But moving on to the details, I differ a bit on the view of the many potential pathways that could lead from chemical evolution to biological evolution. “Selection bias”, likelihoods, would be front and center. For example, there are thermodynamic reasons why RNA could have been favored as the first genetic material, if that was what happened. ["Statistical Physics of Self-Replication", England, TBP; "Thermodynamic Basis for the Emergence of Genomes", Woo et al, PLOS Comp. Biol. 2012.]
That is where I think Spiegel and Turner fails. As I remember my problem at the time was that they had to posit different pathways on different locales in order to make the result less constrained. Eg a failure to find life on Mars would be due solely to the pathway.
But for the same reason we should expect evolution, differential reproduction, to be a universal process among life because it promotes the most successful populations by its very nature, we should expect a successful pathway to life to be dominant. The recent find of earliest, even metamorphic, BIFs of Isua @ 3.8 Ga bpas likely result of anoxygenic photosynthesis pushes life within 1 Ga from Earth formation. [ http://www.sciencedirect.com/s... ] That is early enough to find our pathway, likely alkaline hydrothermal vent biochemistry by homology with early autotroph metabolism as per Lane and Martin, easy so likely generic.
Small nitpick which do not detract from environmental theory/selection bias (aka various “Anthropic Principles”): “Without all these ducks lined up in a row, there would be no carbon.”
Not all carbon is synthesized by the resonant pathway. This even seems to have been a problem, since too easy direct three-body formation at low temperatures would have been inconsistent with astronomical observations. Luckily it is sufficiently low in production. [http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.2136... ]
I don’t know if this alternative pathway production rate is too low to prohibit more massive element formation in all kinds of potential universes where the resonant process is suppressed or vanished.
And while I looked for the non-resonant process reference which I had misplaced, I found an article that could be of interest re the apparent selection bias in carbon production. It seems it is not too fine-tuned, the excited state could vary with a factor 3 in energy excess. [http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/... ]
Biological Fe oxidation controlled deposition of banded iron formation in the ca. 3770 Ma Isua Supracrustal Belt (West Greenland) -
The redox balance of the Archean atmosphere–ocean system is among the most significant uncertainties in our understanding of the earliest history of Earth’s surface zone. Most workers agree that oxygen did not constitute a significant proportion of the atmosphere until after ca. 2.45 Ga, after the Great Oxidation Event, but there is less agreement on when O2 production began, and how this may have been consumed by reduced species such as Fe(II) in the oceans. The Fe redox cycle through time has been traced using banded iron formations (BIFs), and Fe isotopes are increasingly used to constrain the conditions of Earth’s paleoenvironments, including the pathways of formation of BIFs. Iron isotope analyses of BIFs from the 3.7 to 3.8 Ga Isua Supracrustal Belt (ISB), obtained by micro-sampling of magnetite-rich layers and conventional analysis, as well as by in situ femtosecond laser ablation (fs-LA-ICP-MS), indicate a consistently narrow range of non-zero δ56Fe values. Analysis of magnetite by fs-LA-ICP-MS allows for precise and accurate micron-scale analyses without the problems of orientation effects that are associated with secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS) analyses. Magnetite δ56Fe values range from +0.4‰ to +1.1‰ among different bands, but within individual layers magnetite grains are mostly homogeneous. Although these BIFs have been metamorphosed to amphibolite-facies, the metamorphism can neither explain the range in Fe isotope compositions across bands, nor that between hand samples. The isotopic compositions therefore reflect “primary”, low-temperature sedimentary values. The positive δ56Fe values measured from the ISB magnetites are best explained by deposition of Fe(III)-oxides produced by partial oxidation of Fe(II)-rich ocean water. A dispersion/reaction model, which accounts for rates of hydrothermal Fe(II)aq input, rates of oxidation, and rates of Fe(OH)3 settling suggests exceptionally low O2 contents, <0.001% of modern O2contents in the photic zone. Such low levels suggest an anoxygenic pathway is more likely, and the data can be well modeled by anoxygenic photosynthetic Fe(II) oxidation. Comparison of the Fe isotope data from the Isua BIFs with those from the 2.5 Ga BIFs from the Hamersley and Transvaal basins (Australia and South Africa, respectively) suggests a striking difference in Fe sources and pathways. The 2.5 Ga magnetite facies BIFs of Australia and South Africa have δ56Fe values that range from −1.2‰ to +1.2‰ over small scales, and are on average close to 0‰, which is significantly lower than those reported here from the Isua BIFs. The wide range in Fe isotope compositions for the Hamersley and Transvaal BIFs, in concert with C and O isotope data, have been interpreted to reflect bacterial dissimilatory Fe(III) reduction (DIR). The absence of low δ56Fe values in the Isua BIFs, as well as the lack of fine-scale isotopic heterogeneity, may indicate formation prior to widespread DIR.
► Analysis by fs-laser-ablation allows for precise and accurate micron-scale analyses. ► Iron isotope analyses of BIFs from Isua indicate a narrow range of positive δ56Fe values. ► Narrow range of positive magnetite δ56Fe values reflect primary sedimentary values. ► Positive δ56Fe values best explained by anoxygenic photosynthetic Fe(II) oxidation. ► Iron in Isua BIFs has a different source and pathway than that of 2.5 Ga BIFs.
Bacterias se movem deixando um rastro de sugar para que outras ai se localizem criando um biofilm. Isto ev similar a imagem de fotons de LUCA dirigindo atomos para as novas combinacoes. Estariam as bacterias simplesmente sendo guiadas por instinto seguindo o registro de LUCA em sua memoria? Pesquisar isto.
1) Bacteria on a surface wander around and often organise into highly resilient communities known as biofilms. It turns out that they organise in a rich-get-richer pattern similar to the distribution of wealth in the economy,
”Some of the bacteria remained fixed in position,” Parsek said. ”But some moved around on the surface, apparently randomly, but leaving a trail that influenced the surface behavior of other bacteria that encountered it.”
1) Home / Forum / Astrobiology for Solar Systems Exploration / Ideas / #261 – If organics were found on Mars, to what extent would one consider such a discovery as a 1) indicator of life, 2) indicator for the presence of life, 3) should such a detection be a major endeavor of Astrobiology?
George Cody - In other words. Are we being to Mars focused. Perhaps we should be satisfied that Life exists on Earth. The question of life on Earth may well hinge on understanding our entire solar system. Focusing on Mars for a second example of life does not follow from any scientific hypothesis. I say focus the question of life on Earth with a broader understanding of our entire solar system. Now- ready, aim, fire… please!
I am a layman but doing a rude research about natural phenomena in general and I am asking if my questions and suggestions will be accepted here. If so, it will be necessary an initial patience from readers.
Why searching for life – as biological systems – and not also any other pathway of evolution at Mars? The elements and forces inside Milk Way can only produces biological systems as new universal species and shapes? My suggestion is that we need paying attention to occurrence and compounds of Boron and Nitrogen also, and others liquid states of matter.
I think that organic compounds indicates an evolutionary advanced step in relation to the evolutionary state of its precursor system – the system that generates the organic compound There are three known systems that are not composed by organics: atomic system, stellar system and galactic system. These systems were formed by three states of matter (electromagnetic, solid and gaseous . When entropy attacked the closed galactic system, it produced a new state – the liquid. It brought a novelty – organic chemistry or chemistry at all. Chemistry is the evolutionary product from physics forces and its elements. So, we have a novelty – biological systems – which includes those three states of matter plus liquid state. We know that biological systems are carbon-based. But… why chemistry could not produces any other evolutionary system more advanced in complexity than the existent systems, from another element-based? And using natural forces not detected by Physics?
The Matrix/DNA models is clear and rational when explaining why carbon was selected here. It is the unique atom that copies perfectly and entirely the building blocks of astronomical systems. So, for to increasing complexity to a given system (Milky Way) Nature first needs to reproduce the existing top system, and then, trowing it at a more complex environment than the cosmological environment where Milky Way was formed. And the unique place of the world where there was a more complex environment was the internal environment of galaxies. Carbon, number atomic 6, is the fidel copy of astronomic building blocks, functions number 6.
But, by my calculations, Boron (5), Nitrogen (7) are strong candidates also, for generating new evolutionary systems, not as good as carbon-based.
As a layman in Chemistry, I need know if water is the one liquid that Nature has used for organic chemistry? How we understand what is liquid state and which are the others liquid states existing at prebiotic life?
There are two possibilities for evolution in Mars and any other habitable-zone planets: 1) Carbon at another liquid state than water, going to pathways different from biological systems; 2) More evolved systems than the top ancestor, but less evolved than carbon-based systems, composed by Boron and/or Nitrogen. Any help will be welcome…
When thinking about the origins and evolution of life, it’s critical to think about the origins and evolution of planets. Terrestrial planets progress through several stages of their own geochemical, mineralogical, and tectonic evolution, each with distinctive physical and chemical “niches” for prebiotic processes. Thus, the near-surface environment where life emerges (and the related concept of “habitability”) is a constantly changing context. Earth, for example, has progressed through at least 10 distinct “stages,” each of which displayed wide global variations. As we learn more about extrasolar planets, it’s important to think about each of those objects as a dynamic, evolving system (in ways analogous to what is now understood about stellar evolution).
Not published (too much long)
I am a layman and if my questions/suggests are off topic, please, fell free for delecting it.
Why to limit us for thinking and doing experiments about life’s origins only based in ” what is now understood about stellar evolution”? Our culture exists about 15.000 years and any astronomical movement of stars and planet formation must takes millions or billions years, so, never nobody saw the birth of planets and stars. Our theoretical model is a temptative of connecting the dots, based in different stages of stars and planets seen now. It is too much little! And… if the model is not complete or is wrong… all others related models will be wrong. And we will not see signals in Nature about what we are looking for. Am I wrong?
I have applied a primitive method of investigation which final results is suggesting a different model for stellar evolution. Of, course, I am not able for finding the ultimate model, but my experience could help us, showing several another possibilities for building astronomical models. It was made in reverse way – taking biological systems as final product and searching the producer. The old method of comparative anatomy among living and non-living systems was applied.
Where, at stellar evolution theory was the force that developed to “self-reproduction”, verified at RNA-world? Where was at the current astronomical theoretical model, at the state of the world when life emerged here, the basis for genetic memory and code? Why left-handed molecules were selected? What bridge is missing for transforming the Urey-Miller aminoacids into peptides? And I have tens of similar questions… which the advocates of current Nebular Theory, Standard Theory and Modern Synthesis never answered to me, but the Matrix/DNA model answered all of then in a rational way. For instance, the process of biological reproduction is an evolutionary product coming from stellar systems self-recycling.
My immediate goal is learning, searching the Truth, because only Nature teach us the mechanisms and processes that composes our Science and leads us to technological power, which is the tool for my supreme goal: dignity, victory, for Humanity. And I am sure this is the supreme goal of NASA team and all of us studying these issues. So, I see no intelligence at competitive behavior among theories and worldvisions. We need joining more brains for thinking together.
I need an answer for an obvious question: We observe here a human body changing shapes due a process called life’s cycle. Now, you, Sir, is pointing out that… “ Terrestrial planets progress through several stages of their own geochemical, mineralogical, and tectonic evolution, each with distinctive physical and chemical “niches” for prebiotic processes.” My question is: Is it not clear, obvious, that the process of life’s cycle, that emerged here at this planet surface, is an evolutionary step based – and from – planetary evolution? And: Since that life’s cycle process applies over an entire body, as a system, and since that planets belongs to a larger system called stellar system, which will be the right explanation? The evolution and decay of living systems is an evolutionary product from planetary evolution or stellar evolution?
The Matrix/DNA Theory has its answers for such questions, but this is not the issue here. The issue is: the search for extra-terrestrial life must be amplified beyond our current theoretical models.
Many of us study and are funded to study extraterrestrial organic matter in meteorites (and rarely comets). What is the best argument we can make that better understanding of the inventory of organic molecules in primitive bodies is worthy as an Astrobiology goal, that is… primitive bodies contain lots of inorganic and organic phases- what is our best argument that study of these is of paramount importance to National Science interests
Louis Charles Morelli:
The most important product from any extraterrestrial research will be the jump from scientific reductionist method to scientific systemic method. Every big problem we have just now is not solved because we don’t have a Science of Natural Systems. From cancer disease to climate change to social and economic regulations we need apply the natural mechanisms that Nature knows and applies till building such perfect system like our solar system. The Genome Project proved that is not reducing to individual genes that we will found the roots of big diseases but known DNA as a system. Our study of natural systems had as precursors Margullis, Capra and the giant effort of Bertalanffy creating the General Theory of Systems. But at Earth we have no systems with known boundaries all systems here are opened systems which turns out difficult to identification and isolation of any system. The atomic systems has its problems related to quantum and electromagnetic aspects. So, these problems made that the study of natural systems was stopped and continuing through artificial and cybernetic systems, which put Bertalanffy lost and stopping his efforts. So, for returning to natural systems we have only the astronomical systems, stellar, and galactics. Since that we approaches the study of organic molecules detecting its properties and mechanisms, and projecting these findings for building the models of the astronomical system that produced them, we will contribute to these most necessary and spectacular jump towards a Super-Science.
David Eric Smith
It would be nice to understand why syntheses as different as Miller-Urey, meteorite, laboratory mineral-water organosynthesis, and perhaps some cometary or cold dust ISM synthesis as inferred spectroscopically, have any significant overlap with each other or with biochemistry.The dominant activation energy sources and channels are different, the quenching conditions and temperatures that lead to most complexity are different, and yet to varying degrees there are some common products. To the extent that mineral-water syntheses are meant as models of early earth, and by extension some asteroid conditions, the overlap is less surprising, but the overlap of these with gas-phase free radical syntheses, albeit less, is still interesting. To again harp on thinking at the network level, does this indicate that there are paths of least resistance that tend to take dissimilar starting conditions and render them more similar? If so, and if we could understand what the rules are that lead to convergence, perhaps this would be a starting point in thinking about what outcomes are robust or necessary.
Louis Charles Morelli:
David Eric Smith: “… and if we could understand what the rules are that lead to convergence…”
At Matrix/DNA models we have a clear understanding about the rules that lead to convergence … the problem is that the models are not scientifically proved yet. The convergence of all physical forces and elements into a primordial soup is produced by entropy attacking closed systems – like the building blocks of original galaxies. Differently from a thermodynamic opened system – where entropy causes the external dispersion of energy/heat – when at closed systems the disintegration begins at the surface, the periphery, and advances internally towards the center. The entropic particles, which we call free radicals are driven internally towards a center and then, we have convergence. It happens that the area next to the center still are intact, not reached by entropy and when these free radicals arrives, they can be stopped at these areas. So, the disintegration of Milky Way, like the radiation from the Sun, produced free radicals that arrived at Earth, most exactly at the primordial soup. Since that each radical is a dynamic bit-information of the system itself, they has the tendency for re-building the same configuration of the system they are coming from. These radicals are photons and inside the terrestrial atoms they driven the atoms to new connections. That’s why the cell system is a copy of the building block of galaxies.
So, convergence and the opposite movement – let’s call it divergence – draws the same image pictured by Hideki Yukawa for explaining the nuclear glue between protons and electrons. The image is a vortex, appearing and disappearing. Divergence begins as a point, which amplifies spirally, building the vortex. Convergence is the opposite direction of this movement, when the final end of the spiral is contracted to a point, the vortex disappears. Here, all points of the spiral line converges to the same point. That’s why all points of this spiral galaxy converged to the primordial soup, the point, and lifted up as a new system. Welcome to the world of life!
In my humble view. We have have one world where life clearly emerged, as most scientists believe, as a consequence of natural processes. Yet, in spite of claims over the past 50 years, we have no idea how life emerged. I believe this is a solvable question, but I also acknowledge that it is obviously not trivial- we have no credible answer yet. What we have is the laws of physics, chemistry, and a real world (as well as we know it). These facts are all that can guide us. I encourage all to use these tools (which are very robust) and our improving understanding of the Early Solar System to be very philosophically/scientifically rigorous and work towards our best efforts at constraining the origins of life. It is not “chemistry in a bottle”.
Louis Charles Morelli:
Dr. George, I know that you don’t like loosing your time and you can’t accept that other method of investigation besides the university academy could have something useful. But, while you don’t delete and expulse me from here I will post what my Matrix/DNA Theory is suggesting. To me, asking how did the early Earth lead to origins of life is a wrong question.
Why are you trying to take off chemistry from the bottle, but, at same time putting Earth and the origins of life inside the bottle?! Three things for thought:
1) The first real and complete living being was not a piece, a part, but it was a working system – the cell system. Same way that life come from life, systems come from systems. Earth is not a complete system accordingly our definition of systems. Which are the parts, where are the interaction among parts, and, certainly, the parts does not perform the universal systemic functions. So, in search of the creator of the first cell system, we must jump to the solar system.
2) Scientifically we can’t know the time that was necessary from the first aminoacids till the first cell system, but, rationally we bet that it was a lot of time. The duration of time for formation is more likely formations at astronomical levels than the 9 months or less required for formation of biological bodies. Again, astronomical time leads us to beyond Earth.
3) Where were at Earth the Physics forces and elements that, worked by chemistry, evolved to life’s properties? For instance, the RNA-world self reproduction? What was self-reproducing at Earth? I don’t know, but, our astronomical models and I think that yours Nebular Theory models suggests the same thing: stellar systems are disintegrated becoming nebular dust, and from here a new stellar system arises. This is self-recycling. What is the difference between self-recycling and self-reproduction? One need dying for born again and other makes a copy of itself. How Nature jumped from the simplest mechanism of self-recycling to the most complex mechanism of self-reproduction? The model of Matrix/DNA explains it very clear, with no problems. And so, we have genetic memory and code, metabolism. left handed molecules, etc. Where were the physics precursor forces or mechanisms at Earth? Nobody knows, but if we consider the stellar and galactic system, as the thing that leads to emergence of life, maybe will become ease for finding then. As the matrix/DNA models has found every precursor, theoretically of course.
An example of the PAH infrared signature (bottom) and two positions in the Iris nebula showing the different types of PAH structures present. The left view shows the kinds of large PAHs that produce most of the emission between the star and distant molecular cloud. The right view samples the region surrounding the star where large PAHs are destroyed by the harsh UV and PAH fragments, smaller PAHs and fullerenes take over. Credits: the NASA Ames
- PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons)
- PAHs – extremely large molecules by astrochemical standards
- PAH signature across large regions of space, from hot regions of harsh ultraviolet (UV) radiation close to stars, to cold, dark clouds where stars and planets form.
- They found that PAHs changed significantly in size, electrical charge and structure, to adjust to the different environment at each spot in the map.
- the IRIS nebula (NGC 7023) that hosts both the extreme environment of a region close to a star as well as the more shielded, benign environment of a cold molecularcloud.
- The new maps showed that small, electrically neutral, irregularly-shaped PAHs are most important near the cold molecular cloud that is far from the star that excites PAH emission. However, when PAHs move closer to the exciting star and away from the cold cloud, they become large, symmetric and are electrically charged.
- Finally, these large PAHs are themselves broken down, as they are stripped of hydrogen and become small fragments.
-There were two findings that are especially important: the first is that positively-charged, nitrogen-containing PAH cations are needed to complete the match between the correct spectral signature and the observed emission, and the second is that dehydrogenation and fragmentation occur close to the exciting star.
- They represent an important class of prebiotic molecules, which are precursors to life,” said Jesse Bregman, also an astrophysicist at Ames.
Board index‹General Biology‹General Discussion xxxx A complete an exploratory meaning of projects the “DNA – space – Life” can summed up in two Big Questions: – How the divine mind creates a platform and creatively implements the mental and spiritual laws of the universe? And what role we play in this process, each person of us? In the popular scientific book, during the travel we will see the answers to a number of Big Questions, which are located between mathematical zero and DNA. Before many of them, science modestly silent only because, that they have never been formulated. For example, such as: Perguntas Diretamente Relacionadas a Teoria da Origin da Vida: – What is the relationship between the structure of space and DNA and RNA structures? Resposta de Leonid: – (?) Resposta de Louis: – Since that I think space is merely a human concept about distances and sizes of material substances/bodies, I will take this question as: “What is the relationship between the material structures dispersed at Cosmological space and DNA/RNA structures? Then,… the relationship is same evolutionary lineage plus same and unique process of natural’s systems cycle. So, RNA was produced direct from a mutation occurred at the “Matrix/DNA” of the last more evolved non-biological system that were existing at the time of RNA emergency, the astronomical galactic system.Since that this “matrix” is unknown by you, I will advance briefly that you need see the model which is the resume of all informations related to the process by which appears the seven different kinds of astronomical bodies, like planet, star, pulsar, comet, moon quasar, black hole. Under evolutionary process biological DNA is the species of universal systems resulting from complexity applied over astronomical DNA and under life’s cycle process DNA is resulting shape of an ancestor that was miniaturized nannotecnologically like any adult man is miniaturized inside chromosomas. The extraordinary mutation from astronomical system is due this system was formed only with the gaseous and solid states of matter, while its ” offspring” biological DNA was formed at an environment containing the two states plus the liquid state (water), which produced the evolution of physics process to chemistry processes. (Is it possible to understand something in this way?) – Why nature has chosen deoxyribonucleotide, as the main and the only building material for DNA? – Why one semi-coil of B-form DNA has 5 pairs of molecules of this saccharide? – How the element space begin cook soup of “Primary components” for future DNA or RNA molecules from a set of chemical elements? – How looks the self process of birth of the primary DNA or RNA molecules? – What is the factory of primary DNA or RNA (nucleotide-plant)? – That dictates the rules for sequence of primary assembly of nucleotides? – What is the role of water molecules in this process? – What is “Biochemical period of preparation” or “Pre-evolutionary period” for colonization of planets by living organisms in light new theories and conception? – What are the properties DNA are copied from the space? – What are the primary and the secondary oscillatory circuits of the DNA molecule? – Where must lie zones of their responsibility and sensitivity at use of electromagnetic phenomena? – Why and how the DNA speaks, reproduces acoustic signals? – How the magnetic field of our planet helps animals and birds to navigate and orienting during migration? – What is the nature identification and attracting chemical compounds on site-body of DNA or RNA for the biosynthesis? – Is it possible to use of electromagnetic (not electrostatic) phenomena during operation of enzymes? – are there possibility for physicochemical nature of actions of the codon? – Why 64 codon can produce only 20 (21) amino acids in light a new theory? – Why electrical discharge promotes the synthesis of some amino acids? – What for nature creates Z-form DNA? – What way nature prepares and distributes the genetic information, on the near and cosmic distances? – What is the receiving mechanism and collecting of this information? – Is it possible appearance a new forms of life on Earth today, in our current time? – Is it possible the construction of the material life by non-carbon based? Where should look for it? – Why material life is born in different parts of the universe? xxxxx – Is there a structure in the space? – What kind of this structure? – Where we can see and how measure it? – What size is the elementary space? – Is there a hierarchy of space? – Why trajectory lightning, discharge electricity or electron (at interference) is not a direct line, but are broken curve line? – How is born and lives the element of the space? – What is the deformation and temporary closing-down of space? – What is the ether? – What structures can be called ether and what cannot? – Can we call him alive? As well as other important and interesting Big Questions in Life Sciences. Their importance will be discussed in the following posts.
This comment is pending approval and won’t be displayed until it is approved.
Different from panspermia and any other theory, the seeds of life is not produced locally by a favorable planet. The seeds are composed by bits-information of whole galaxies, it is the entire system that collapses into a seed, and spread it everywhere internally. That’s what is suggesting the Matrix/DNA Theory models showing a formula for galaxies that has the same configuration of nucleotides for RNA/DNA. If the theory is right, must have at least six different kinds of planets able to support six different kinds of “life”. Maybe things are more complex than we are supposing and maybe we are ignoring worlds that have weird kind of life. The differences among composition and shapes of “life” is due these seeds having the law of dominance and recessive applied to its six building blocks, being that each seed one is dominant. Ok.., just a suggestion from a humble theory…
O atual paradigma no pensamento cientifico sobre como a Vida se originou na Terra é a teoria do RNA-world (o mundo do RNA) sugerindo que primeiro se formou a molécula RNA, e as proteínas teriam vindo a seguir. Agora a equipe do Professor Michael Blaber, da Florida State University of Medicine produziu dados que suportam a nova ideia de que não o RNA, mas sim que os 10 tipos de aminoácidos que existiam no ambiente inorgânico e produzidos por meras reações químicas teriam sido capazes de formar proteínas em ambientes com elevado teor de sal. Lembre-se que os seres vivos são formados por 20 tipos de aminoácidos dos quais, 10 tipos formaram-se junto com a formação do sistema solar, muito antes das origens da vida, e os outros 10 apenas se formam com síntese biológica, depois da emergência dos compostos orgânicos. Porque… é o que a Matrix/DNA vai explicar a seguir.
Fig.1 – A esquerda um filamento inicial de aminoácidos sem função biológica, e a direita a forma tridimensional que adquirem apos o processo de enovelamento ou dobramento (folding).
O dobramento de proteínas é um processo químico através do qual a estrutura de uma proteína assume a sua configuração funcional. Todas as moléculas de proteínas são cadeias heterogêneas não-ramificadas de aminoácidos. Ao dobrar e enrolar-se para tomar uma forma tridimensional específica, as proteínas são capazes de realizar a sua função biológica. Muitas proteínas fazem-no espontaneamente durante ou após a sua síntese no interior das células. Apesar destas macromoléculas aparentarem estar a dobrar-se a si mesmas, de facto a sua dobragem depende em grande medida das características da solução que as rodeia, incluindo o tipo de solvente primário (no interior das células é água ou lípidos), da concentração dos sais, da temperatura e das moléculas que a rodeiam. Mas nunca foi observado o enovelamento dos 10 primeiros aminoácidos e acredita-se que estes aminoácidos primitivos não eram capazes de fazer o enovelamento. O que a equipe do Professor Braber diz estar produzindo seria a prova de que eles podiam faze-lo, ao menos quando estão em soluções com alto teor salinico.
Ora, se os primitivos aminoácidos podiam se enovelar, se tornariam proteínas biologicamente funcionais, e como eles existiam antes do RNA, então teríamos que mudar o paradigma do RNA-world para o Protein-world. E como estes 10 primitivos aminoácidos formados junto com o sistema solar tem sido encontrados em meteoritos vindo do espaço… a Vida pode existir em outros mundos…
Mas porque 10 aminoácidos - justamente a metade dos que formam os seres vivos – podem se formarem nas origens de sistemas estelares, mesmo antes da formação de planetas, e os outros 10 apenas se formam depois que aos 10 primeiros se juntarem outras moléculas tais como o RNA… Apenas os modelos da Matrix/DNA previram isso e explica racionalmente.
Vejamos a formula da Matrix (Fig 2):
E o desenho do circuito do fluxo interno de informação da fórmula da Matrix/DNA na sua versão de sistema perfeito fechado, na forma de diagrama de software
E vejamos a formula organizando a materia em building blocks de galaxias primitivas, depois em aminoácidos depois nucleotídeos depois células… (Fig. 3)
Matrix/DNA: O template para todos os sistemas naturais, de átomos a nucleotídeos a galáxias e células. O circuíto energético padrão.
E por fim seres humanos (Fig. 4)
Human and Celestial Primordial Body Lifes Cycles – Matrix/DNA Theory
Os modelos da Matrix/DNA estão sugerindo que a metade (50%) das informações para a formação de sistemas biológicos vem das reações nucleares dos núcleos planetários e a outra metade vem das radiações das estrelas como o Sol. Estas informações vem na forma de fótons e os planetas expressam como dominantes as informações do trecho entre F1 e F4, enquanto as estrelas expressam de F6 a F1 ( como tem efeito retardado, a F5 deve chegar ao tempo do segundo grupo). Os 10 primitivos aminoácidos foram formados por uma estrela, nem planetas existiam ainda, o que sugere serem do segundo grupo. Mas justamente neste grupo que compreende a face direita da Matrix é o campo da entropia degenerativa, quando as peças dos sistemas iniciam sua queda energética tendem a oxidar, desmanchar, e não formar estruturas firmes, a qual eve a função do primeiro grupo, com sua energia ascendente. os outros 10 aminoácidos devem ter formado pedaços firmes de sistemas e coincidiram com o aparecimento do RNA, o qual eve o representante da Função 5 que tem a função reprodutiva, a qual apenas se expressa quando o grupo um já esta formado. Se a Matrix estiver certa, o Prof. Blaber esta equivocado em sua teoria ( tanto que ate agora ele apenas conseguiu um principio de enovelamento com o minimo de 12 diferentes aminoácidos nunca com os 10 primitivos apenas. Mas a teoria do RNA-world também seria equivocada, pois sem proteínas enoveladas o RNA sequer surgiria e nada poderia fazer. Mas vamos continuar esta pesquisa… (Mais informações muito importantes devem ser lidas no artigo do link acima).
Imagine qual foi a surpresa das civilizações maia, inca, quando das praias viram pela primeira vez, uns objetos estranhos aparecendo na superfície das águas em alto mar, se aproximando lentamente, e revelando-se numa imagem surpreendente, as quais, os brancos, chamam de caravelas. Quando as caravelas se aproximaram eram tao grandes como monstros marinhos e os indígenas correram a se esconderem nas folhagens.
E imagine a surpresa quando viram descerem coisas parecidas com animais vivos, e ao alcançarem a praia, os indígenas nas folhagens viram seres na mesma forma que eles, porem muito brancos, com peles (roupas) esquisitas… Eles sempre se julgaram os únicos seres no mundo naquela forma, suas lendas, religiões, visões do mundo foram construídas por milênios baseadas num mundo sem outros seres semelhantes…
Pense nos negros africanos que viviam nos mais distantes refúgios da densa floresta e por milhares de anos jamais poderiam imaginar que no mundo existiam outros continentes, alguns cobertos de alva neve que nunca viram, habitados por seres poderosos donos de impérios que incluía a Africa, que portanto eram os senhores deles mesmos… Como agora e possível que nesta galaxia exista um império ao qual nossa região solar pertence…
Pois agora chegou a vez do homem branco… Agora ele vai enfrentar na pele esta mesma experiencia que o fara tremer nas bases, todas sua milenares crenças, lendas, religiões tecnologias econômicas experiencias politicas, organizações sociais e modo de vida serão mudadas abruptamente! Talvez os orgulhosos e ricos senhores da Terra hoje serão postos a rastejarem na frente de multidões como os europeus fizeram com as famílias imperiais poderosas no continente americano, o qual, segundo elas acreditavam, era o único mundo onde a especie humana existia. Ou talvez – e assim rogo a meu Deus-Consciência que seja quando levando meus olhos para prescrutar os mistérios na infinita imensidade do espaço – os bilhões de atuais escravos brancos filhos da necessidade, sejam levantados em naves de luz para sentirem as inimagináveis emoções da liberdade.
Mas pode acontecer também que este encontro com o choque de uma realidade ausente das nossas religiões e visões de mundo aconteça repetindo não a experiencia dos índios no continente, mas sim a experiencia dos homens brancos que desembarcaram da caravela e viram os índios movendo-se entre as folhagens. Talvez a Natureza e Deus nos reserve uma segunda oportunidade, a de que agora levemos não a cobiça, a destruição a morte, para formas de vida menos evoluídas que encontrar-mos, e sim o amor que os ajude a se levantarem ao ponto de somarem-se a nos na grande aventura de continuar a busca no espaço infinito pelo criador de todos nos. E justamente com a intenção de ser como o branco das grandes descobertas e não como os indígenas assentados em pequenos mundos, que muitos seres humanos neste momento juntam forças nesta nova, inédita missão a busca da tecnologia, da construção das novas caravelas e bussolas, espectrômetros, etc, da busca da Vida nos milhares de planetas que estão sendo descobertos mundo afora. Creio que Deus se sente solitário que deseja que suas criaturas retornem a Ele o mais rápido possível, e nos queremos ser Sua mão estendida para todos os que estiverem atrasados nesta lenta senda da evolução.
Vamos precisar sim, por exemplo, do metal raro para fazer pontes de safena para os que dentre nos estão sendo torturados por fracos corações que podem existir em abundancia nos mundos onde desembarcar-mos, onde os seus habitantes não sabem seu valor. Mas jamais vamos repetir o comportamento de nossos ancestrais nos seus egoísmos pois agora evoluímos como consciência, agora estamos nos tornando co-pilotos da evolução da Criação.
No esforço desta missão foi realizada uma conferencia que se tornou um vídeo de debates, como explica a noticia do titulo acima:
“ At the 2012 Astrobiology Science Conference, Astrobiology Magazine hosted a plenary session called “Expanding the Habitable Zone: The Hunt for Exoplanets Now and Into the Future.”. The session featured a panel of exoplanet hunters and thinkers, who held a lively discussion about some of the most important issues facing the search for and understanding of alien worlds orbiting distant stars. You can watch the full “Great Exoplanet Debate” here:
Mas antes, a seguir, leia a mensagem que a cosmovisão da Matrix/DNA nos motivou a postar na seção dos comentários daquele magazine, e a seguir ainda, a copia do texto com nossas analises dos pontos que cruzam os caminhos da Matrix/DNA:
Comentário da Matrix/DNA em SPACE.COM:
Assim como as células tiveram dois processos diferentes de origens e formação deve ter sido com galaxias e astros. Não sabemos quais sistemas astronômicos e astros se formaram por simbiose e quais foram meras reproduções dos originais. Todos estes detalhes precisam ser arrolados nas simulações computacionais para detectar os astros habitáveis e os modelos da Matrix/DNA Theory devem serem conhecidos e também testados.
A idade/tipo da estrela é também fundamental, pois determina o tipo especifico de sua radiação da frequência de luz e tipos de fótons e para a Vida emergir é preciso que tudo isso esteja no estado ideal. Os nossos modelos sugerem uma nova surpreendente definição do que é Vida, ao ponto de vê la emergindo como sistemas atômicos e astronômicos e conhecendo estes modelos temos novas abordagens para detectar as biosignaturas que transmitem para superfícies de planetas produzindo novas combinações dos elementos inorgânicos Estamos torcendo e esperando com fervor o sucesso destes pesquisadores, pois dependemos dos dados que obtém para desenvolver e testar nossos modelos.
As the cells had two different processes of origins and formation, must have been with galatxies and stars. We do not know which stars and astronomical systems formed by symbiosis and which were mere reproductions of the originals. All these details need to be enrolled in computer simulations to detect habitable stars systems and the models of Matrix / DNA Theory should also be known and tested.
The age / type of the star is also crucial because it determines the specific type of their radiation, the frequency and types of light and its photons, because for emergency for Life all details need to be at the ideal state. Our models suggest a new surprising definition of what is life, to the point of seeing it emerging as atomic and astronomical systems and knowing these models you have new approaches to detect biosignatures that ancestrals systems are transmitting to surfaces of planets to produce new combinations of inorganic elements. We are hoping fervently the success of these researchers, because we also depend on the data they obtained to develop and test our models.
The following transcript relays some of their opening thoughts. It’s the first entry in Astrobiology Magazine’s eight-part series, “The Great Exoplanet Debate.”
David Grinspoon: Thanks a lot for coming out this afternoon for this Plenary Debate. And since we are having a debate about extrasolar planets, we have two panelists who love extrasolar planets, and two panelists who hate extrasolar planets. Now which is which? No, it’s not really a debate in that sense. I think it’s a probably, hopefully a lively discussion that we will have.
I am David Grinspoon. I am the Curator of Astrobiology at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, and my research focuses on atmospheric evolution, climate evolution of Earth-like planets. That’s why I’m interested in extrasolar planets, in addition to the fact that they’re cool. And if you’re a human being alive today, I don’t see how you could not be interested in them. But what I want to do now is introduce the panelists, the debaters or discussants. And I am just going to say who they are and where they’re from, and then I am going to let them each briefly introduce themselves and talk about their own research interests and why they’re interested, and how they come to the subject of extrasolar planets.
So starting here at my immediate right, we have Dr. Dirk Schulze-Makuch. Dirk is a Professor at the School of Earth and Environmental Science at Washington State University. Dirk, tell us a little about yourself.
Dr. Dirk Schulze-Makuch: Okay, thanks David. Well, my main research area is planetary habitability. So I am basically interested in any kind of planets and moons that could harbor life or where we could find some kind of biosignatures or life signatures from Mars to [Saturn's moon] Titan to [Jupiter's moon] Europa, Venus and exoplanets. And I actually enjoy very much too to look at possibilities of different bio-chemistries and how different life could be at these places.
For example, one of our research projects is a natural liquid asphalt lake in Trinidad, where we found a slew of different micro-organisms. We used the type this kind of liquid asphalt lake as an analog to Titan. And some other research sites where we look, our project is to look from the juncture from single cellular life to multi-cellular life, and we developed recently some kind of indices for planetary habitability, for bio-complexity, so when we see certain signals and signs from exoplanets that we can correctly interpret them. Thank you. [5 Bold Claims of Alien Life]
David Grinspoon: Okay, thanks Dirk. Next I’d like to introduce Sara Seager. Sara is a Professor of Planetary Science and Physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Sara, what’s your angle on all this?
Sara Seager: First, I just want to thank everyone for coming out to the panel. And one topic that we are going to address later which might be of interest to all of you is, what makes a planet habitable and are there any habitable planets? As you know in the media, we have heard that a habitable planet has been discovered again, and again, and again. And my main interest is actually finding and characterizing habitable worlds.
My research at MIT is divided into two groups. One I just call “Theory and Computation,” where we make complex computer models to predict or interpret data on exoplanet atmospheres. Today those are limited to hot Jupiters and hot Neptunes. You can call them mini-Neptunes and things like that. We also work on biosignatures and other related elements.
The other growing part of my research is in space engineering. And what we are trying to do is take part in what could be a revolution in space science by building upon the small satellites. And what I have brought here that we can talk more about later, and you are welcome to come up after the talk, is a demonstration model which is the actual size, actual volume, close to the actual mass.
This is not functional, unfortunately. It’s just to demonstrate a small satellite. And what this would do, it would be very complementary to Kepler [NASA's planet-hunting Kepler space telescope]. Where Kepler is one big telescope, looking at a bunch of faint stars, this would be one small telescope looking at one star. And the idea would be a graduated growth of a constellation, to eventually look at lots of stars at one time.
So there are a lot of things going on on exoplanets. And let’s hear from our other panelists and we’ll see where this discussion or debate goes. [9 Potentially Habitable Exoplanets (Countdown)]
David Grinspoon: Thanks, Sara. Next I’d like to introduce Vikki Meadows. Vikki is a Professor of Planetary Astronomy at the University of Washington in Seattle. And she is also principal investigator of the Virtual Planetary Laboratory. Vikki?
Vikki Meadows: My training is actually as a planetary astronomer. In fact my Ph.D. thesis was on observations of Venus using near-infrared windows, spectral windows to look down into the lower atmosphere of Venus to search for water vapor down there. And also to look for oxygen high in the atmosphere produced by photolysis. So it is kind of ironic that my sort of introduction to planetary astronomy was to look for water and oxygen on what is arguably the least habitable planet in the solar system. I did find them there though, so that is interesting.
My current work is in the area of terrestrial exoplanet characterization. And since we don’t yet have a terrestrial exoplanet we are able to characterize with something like spectroscopy, this is largely a theoretical field. So to that end, I lead a team called the Virtual Planetary Laboratory, as David mentioned, which is one of the NASA’s Astrobiology Institute teams. And our main scientific goal of this 15-member team is to answer the scientific question: “If we were to find a terrestrial planet orbiting another star in the habitable zone, how would we be able to recognize and prove that that planet was in fact able to support life or had life on it?”
So the VPL concentrates on questions on planet habitability and biosignatures for extrasolar planets. To do this, as I said, it is theoretical; we primarily use planetary models that look at planet/star interactions. Both the interaction of the radiation from the star, in the form of how it forces climate and how it effects surface radiation fields for life. And also at the gravitational interaction between the planet and star, which can affect things like tidal forces, so that the deposition of energy into a body and also affect orbital evolution of a time and look at how that affects habitability.
We also look at the Earth as if it were an extrasolar planet, because even though I expect an incredible diversity of worlds out there, the Earth is always going to be our best-studied example of a habitable planet. We just can’t get away from that. So we try and learn as much as possible about the Earth as an astronomical target.
But because the Earth is an astronomical target, it is just our modern Earth, we also care about what the Earth looked like throughout time. Because the Earth through time gives us examples of habitable planets that are very alien to our current modern world, but in fact did exist, and we have biological and geological constraints on them. So all of the theoretical work is also gathered together and the predictions that we make for what we think are new habitability markers on new biosignatures are run through instrument simulators to try and determine if they would be detectable to things like JWST [NASA's James Webb Space Telescope] and the Terrestrial Planet Finder mission. [BuildingThe James Webb Space Telescope (Photos)]
And finally I want to say that my other hat is as Director of the University of Washington’s graduate program in Astrobiology. And we have had a graduate certificate in Astrobiology now for about 13 years, but we are in the process of converting that over to a dual-titled degree, so if you are an astronomer you can get a PhD in Astronomy and Astrobiology. So I would like to encourage all of those of you who come in contact with bright young undergraduates who’d like to be astrobiologists, please consider sending them to our new PhD program.
David Grinspoon: All right, thanks Vikki. And finally, our last panelist this afternoon is Eric Ford. Eric is a Professor of Astronomy at the University of Florida. And Eric, tell us what you know.
Eric Ford: My research focuses on the formation and evolution of planetary systems — trying to use the observations of extrasolar planetary systems to gain insights into the general processes for planet formation as well as implications for our own solar system.
I get my hands dirty with a little bit of data looking at radio velocities, Doppler searches. And most recently I have had the privilege to join the Kepler planet search team, and we are very much excited about the possibility of detecting and confirming and characterizing planets based upon the gravitational interactions of multiple planets orbiting the same star, tugging on each other, causing slight deviations from periodic transits.
In my other sort of hats I have interests in statistics and computations. So I work on developing tools that can be applied both to exoplanets, my own research and sometimes other areas as well.
Domina o pensamento cientifico moderno a crença de que a Vida surgiu simplesmente de reações químicas da matéria inanimada. Essa crença comanda os rumos da Ciência e inspira os tipos de experimentos visando comprova-la. E geralmente se acha o que se procura… ou ao menos o que se parece com o que se procura. A Ciência só acha algo fora dessa visão de mundo, algo que não estava procurando, por acidente. Portanto, se houver a crença de que o mundo é cor de rosa, vai-se descobrir em todos os níveis da evolução tudo o que é cor de rosa e monta-se um Universo inteiro e funcionando, pensando-se que se descobriu tudo, enquanto tudo o que for das outras cores e o real completo funcionamento, será ignorado. É por isso que Hawking levou a matemática numa direção ao extremo que terminou por ver apenas o buraco negro que se forma dentro de qualquer vórtice no espaço. Nesta experiência aqui relatada, temos um notável exemplo de como ignoram o que foi o mais importante resultado.
A experiência agora, na tentativa de ver vida surgindo da não- vida, consistiu no seguinte:
Pegaram hematita (um composto de ferro e oxigênio) como as partículas básicas, e adicionaram um polímero esférico “coat”. Em seguida aplicaram luz azul nessa mistura, e as partículas começaram a se moverem, primeiro se separando e depois se reunindo numa maneira igual se comporta as moléculas e matéria viva. No link acima apresentam um vídeo filmando a experiência.
Os cientistas disseram que o objetivo era “estudar como comportamentos complicados coletivos emergem de simples propriedades individuais. Agora nós mostramos que com um sistema ativo simples podemos reproduzir algumas características de sistemas vivos”.
O QUE DIZ A MATRIX/DNA
Antes de minha análise, é preciso corrigir um grave erro. Não foi mostrado um “sistema” ativo, e sim, apenas um processo. Sistema é algo muito mais complicado que simples atração ou rejeição entre elementos, sistema e um conjunto de partes conectadas exercendo todas as funções universais… as que também imprimem o ciclo vital nestes conjuntos. Acertado isso, a conclusão dos cientistas sobre o experimento chegaria a ser irônica, se não se tratasse de nossos heróis e seus equívocos. Estão vendo apenas a mistura, seus elementos, e ignorando o instrumento que esta penetrando as partículas e movendo-as segundo seus desígnios: a luz azul!
A luz azul é apenas uma das faixas de frequências de um raio incidente de luz, portanto, ela fará todas as substancias vibrarem na mesma frequência depois que vencer as vibrações especificas anteriores que dominavam cada substancia, por isso primeiro ela separa. E depois as junta numa mesma sintonia. Como as sete principais propriedades da Vida são produtos das sete principais frequências da luz, esta claro que o composto apresentara uma propriedade vital, mais as propriedades que porventura já existiam nas reações químicas mais simples.
Repete-se agora a mesma cena que aconteceu comigo na selva amazônica 30 anos atrás. Enquanto os químicos positivistas e eu estávamos ajoelhados no chão movendo a lama de pântanos procurando o cepo primitivo comum que deflagrou a vida na Terra, notei que a luz do sol me queimava os miolos e não podia deixar de pensar nela. E então comecei a pensar no quanto a luz influi na vida, quanto ela incidia naquela lama, levantei os olhos para o céu e num estalo vi o cepo. LUCA, o Last Universal Common Ancestor era gigantesco e estava no céu, e não no pântano. Agora também estão se se esquecendo de ver a luz, o mais importante elemento na experiência.
Foi sem duvida um grande trabalho e estamos agradecendo mais este grande passo na busca de conhecimento da Humanidade. Mas enquanto o pensamento moderno cientifico comemora porque acredita que isto fortaleceu sua teoria, nos, da Matrix/DNA, comemoramos porque também cremos que fortaleceu a nossa teoria. Não importa que sairá perdendo: o que interessa é que a Humanidade saiu ganhando.
A seguir copiamos o artigo para futura analise item por item.
by Sarah Nicholls, Physicists at NYC University have this month published the results of their experiment on the lifelike behaviours of a newly-synthesized chemical compound. The scientists’ aim was to investigate self-organizing collective behaviours such as those seen in flocks of birds and schools of fish. They stated that the goal of the work was “to study how complicated collective behaviors arise from simple individual properties”.
Taking hematite (a compound of iron and oxygen) as the particle basis, they added a spherical polymer coat. Leaving a corner of the hematite particle exposed and subjecting the compound to blue light, the particles began moving, breaking apart and reforming in a ‘lifelike’ manner. The physicists have uploaded this clip displaying the behaviour of the “light-activated colloidal surfers.”
One of the physicists involved, Chaikin acknowledges that a definition of life is a difficult one to make. He comments that one definition of life is possessing metabolism, the ability to self-replicate and the ability to move and that the ‘colloidal surfers’ satisfy two of these criteria. They lack only the ability to self-replicate. Fellow physicist Palacci highlights the blurred boundaries between what can be classified as ‘living’ and what may be called ‘not living’ when he says “Here we show that with a simple, synthetic active system, we can reproduce some features of living systems…I do not think this makes our systems alive, but it stresses the fact that the limit between the two is somewhat arbitrary.”
With a better comprehension of the process at work, scientists could create new and improved materials. Substances including paint, milk, gelatin, glass, and porcelain are all made up of colloidal dispersions and could potentially be organized in a biological manner. This process could also be implemented in the make up of electronic products.
Origem da Vida: Não teria sido o Sol, mas estrelas velhas e distantes que enviaram os genes de LUCA, dentro destas moléculas em meteoritos e gás interestelar? A experiência cientifica relatada neste artigo levou-nos a formular esta questão, plausível segundo as formulas da Matrix/DNA, mas ao mesmo tempo nos levou a mais duas importantíssimas descobertas: De onde a matéria burra da Terra tirou a ideia, onde buscou o mecanismo no mundo não-vivo dos primórdios e como fez aparecer aqui as pontes de fosfato e de hidrogênio que conectam moléculas do RNA e DNA!!!
Meu comentario postado no Youtube, video com mesmo titulo:
TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago
Great! Now human beings will pay attention to models of Matrix/DNA Theory, which designed a model of astronomic system for our galaxy that predicted this result 30 years ago: the basic elements came from clouds of stars and meteorites. If you see the pictures (as The Human Cosmic Code) at Matrix website you will understand what happened in the lab. Phosphate is like the tentacles that any piece of LUCA develops for getting food, so it really came later. The secret is at photons inside atoms.
A fundamental but elusive step in the early evolution of life on Earth has been replicated in a laboratory.
Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made. Until now, they couldn’t explain how these ingredients might have formed.
“It’s like molecular choreography, where the molecules choreograph their own behavior,” said organic chemist John Sutherland of the University of Manchester, co-author of a study in Nature Wednesday.
(Matrix/DNA: Exatamente como previu nossos modelos. Átomos ou moléculas terrestres, se invadidas pelos genes de LUCA, encontrarem-se juntas aqui, tendem automaticamente a se configurarem na mesma forma que estavam conectadas em LUCA. Assim como se tivéssemos sete fotografias de um único individuo, misturadas e amontoadas ao caos, porem em diferentes idades, portanto diferente formas, cada fotografia se moveria para uma posição entre outras duas de maneira que no final o ciclo de vida do individuo estaria na ordem certa. Foi este o segredo da simbiose entre micro-organismos que juntaram as organelas dentro da célula e da formação da galáxia original. Moléculas possuídas pelos genes de LUCA coreografam sua dança)
RNA is now found in living cells, where it carries information between genes and protein-manufacturing cellular components. Scientists think RNA existed early in Earth’s history, providing a necessary intermediate platform between pre-biotic chemicals and DNA, its double-stranded, more-stable descendant.
(Matrix/DNA: O RNA foi uma plataforma intermediaria entre pre-bioticos químicos e o DNA, como indica nossos modelos, porque os genes de LUCA primeiro constroem a face esquerda (da função 1 ate função 4 e como o circuito continua no sentido horário, o fluxo salta para o lado direito continuando de 6 para 1. Ou pode ser 1>3 e depois 6>1, sendo que os elementos sexuais, 1,4 e 5 são intermitentes, so atuam na fase sexual ativa)
However, though researchers have been able to show how RNA’s component molecules, called ribonucleotides, could assemble into RNA, their many attempts to synthesize these ribonucleotides have failed. No matter how they combined the ingredients — a sugar, a phosphate, and one of four different nitrogenous molecules, or nucleobases — ribonucleotides just wouldn’t form.
(Matrix/DNA: O açúcar, que esta pregado na haste dos RNA e DNA, já sabemos que representa a função 1. As quatro comuns bases nitrogenadas representam funções 2,3,6 e 7. O fosfato tem a função de ponte conectadora entre duas formas do mesmo corpo, essas pontes são representadas na formula da Matrix pelas setas do circuito esferico, são os espaços entre as partículas, que são apenas o aspecto onda da luz, que imprime o tempo do ciclo vital. Na fase evolucionaria biologica, devido os corpos-partículas representando as sete principais diferentes formas de um único corpo, existirem simultaneamente mesmo que separados, são atraídos e atraem suas formas seguintes da sequencia vital e para se conectarem biologicamente, quimicamente, estes corpos emitem tentáculos, que se tornam essas pontes. Porem, biologicamente surgiram dois tipos de pontes: as de fosfato e as de hidrogênio.
As Pontes de Fosfato: Como e porque surgiram
No céu, LUCA morria (ou ainda morre, se ainda existe) quando o circuito chegava na função 7 e se fragmentava. Essa poeira formava uma nuvem no espaço que girava rotacionalmente sobre seu próprio centro devido o movimento rotacional do todo em que se encontrava, talvez uma galáxia, ou talvez o próprio Universo. Isto criava um vórtice central e os fragmentos de LUCA, funcionando como genes, reconstruíam LUCA. Isto era auto-reciclagem dos sistemas perfeitos fechados em si mesmos. Assim LUCA, mesmo condenado a morrer pela forca degeneradora da entropia, se tornava quase-eterno. Mas o colapso interno destes genes, que começava pela periferia do sistema já na função 6, com a radiação estelar, fazia com que os primeiros genes decaidos ainda encontrassem em seu caminho na direção do centro, outros corpos existentes, na forma de planetas, e agregados a superfície destes, reiniciavam sua reprodução. Como agora a paisagem e condições ambientais eram diferentes do espaço vazio onde LUCA fora formado, houveram as mutações e ao invés dos genes reconstruírem o LUCA astronômico construíram o LUCA biológico, ou seja o sistema celular. Com essa evasão de genes a auto-reciclagem não mais funcionou e por fim LUCA pode ter morrido de fato. Os outros genes que vinham depois, ao inves de LUCA so tinham informações para construírem sistemas solares, faltando quasares, buracos negros, pulsares, cometas. O qual deve ser o caso dos sistemas solares modernos, como o nosso. Mas o elemento, a força que invisivelmente unia o LUCA morto com o novo LUCA vivo na auto-reciclagem, que era executada principalmente por cometas na função 5 , se tornou em biologia a base uracila, a única base intermitente no RNA que aparece e desaparece, como o cometa so aparece na fase de reprodução sexual do LUCA astronômico. Quando presente ela faz os ribonucleotideos, que são as unidades fundamentais de informação do RNA, e os pares horizontais de nucleotideos, que são as unidades fundamentais de informação do DNA, se multiplicarem, ou seja, ev o processo da auto-reciclagem mutado para multiplicação de nucleotídeos, o que faz a pilha deles, chamada RNA ou DNA, crescer. Mas como ligar um sistema fixo a outro sistema também fixo, quimicamente… A ponte de fosfato, que esta nas hastes. Esta ponte surge aplicando-se o mecanismo dos sistemas para criarem extensões em seus corpos, na forma de tentáculos, bracos e mãos, para agarrarem alimento ou transporte. Aqui o mecanismo foi usado no esforço do LUCA biológico de continuar sua auto-reciclagem, mutado para multiplicação linear, mas que de certa forma representa o mesmo processo de LUCA no ceur. aos grupos em diferentes lugares e épocas por isso reconstroem pedaços de LUCA, o que formam os aminoácidos e proteínas, e os componentes separados de ribonucleotideos e nucleotídeos. Estes elementos são o açúcar, as bases guanina, timina, citosina, adenina e a intermitente uracila. Cada elemento representa uma das formas do corpo de LUCA, cada qual executando uma função sistêmica. Mas em seguida grupos de genes podem se encontrarem numa mesma sopa química e ocorre uma atracao automática entre eles no sentido de reconstruírem LUCA. Entao o grupo que consiste na base nitrogenada que representa a função 3, tendera a se conectar a direita com a base da função 2 e a esquerda com a base da função 4. Para fazer essa conexão criam de si uma extensão, um tentáculo, que quando alcanca sua base procurada, torna-se uma ponte fixa entre as duas. Já não e mais o caso de unir dois sistemas, como foi no caso da ponte de fosfato, mas sim de unir duas etapas do ciclo vital dentro de um único sistema.
A Origem das Pontes de Hidrogênio no DNA
Os genes de LUCA, caídos na superfície de um planeta, de forma dispersa no tempo e no espaço, não conseguem se reunirem todos num so ponto. Encontram-se aos grupos em diferentes lugares e épocas por isso reconstroem pedaços de LUCA, o que formam os aminoácidos e proteínas, e os componentes separados de ribonucleotideos e nucleotídeos. Estes elementos são o açúcar, as bases guanina, timina, citosina, adenina e a intermitente uracila. Cada elemento representa uma das formas do corpo de LUCA, cada qual executando uma função sistêmica. Mas em seguida grupos de genes podem se encontrarem numa mesma sopa química e ocorre uma atracao automática entre eles no sentido de reconstruírem LUCA. Entao o grupo que consiste na base nitrogenada que representa a função 3, tendera a se conectar a direita com a base da função 2 e a esquerda com a base da função 4. Para fazer essa conexão criam de si uma extensão, um tentáculo, que quando alcanca sua base procurada, torna-se uma ponte fixa entre as duas. Já não e mais o caso de unir dois sistemas, como foi no caso da ponte de fosfato, mas sim de unir duas etapas do ciclo vital dentro de um único sistema. A ponte de fosfato ev vertical, a ponte de hidrogênio ev horizontal, ela parte do açúcar na haste na posição horizontal e cria a estrutura intermediaria com o açúcar da haste lateral. As pontes de hidrogênio representam as setas entre funções na formula da Matrix.
Porque não estava se formando os ribonucleotideos: porque em LUCA o corpo da função 1 (um quasar contendo o vórtice nuclear) liga-se num circuito esférico com a função 7 a direita e função 2 a esquerda. Quando LUCA astronômico se reproduz com a mutação para biológico, o circuito esférico continua, porem, ovalando-se e horizontalizando-se. E as ondas do tempo, que são as setas na formula, quando se horizontaliza, torna-se pontes de hidrogênio. São duas bases nitrogenadas a fase biologica
(continuar a partir daqui- não esquecer que as pontes foram os precursores quimicos das proteinas)
Sutherland’s team took a different approach in what Harvard molecular biologist Jack Szostak called a “synthetic tour de force” in an accompanying commentary in Nature.
“By changing the way we mix the ingredients together, we managed to make ribonucleotides,” said Sutherland. “The chemistry works very effectively from simple precursors, and the conditions required are not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth.”
Like other would-be nucleotide synthesizers, Sutherland’s team included phosphate in their mix, but rather than adding it to sugars and nucleobases, they started with an array of even simpler molecules that were probably also in Earth’s primordial ooze.
They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.
At each stage of the cycle, the resulting molecules were more complex. At the final stage, Sutherland’s team added phosphate. “Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!” said Sutherland.
According to Sutherland, these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating “warm little pond” hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond “evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone.”
Such conditions are plausible, and Szostak imagined the ongoing cycle of evaporation, heating and condensation providing “a kind of organic snow which could accumulate as a reservoir of material ready for the next step in RNA synthesis.”
Intriguingly, the precursor molecules used by Sutherland’s team have been identified in interstellar dust clouds and on meteorites.
“Ribonucleotides are simply an expression of the fundamental principles of organic chemistry,” said Sutherland. “They’re doing it unwittingly. The instructions for them to do it are inherent in the structure of the precursor materials. And if they can self-assemble so easily, perhaps they shouldn’t be viewed as complicated.”