’m going to guess you’ve never actually witnessed the Birth of a Baby? If you had you would know how Ignorant your claim not to have started your life in “a bucket of shit water slime” because yours and everyone elses actually did start that way.You may or may not have started in shit, not all babies crap in Uetero, but you certainly started in “a bucket of piss water slime”. All Mammals do.
Louis Charles Morelli · Fritador de batatas fritas at Self employed – 12:56 PM – 11/13/2017
Chris Sievert – Yes but the piss water slime does nothing without an almost invisible element called genome, which did not come from the piss water slime, but from the parents of the baby, existing above and before the piss water slime. If you are rational and not a mystic or have some obscurus agenda, you will calculate that in that primordial water slime arrived some kind of prior genome. That’s why Matrix/DNA Theory is suggesting a theoretical model of this non-Earth genome: it is merely the miniaturized copy of astronomical systems’ building blocks. Of, course, what else were existing above and before Earth if not the Milk Way?

xxxx

Edward Guest · FSU College of Law

The ability to produce intelligent beings, well somewhat intelligent, through this process if true could likely occur in millions, maybe even billions, of star systems in our Universe. Maybe we will be surprised in a few billion Earth years how many species we find that are a lot like us.

Louis Charles Morelli · Fritador de batatas fritas at Self employed

Edward Guest – There is a curious option, maybe you don’t know it. Life is like agriculture, so, if a seed falls in an environment with good conditions, it will flourish. The seeds are splitted everywhere in space/time. But, what is this “seed” and from where it comes from? At Matrix/DNA Theory we discovered that a new theoretical model of galaxies fits exactly the configurations for a source of these seeds. The astronomical building blocks is the face and configuration of DNA building blocks. When I got these models, it was suggesting a new version of “universal history” from the Big Bang to nowadays. And the final history suggests that – as you said – initially must have diversification among aliens but all them will be fine tunelled to a unique final shape… which is the unknown shape of the natural intelligent system that triggered the Big Bang and must be existing beyond this Universe. Curious, isn’t it?
xxxxx

Philip Czekala

Total BULLSHIT.
It’s publish or perish in college land and this clown professor Ramanarayanan Krishnamurthy will make up and write ANYTHING to keep his job. Maybe his life started out in a bucket of shit water slime but mine didn’t. Just think about how many gullible assholes believe this crap too. We are DOOMED.

Louis Charles Morelli · Fritador de batatas fritas at Self employed

Philip – You are right, Our life began in water slime also but the womb’s water slime can do nothing without the insertion of an almost invisible genetic code from something existing above and beyond the womb ( it means also beyond Earth as the womb for first living thing). Why the modern academic mindset is separating cosmological evolution from biologiccal evolution?! The effects of this absurd faith is causing this blindness? Do you have any explanation for human behavior?
xxxx

Jerry Bunker · Purdue University

Professing themselves wise they traded the truth for a lie. This garbage that once upon a time is sheer nonsense. Genesis chapter 1 verse 1 states that in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. It takes much more faith to believe in these fairytales than to believe in the creator God

Louis Charles Morelli ·Fritador de batatas fritas at Self employed

Jerry: ” Genesis chapter 1 verse 1 states”
A book written by foreign ancient people states nothing to our people of our country and to people of XXI century, why are you coming at a Science issue and Western World telling that?! Don’t worry: if God has something to say to our country and to people of this time, He will say it directly to us, we does not accept humans intermediaries between us and God. 
Here you comes professing yourself wise. So, bring on to the table the proofs how life started and get the Nobel prize. Or are you trading the truth for a lie?
xxxx
Something folks seem to miss in their Synthesis of supposed early biology is the intense stirring caused by the Moon tides which were a hundred or more times stronger than they are now. Not only 100-200 foot ocean tides, tides expressed in the ground around the sea and, more importantly, beneath the sea too, stirring up the lighter and heaver elements, separating the stone from the metal, breaking the shell of the Earth into mud and sand, even as it tries to harden, heating things up in a band beneath the Moon’s early orbit. Remember, the Moon, containing much of it’s present mass was only a few thousand miles above the Earth at that time, having been formed by a collision between the Earth and a stoney body about the size of Mars. It slowly escaped Earth’s gravity until now it’s effects on land is negligible though the seas still rise and fall by tens of feet now, rather than by hundreds. THERE is your crucible!
Like · Reply · 1 · 4 hrs
It occurs to me that the occasion of the birth of our Moon might be quite rare in water planets. There might be fewer examples of life because of it, if the Moon tides really were a part of the equation. The local sudden heating and cooling of subsurface muds by those large tides might also have played a part, again making life as we know it even more rare.
 
Fred Wood – You have a good point. There is a theoretical “universal natural formula for organizing matter into systems” and applying the formula for to calculate “life’s origins” the results of this calculations says exactly what you said about the role played by the Moon. New shapes of systems ( like the biological ones built at the abiogenesis period) begins by the Function 1 of the formula, which is “agitation for fragmentation and mixture of the elements of the environment”. We have not found other element able to do that function necessary for biological systems organization here. Then comes the F2, which takes the “baby” created by F1 and begins the aggregation of nutrients. This formula explains how the first lighter gaseous star and the later stellar systems were made from an atomic nebulae, how galactic’s nuclei are created by central vortex, etc. If you are curious about the formula, search ” The Universal Matrix for All Natural Systems and Life’s Cycles”. Congratulations by the right insight

Life would be the result of chance, by Nature rolling dices? Or not?

Thursday, October 5th, 2017

xxxxx

From the debate at the link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyhZcEY5PCQ&lc=z132epexbkupgxdkp23xelpwrzq4gt2sc.1507247448858067

xxxx

GravityBoy72 - 1 year ago

Amino acids…. big deal. You know how astronomically complex a living cell is beyond an amino acid?It’s a full blown FACTORY. How many rolls of the dice do you need before you get a FACTORY capable of identical replication? I don’t see how there has been enough time in the universe for that to happen.I don’t believe in “God” but neither am I convinced by the theory of evolution.I’m more open to “something else” – although I have no idea what that is.

xxxxx

Blacques Jacques - 10/05/2017

GravityBoy72 -  You under estimate how many roll of the dice have already happened . You can’t concieve of thatmuch time

xxxx

Louis Charles Morelli - 10/5/2017

Blacques Jacques – I think this does not works. There is other rational alternative, based on what I can see here and now. The placenta inside the mother’s womb is changing its states (like our external environment) while the DNA inside the fetus is rolling the dices also, but only those results that fits with the placenta’s results are selected. The processes of astronomical and biological evolutions are identical. There is a unique narrow evolutionary direction for boths, that’s why the planet Earth at its 4,345 million years supports biological organisms and millions of existent planets at its 3,5 million years or any other age does not support biological organisms. You could say that the placenta transformations are not indicative that the placenta is rolling dices, there is the difference between opened and closed systems, the Universe is not tunneled to produce life, so, life is an accident, etc. But, we don’t know if this agglomerate of galaxies are not performing the rules like a placenta in relation to life. So, why one plays dice and the other don’t? 

Inside organisms there is a force rolling the dices, called DNA. And DNA has its necessities, so, it discards the results that does not fit with its necessities. Meanwhile, the external environment is rolling the dice also, but the external environment is built by the same force, elevated to “n” potence, which we call “matrix”. It means that the selector agent of two rolling dices selecting results is inside the organism and inside the external environment – the Matrix/DNA. It means a unique narrow evolutionary direction for boths, that’s why the planet Earth at its 4,345 million years supports biological organisms and millions of existent planets at its 3,5 million years or any other age does not support biological organisms.

Maybe you forgot that the dice rolled by Nature has not only six sides, but infinite sides. Take only one natural phenomena – temperature – for instance. You have two extremes ( the most hot and most cold) but mixing them the result is infinite levels of temperature. Now take another natural duality, like the rectilinear movement and the curvilinear movement. For a game of dices being able to produce a complex system like a cell is necessary thousands or millions results performing a logical sequence, like one game give 4.38477563562, a next game give 4.38477563563 and so on, millions of results in the same sequence kept inside a logical evolutionary line. In the way that at the table rolling the dice about temperature must result a number X at the same time when the dice being rolled at the table of movement also give the number X. If it does not happen, their is no catalyse for the other result getting stability. To me, its harder to believe in the dice’s rolls than believe in the Spaghetti Monster.

 

Understanding why not the Milk Way, but its essence, produced us

Friday, August 25th, 2017

xxxx

Teorias sobre Origens da Vida

My comment below explains the perspective of Matrix/DNA Theory about the “origins of life”, posted in the debate at this link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyhZcEY5PCQ&lc=z12rtxmiipbfz1ake22vcfh4lymvcpskj.1503690998028050

xxxx

luvdomus luvdomus - 8/25/2017

If living matter which is made from atoms and molecules, didn’t come from non-living matter, also made from atoms and molecules, where did it come from? Out of empty space?

xxxx

Louis Charles Morelli Louis Charles Morelli - 8/25/2017

luvdomus: Forget the word “living”, which is antropomorfism, and things becomes clear. From Nature perspective, must say “systems”.

You are thinking in “atoms and molecules” as portion of organic mass coming from non-organic mass. Of course, a biological system can not comes from non-organic portion of mass. But, see that portions of non-organic mass can belong to a natural system, like atoms, galaxies. Now we has a better question: biological systems came from a non-biological system?

We need think about the jump in complexity, which would be very big. And what could happens in the process of transition for such mutation. The most complex non-biological system must be a galaxy. Making comparative anatomy between the first complete working biological system ( a Eukaryota cell system) and a galaxy, it seems impossible the jump. But,… maybe we are not knowing what a galaxy is. Maybe our theoretical model, the nebular theory, the spontaneous and random formation of bodies, are so wrong as when we were believing that Earth was the center of Sun’s system.

That’s what lead me to recalculate this models from the perspective of a cell system and calculating reverse evolution. The results – called Matrix/DNA Theory – shows a theoretical model of – not galaxies – but, building blocks of galaxies, that are equal to the building blocks of DNA. So, like the essence of an organism is not the organism but its DNA – it is the DNA that is transmitted to offspring, not the organism – is possible that the essence of this galaxy – the Matrix, its kind of non-biological DNA – was inserted into terrestrial atoms, driving them to biological organization and finally, composing a working system, due water and its production: organic chemistry.

So, we still have only theories, to be tested. But, now, after fixing this mistake caused by anthropomorphism, we can suppose that it is possible: biological systems were produced by evolution inside and by galaxies, which building blocks are half-biological/half mechanical described by Newtonian’s mechanics. Welcome to the new Milk Way, our physical grand-grandmother. Now, about our consciousness, its origins, I make no idea… Again the jump in complexity from the human brain to consciousness is not astronomic… maybe is universally ex-machine.

How random molecules got information for becoming life? Scientists has news about

Thursday, August 24th, 2017

xxxxx

New computational model of chemical building blocks may help explain the origins of life

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-chemical-blocks-life.html

“… it has remained a mystery what actions could then prompt short chemical polymer chains to develop into much longer chains that can encode useful protein information. The new computational model may help explain that gap in the evolution of chemistry into biology.”

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-08-chemical-blocks-life.html#jCp

My comment posted at Phys.Org article:

TheMatrixDNA - 8/24/2017
From Matrix/DNA perspective, we would trying to insert light ( preference for natural light ) somewhere into the computational simulation. What informations does have these initial polymers? If not about themselves and maybe, the random event producing them? When growing to foldamers, it means acquiring more atoms: which information has the foldamers if not ” information about themselves plus information of atoms, which probable they already have? At this point they are still non-biological organization of matter. They are at the same level of minerals, rocks, sand… How could them to jump from here to an astonishing new complexity?
We have a model of the building block of astronomic systems and a theoretical mechanism that makes possible the information from these systems being transferred to terrestrial atoms through stellar energy, cosmic radiation, etc. It happens that the configuration of this astronomic system is exactly the configuration of a lateral base-pair of nucleotides. So,…

(not published due final of characters) … information from this astronomic system are enough for that jump, since it drives the foldamer polymer to assembling as a working system.

New computational model of chemical building blocks may help explain the origins of life

Ken Dill explains the computational model that shows how certain molecules fold and bind together in the evolution of chemistry into biology, a key step to explain the origins of life. Credit: Stony Brook University Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-08-chemical-blocks-life.html#jCp

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-08-chemical-blocks-life.html#jCp

Theories of Origins of Life

Wednesday, January 25th, 2017

xxxx

A good compilation of actual theories, copied here for further research:

from:

https://www.slideshare.net/damarisb/origin-of-life-27039382

Teorias sobre Origens da Vida

Origin of life

  1. 1. INTRODUCTION Several attempts have been made from time to time to explain the origin of life on earth. As a result, there are several theories which offer their own explanation on the possible mechanism of origin of life. Following are some of them: • Theory of Special Creation • Theory of Spontaneous Generation • Theory of Biogenesis • Theory of Biochemical Evolution • Theory of Panspermia • Deep sea hydrothermal vent theory
  2. 2. • All the different forms of life – created by God. • HINDU CONCEPT :- Lord Brahma- created the living world in one stroke. • CHRISTIAN & ISLAM BELIEF :- God created this universe, plants, animals and human beings in about six days. • 3 main postulates : – All different kinds of animals & plants were created at once. – All organisms were created in the same form in which they exist today. – Their bodies & organs have been designed to fully meet the needs of the environment. • It has no scientific basis.
  3. 3. THEORY OF SPONTANEOUS GENERATION
  4. 4. • Living things originated spontaneously from inanimate objects. • It is also called abiogenesis or biopoesis. • Supporters :- Aristotle » Epicurus » Von Helmont • They believed » Insects arise from dew » Fish & frog from mud » Fly maggots from meat . • Opposers » Fransisco Redi » Spallanzani » Louis pasteur • The opposers disproved this theory. Redi’s experiment Pasteur’s experiment
  5. 5. •Proposed by Richter in 1865 and supported by Arrhenius. •Life had come to earth from other planets of the universe, in the form of resistant spores. •British astronomers Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe proposed: •interstellar dust and comets contain organic compounds. •comets, which are largely made of water-ice, carry bacterial life across galaxies and protect it from radiation damage along the way. • The 2005 Deep Impact mission to Comet Tempel 1 discovered a mixture of organic and clay particles inside the comet. Credit: Hoover/Journal of Cosmology Dr. Richard B. Hoover, an astrobiologist with NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center published a paper on March 4, 2011, claiming to have found fossil evidence for cyanobacteria in an extremely rare class of meteorites, called CI1 carbonaceous chondrites .
  6. 6. SOME OTHER THEORIES……. • Theory of Eternity of life: Life only changes its form but is never created. It has no origin and has always existed. • Theory of catastrophism – modification of the theory of Special Creation. – States that there have been several creations of life by God, each preceded by a catastrophe resulting from some kind of geological disturbance. – Since each catastrophe completely destroyed the existing life, each new creation consisted of life form different from that of previous ones. – Main supporters : French scientists Georges Cuvier and Orbigney • Vitalism : – Only living tissue, by virtue of possessing some “life-force,” can produce organic compounds. – Supporters: Berzelius and Bergson. – The production of acetic acid, from its elements, by the German chemist Hermann Kolbe in 1845, disproved vitalism.
  7. 7. • Also known as Materialistic Theory or Physico-chemical Theory. • Proposed independently by a Russian scientist, A.I.Oparin, in 1923 and an English scientist, J.B.S Haldane, in 1928. According to this theory, • Life first arose from a collection of chemical substances by a progressive series of reactions. • Early Earth’s surface and atmosphere – radically different from today’s condition. • The primitive earth’s atmosphere -reducing type. • Solar radiation and lightning must have been the chief energy source for these chemical reactions. • The organic compounds gradually accumulated in oceans and formed a ―hot primordial soup‖ or ―hot dilute soup‖. • Also known as ―Darwin’s warm little pond‖
  8. 8. • Oparin proposed that the proteinoids, nucleo proteins and other organic and inorganic molecules aggregated and precipited in sea forming organized colloid aggregates called coacervates. • The coacervates were able to absorb and assimilate organic compounds from the environment in a way reminiscent of metabolism. • They divided by budding. • Oparin considered that the coacervates gave rise to primitive cells or Eubionts. • Sydney fox obtained proteinoid microspheres by heating a mixture of dry amino acids b/w 130 to 1800C and later cooling them in water. • It was similar to coccoid bacteria. Coacervates Microspheres
  9. 9. UREY – MILLER EXPERIMENT
  10. 10. DRAWBACKS OF UREY MILLER EXPERIMENT • By examining rocks ―dated‖ to be 3.7 billion years old, geologists determined that earth had an oxygenic atmosphere. • Oxygen is an ―oxidizing‖ agent and would inhibit chemical evolution. • Experiment produced a mixture of right-handed & left handed amino acids, but in nature left handed ones predominate. • Now it is thought that the atmosphere of the early earth was not rich in methane and ammonia — essential ingredients in Miller’s experiments.
  11. 11. • Recently some scientists put forth a hypothesis that life originated near a deep sea hydrothermal vent. • Black smoker hydrothermal vent – first discovered vents – produced extremely hot water, 3500 C – not conducive to micro-chemical evolution. • Lost City hydrothermal field – Alkaline vents in mid- Atlantic ocean. – discovered by Kelley and others in 2000. – Much cooler- temp of water – 70-900C – They are porous,honey-combed with cavities. – The cavities are at a scale of 1 micron – the same size as a living cell. – The cavity walls are saturated with iron- sulfur(Fe-S) mineral catalysts.
  12. 12. H2 +CO2 simple organic molecule (CH4, formate & acetate.) Serpentinization :- chemical reactions between seawater and mantle rocks which contain large amounts of the mineral olivine (a Mg-Fe silicate)  H2O was reduced by Fe2 ; H2 & S released.  At the vent ocean interface sulphur precipitate, Iron, Nickel etc transition metal sulphides. They catalyse H2 dependent reduction of CO2 to CO CO + H2S CH3-CO-SCH3 (methyl thioester of acetic acid)  These activated acetic acid derivatives serve as starting materials for subsequent exergonic synthetic steps. Vent pores concentrated large molecules like nucleotides formation of RNA, DNA , proteins NiS FeS
  13. 13. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS – In April 2011, researchers in Italy found that if they mixed formamide, a simple chemical present in space, with material from a meteorite, and then heated the mixture, that they produced nucleic acids (building blocks of DNA and RNA), the amino acid glycine, and a precursor to sugar. – In February 2010 scientists at the Scripps Research Institute in San Diego announced that they have synthesized RNA enzymes, known as ribozymes, that can replicate themselves without the help of any proteins or other cellular components. – In May 2009, a team led by John Sutherland, a chemist at the University of Manchester in England discovered how the basic nucleotides (building blocks) of RNA could spontaneously assemble . He formed the RNA nucleotide ribocytidine phosphate from cyano-acetylene.
  14. 14. CONCLUSION • All the evidence gathered thus far has revealed a great deal about the origin of life, but there is still much to learn. • Numerous scenarios have been explored for many years, but there is still a large gap between what is known and what is unknown. • Because of the enormous length of time and the tremendous change that has occurred since then, much of the evidence relevant to origins has been lost and we may never know certain details. • Nevertheless, many of the gaps in our knowledge (gaps that seemed unbridgeable just 20 years ago) have been filled in recent years, and continuing research and new technologies hold the promise of more insights.
  15. Origins of Lie
  16. 15. REFERENCES • Strickberger W Monroe (2000), Evolution, 3rd edition, Jones and Bartlett Publishers. • Arora P Mohan . (2000), Evolutionary Biology ,3rd edition, Himalaya Publishing House • http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/03/05/exclusive-nasa-scientists- claims-evidence-alien-life meteorite/#ixzz1cvC7Bge8 • http://www.smashinglists.com/top-10-theories-on-beginning-of-life-on- earth/ • http://mannaismayaadventure.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/ • http://www.tutorvista.com/content/biology/biology-iii/origin-life/origin- life-theories.php • http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/03/962923/-Revolutionary- Science:-Hydrothermal-Vents-and-the-Origins-of-Life • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_flx26bU0Q&feature=related