0 votes
in Living by
Abstract
A minimal cell can be thought of as comprising informational, compartment-forming and metabolic subsystems. To imagine the abiotic ******** of such an overall system, however, places great demands on hypothetical prebiotic chemistry. The perceived differences and incompatibilities between these subsystems have led to the widely held ********** that one or other subsystem must have preceded the others. Here we experimentally investigate the validity of this ********** by examining the ******** of various biomolecular building blocks from prebiotically plausible intermediates and one-carbon feedstock molecules. We show that precursors of ribonucleotides, amino acids and lipids can all be derived by the reductive ************ of ​hydrogen cyanide and some of its derivatives, and thus that all the cellular subsystems could have arisen simultaneously through common chemistry. The key reaction steps are driven by ultraviolet light, use ​hydrogen sulfide as the reductant and can be accelerated by Cu(I)–Cu(II) photoredox cycling.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-03-chemists-riddle-life-began-earth...


sulfide reductant accelerated cuicuii photoredox cycling read atnbsp httpphys orgnews2015-03-chemists-riddle-life-began-earth

Your answer

Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.

41 Answers

0 votes
by
Sadly, billions of people would rather trust the writers of an ancient book than these scientists.
0 votes
by
I will continue to search for a scientific explanation which can adequately explain the origins of this universe, even if I can never successfully define the realities which exist outside of it. As a Christian, I cannot stand people blinding following a belief or a theory without logical reasoning to support it. In the same manner, I reached my beliefs through my observations of the universe.
0 votes
by
Show me how the concept "before the universe" is coherent and we'll talk more. Beware. Invoking your favorite deity will *** the conversation instantly. Why? Because that concept is even less well defined, let alone having evidence supporting it, not to mention the fact that saying "*** did it" answers nothing. There's also the infinite recursion clause, which your favorite deity is not immune to simply because you want him to be.
0 votes
by
That was never my point to begin with. I was arguing under the theory that perhaps space did exist for eternity. But there are still a wide range of issues such a matter overlooks.

I may as well list them out to avoid further confusion: Space is the foundation for science as we know it (as well as energy), and therefore the human concept of physics can arguably limited to realities existing in space-time alone. This being said, the Big Bang Theory ******* the expansion of space and time, which brings a critical flaw into the theory. In order for space to expand itself, it must expand into something.

If we were under the ********** space was expanding constantly into some unknown entity other than space, that entity would more than likely possess another foundation of "physics" than space itself. This would imply that space would be contorted according to the physics of that entity, if the entity itself existed at all.

However, denying the existence of that entity which space "expands into" would imply that space is expanding into pure nothingness. The concept of pure nothingness is void of color (including black- the lack thereof), of space, and of time. The idea of nothingness is not merely the lack of anything, but the inability to exist within. It has no laws of p...

That was never my point to begin with. I was arguing under the theory that perhaps space did exist for eternity. But there are still a wide range of issues such a matter overlooks.

I may as well list them out to avoid further confusion: Space is the foundation for science as we know it (as well as energy), and therefore the human concept of physics can arguably limited to realities existing in space-time alone. This being said, the Big Bang Theory ******* the expansion of space and time, which brings a critical flaw into the theory. In order for space to expand itself, it must expand into something.

If we were under the ********** space was expanding constantly into some unknown entity other than space, that entity would more than likely possess another foundation of "physics" than space itself. This would imply that space would be contorted according to the physics of that entity, if the entity itself existed at all.

However, denying the existence of that entity which space "expands into" would imply that space is expanding into pure nothingness. The concept of pure nothingness is void of color (including black- the lack thereof), of space, and of time. The idea of nothingness is not merely the lack of anything, but the inability to exist within. It has no laws of physics, and it cannot be a foundation. Therefore, under the ********** of the Big Bang, if space were to expand as it suggests, then it must rest upon another foundation with compatible laws of physics.

I do not believe the Big Bang is without its credit, and I believe it is a brilliant theory, but it simply cannot explain the entire picture at hand. Even if this is attributed to the current lack of technology to measure and define space, I do believe our concept of science will falter outside of space and a new concept of physics may or may not form in a realm outside of the "current expansion" of our universe.
(more)
0 votes
by
I can find no fault with your hypothesis and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
0 votes
by
However, I have no criticism against anyone who remains skeptical of the existence of a ***. My argument was merely against the picture presented in the Big Bang; by no means did I prove or disprove the existence of any higher being.
0 votes
by
Indeed. As I said before, I find no fault with your reasoning and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
0 votes
by
Great words, glad I made a friend of you here.
0 votes
by
We might never know the answer to that one... in our lifetimes.
0 votes
by
Very admirable. I'll be here to test your ideas, should you so desire.
0 votes
by
Space is also time and both are constantly expanding. Einstein figured out the basics of this obe. Hawkings expanded on it, so did Kraus.
0 votes
by
Just came back and read your conversation with Naime. Good stuff man.
0 votes
by
I do enjoy being proven wrong. :)
0 votes
by
Amazing!
0 votes
by
The Sun gave us life. The Sun will take it away. Unless we do something about it.
0 votes
by
Indeed. We must go into space to survive.
space
There are so many worlds where Humanity can thrive and flourish.
0 votes
by
I'm still quite ****** baffled... Are you just a figment of my imagination or an actual, real entity?
0 votes
by
Don't worry, i'm real Human being.
0 votes
by
No need for Turing test, then.
0 votes
by
I am not debating whether or not space is expanding. But for space to expand, that implies it has something to expand into. That is precisely what the theory fails to account for, aside from its inability to define the actual origin of space-time itself.

It is foolish for one to believe in the existence of a power incomprehensible to humans, an ********** that reality expands beyond the limitations of space-time, yet it is wise to accept that such a simple foundation has existed eternally and has no proven security in any one reality?
0 votes
by
Glad to have met you here at **, thanks for the thoughtful conversation.
0 votes
by
The birth of life is a pretty awesome investigation. However, I think it pales in comparison to the birth of sentience.
0 votes
by
NP Ty. Man 7.3 billion Humans. Can't wait for 7.4 billion.
0 votes
by
Sadly, billions of people would rather trust the writers of an ancient book than these scientists.
0 votes
by
Though, over one billion people are atheists and agnostics. They are listening.
0 votes
by
I doubt if it is that many. Most young white people that I know are, but the vast majority of the world is deeply religious. The good news is that more kids reject theism everyday. The bad news is that many are disowned or even killed for doing so.
0 votes
by
http://www.worldometers.info/...

It might not be the same number in it.
0 votes
by
Interesting site.
0 votes
by
Indeed
0 votes
by
It is interesting, thanks for the link.
0 votes
by
Now I would love for you to effectively explain the origins of space and define its existence.
0 votes
by
Yes, in the same way Christians claim that nothing created ***. What I am noticing is that you are claiming that space itself is: eternal, incomprehensible, and it cannot be defined by science.

My concern with you, is that you are deliberately mocking various beliefs and theories, when you cannot even effectively resolve your own. To do so is ironic and ********, and unless you can provide a feasible response with valid evidence to the rebuttals which challenge your own beliefs, then you have no business dictating or mocking others.

And yes, I know what you might be thinking: Christians do it too. I am fully aware that Christians do it all the same, but one side needs to grow up sooner or later and learn some simple, moral values.
0 votes
by
Our universe began with the big bang. Matter cannot be made or destroyed. In other words, the matter has always existed and gone through phases of expansion and implosion. Right now, we remain in an expansion phase. That doesn't mean more is forming. It means that it is spreading out. Think about atoms for a second. They are almost entirely empty, yet we perceive them as a solid unit. If you view galaxies like subatomic particles, you will see the universe as being like an atom. The elcectrons are in constant motion, and because of this they effectively fill up the whole space. Does that help?
0 votes
by
There is your problem right there. People like you always attempt to explain the universe, and merely explain the creation of the material universe. The Big Bang theory completely overlooks the origin of space itself.

Our universe is composed entirely of space- your own body consists or more space than matter. The Sun and the Earth- almost entirely space. Scientifically, we can conclude that space is an existing entity, as it can bend to the influence of energy (hence gravity), and we can ****** that it does not represent nothingness for the exact same reason.

Now answer this: How was space-time created? And ******** you can effectively answer that, then explain what exactly space itself is expanding into. Physics are defined by space and the energy within space. Theoretically, anything outside of the realm of space is susceptible to a differing or lack of physics.
0 votes
by
I mentioned that most of the universe is space. Here's the thing. On a broad scale, the probability of matter existing at any given point in the universe is low, but it's constant motion causes the universe to, on the whole, function as a solid. This can easily be demonstrated by the way in wich electron motion allows an almost entirely empty atom to have its form. As for space-time, time always existed, just like matter.
0 votes
by
You have not defined space-time, nor have you explain what it is expanding into.

Believing space, time and matter have always existed takes quite some faith.
0 votes
by
Not faith. Math.
0 votes
by
What definition are you looking for? It is all-encompassing. Everything is located in space-time. Its existence is needed for everything, including us, to exist. As such, it cannot be defined using terms that refer to specific pieces of matter. It is bigger than that. As BHGOzzy said, it is infinite. This is logical, thus it is not faith.
0 votes
by
You are claiming the existence of an eternal, incomprehensible entity which cannot be defined by science when you label space in that manner. Do you not see the resemblance?
0 votes
by
No. I'm not saying that space created anything. I'm just saying that everything is located within space. Space is like an atom. It is mostly empty space. Galaxies are like electrons. If you add more electrons, the atom may expand into another layer, but none of the electrons can exist outside of an atom. That is the best ******* that I can give you. If you can't comprehend it that way, that's fine. Just know that, to me, that is a perfect scientific *******. I need no faith to understand this.
Interesting discussion nevertheless. This will be my last post on this thread.
0 votes
by
lol I see no machines here.
...