Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.

The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 171 Guests and 5 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Topic Options
#55568 - 02/28/16 12:23 AM Re: &#921;S LIFE ONLY EVOLVED CHEMISTRY? [Re: Bill S.]
Amaranth Rose II Offline


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 962
Loc: Southeast Nebraska, USA
Have no fear, Bill. I have no income that is taxable. IF I do, it's sufficiently small to keep me from having to pay taxes. I have some small stock income that is not enough to tax, and Social Security Disability is not taxable in Nebraska by legal stipulation. I live on air, earth and the good will of relatives and friends.
If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose

#55774 - 04/02/16 12:17 PM Re: &#921;S LIFE ONLY EVOLVED CHEMISTRY? [Re: minas]
minas Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 01/11/16
Posts: 9
Apart from the solar energy, in a primordial soup of chemicals, lets say a flask full of chemicals, the following factors can shape the fate of the system, or else the natural history of the events:
1) By the different isoforms that organic stereochemistry pose, which adds to the diversity and mechanics that is needed to avoid equillibrium. Organic molecules are more stable. Thus, their number would slowly grow in the mixture....

2)Hydrophobic interactions (hydrophobic bonds, spatial configuration, separation and isolation of chemical systems, membranes, etc.
3)And apart from that, another crucial factor that shapes the system is the property of some molecules to strongly adhere to each other, or to membranes. In fact, if you put living cells and dead cells in a flask, then you can sort them easily because only the living ones will strongly adhere to the walls.
To see the importance of stickiness, take for instance the sponges. Recent studies has shown that they were one of the first organisms on earth, along with corals.
They donít seem quite like the other animals. In fact, I would say that they are something in between, more like random chemical systems. However, the strong adhesions between molecules (as well as multiple other factors) in sponges makes those systems sustainable over time. In fact, they were created because they were not destroyed. They can sustain themselves for millennia and every sustainable chemical novelty can prevail and be selected.
4)Slow reactions can sustain themselves for a longer time...
There is not a certain plan that is favored, however the system will continue happening. The final resulting reactions will appear to have survival capacities if the observers are exactly those resulting reactions. Everything that happened lead to them. So the final combination of reactions will be the most sustainable of all combinations, given the particular conditions, because thatís exactly what happened. Those reactions prevailed in the long term. So to the eyes of the results, these reactions have some survival capacities. But what is life actually any other apart from sustainable complex chemical systems to our eyes, or else a sum of resulting chemical reactions?
Its something like a sort of evolution and selection of chemical reactions.

In the future i will explain why repeatability may not actually exist in the chemical reactions of life in the way we mean it in mathematics, but what we see as repeatability might be a result of the fact that huge numbers of different chemicals, under the same chemical laws with respect to their interactions, environmental factors, natural forces, tendencies, end up in similar ways. For instance, if they differ in 1 trillion reactions and their whole sum is 100 trillion, then they are 99% the same.

M Sakellakis

#55804 - 04/27/16 03:50 PM Re: &#921;S LIFE ONLY EVOLVED CHEMISTRY? [Re: minas]
minas Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 01/11/16
Posts: 9
One important question is why this specific organic stereochemistry that constitutes life prevailed and thrived so much, and from where did it come from. I can think of two logical ways:
Organic stereochemistry didnt reach equillibrium due to variability of possible isoforms and thus, everytime they were created, they persisted and survived, adding to complexity. Additionally, everytime they reacted with other organic or inorganic material (eg water, CaCO3 etc), they corrupted the other materials, adding to stereochemical complexity, and thus constantly adding novel material into the available for life chemical machinery of organic stereochemistry. In a similar way that prions corrupt the chemistry of the host organisms. This constantly increasing organic stereochemical reservoir can in theory undergo evolution and selection of the most sustainable chemical systems and theoretically create amazingly sustainable chemical systems such as ourselves or the other living beings.

#55940 - 05/30/16 08:44 AM Re: &#921;S LIFE ONLY EVOLVED CHEMISTRY? [Re: minas]
minas Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 01/11/16
Posts: 9
ANother factor that might help the chemical system to sustain itself theoretically is repeatability. However, there is problem with repeatability. How can arbitrary reactions gain, or even more amazingly, sustain their repeatability? Although in theory a process that can protect some repeatable reactions can evolve and be selected, another option is possible, that personally I think is more likely to be the case.
And the second thing is this: Are there trully repeatable processes in nature? For instance, if a descendant is 99% the same as its ancestor, and they are both composed of 100 trillion reactions, this means they differ by 1 trillion reactions. Also, if you have two systems of 100 organic compounds with various stereochemistries that interact with each other and they become increasingly complex to the point that each system becomes 100 trillions of different compounds, then one would expect that 99% percent of the compounds of one system will be somewhere present in the other system as well, only as a result of pure chance.
Now if two systems of 100 trillion reactions or possible interactions are exposed to the same chemical laws and conditions (variability prevails, hydrophobic bonds, adhesive properties prevail, stable molecules prevail, influx of external substances, same temperature, etc etc, then the two systems that will be mainly composed of the same substances, will share approximately the same fate, at least to our eyes. Because if by 95% the same thing happens in both systems, this means they differ by many trillion reactions, but for us, it is enough to consider the two processes identical.
So to conclude, anytime it may be possible for a group of organic chemicals to burst complexity and development, but this canít happen indefinitely, because of various internal and external obstacles, so the process is regulated in a way. Only in some circumstances this happens (etc development, cancer, rehabilitation, etc). Theoretically, this can be the case everytime the process finds the opportunity.
Any thoughts?
PS Numbers used are inaccurate. They are only used to help me explain the philosophy of my arguments..

Page 2 of 2 < 1 2

Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.