Astonishing Scientific Discovery:Majority of Human DNA is "Off-world" in origin-Human Geno

[Saidin]

On a different tangent, I think of abiogenesis as life arising from non-living molecules, regardless of whether it happened on earth. I believe that's what he meant that panspermia doesn't solve the problem of how life arose, it just shifts the problem to another planet. The life with which earth was seeded (according to panspermia) still had to have arisen from somewhere.

Oh, I never meant to claim that panspermia solves the problem of how life began, just how it most likely came to be on this planet. It does not answer the question at all about the origins of life in the galaxy. The complex organic molecules had to come from somewhere. And they seem to be everywhere we look! The ubiquitious nature of these compounds seems to indicate that there is a mechanism for their constuction which is fast and produces enormous quantities. In other words, how many planets could have formed, created these constituents and then been destroyed spreading these parts throughout the galaxy in a little over 13 billion years? Earth's been around for ~4.5 billion years, and the planet won't spew its essence back to the cosmos for another ~ 5 billion.

The analogy with everyday work is, say tools. We can make screwdrivers from all sorts of different materials or combinations of materials but it is the shape we are ultimately interested in.

Coming back to the argument, in the primordial soup most likely all enzymes/ribozymes that could sustain extremely basic life-like functions could form, thus giving the potential to take things to the next level. And as I said in my previous post, people today do the exact thing with ribozymes; they randomly combine nucleotides to generate as diverse sequences as possible and in the end they get (after applying selection of course) functional enzymes.

Okay, that is much clearer...as clear as it can be to a non chemist/biologist! :lol: So my understanding is...that complex molecules have different functions based upon their geometry and not their constituent parts...but that certain parts are necessary in order to build the proper structure in 3D? Is it possible to jam a puzzle piece that looks similar to the overall picture and still maintain functionality?

So if life can only evolve from certain geometrical structures, in my mind that adds a whole new level as to the origins of life, namely the intrinsic value and underlying nature of platonic solids/sacred geometry.

Again, please correct me if I am in error. When we are talking about RNA/ribozymes, aren't we putting the cart before the horse? Aren't there numerous steps that must be completed before we can even get to this stage of the discussion?

 

[Saidin]

That was a massive oversimplification of what I said, and what the Stoned Ape theory says (It never states mushrooms caused evolution human evolution, it simply states that mushrooms likely had a role). All I said was that it is much more likely to account for ancient people's myths and visions of space ships, aliens, etc.. than ACTUAL space ships and aliens.

Yes, yes it was. It is possible for psychedelics to be the source of these myths. But I am sure that you could probably find cultures that had these myths with no access to, or use of entheogens. It similarities across thousands of years, and numerous different cultures that had no access to eachother also calls this into question the Stoned Ape hypothesis. In addition, if entheogens had a role in evolution, wouldn't we find that certain cutures were more "evolved" in a physical and mental sense than others due to their use? As far as I know, there is no evidence for this.

Not to personally attack you Saidin, but why do you put so much faith in odds and randomness? What's so random about thermodynamics? IMHO, I don't think life randomly assembled itself, I think it followed very specific instructions from the laws of nature. Life can form on Earth; this is one thing, out of the many possible events, that can take place in the universe... why negate that possibility using the odds of it happening, which change constantly depending on new discoveries and our ever-expanding knowledge? Not to say that calculating odds cannot be useful in scientific endeavor.

I can't keep up with all the chemistry that everyone is discussing, but maybe you guys could watch this short video about Abiogenesis and shed some light on it, poke holes in it etc? I posted it a few months ago in the hyperspace tavern.

No offense taken, you cannot possibly offend me.


I lend creedence to odds and probability, because they give us a best guess as to the likelyhood of something occuring. It is a methodology of validating potential outcomes. If I do not use these, then I might as well said it happened because it happened, and for me that is highly unsatisfying. If something has a 1 in 10^50 chance of happening, that is extraordinary beyond measure, and leads one to believe that there may be something more than pure randomness going on. It becomes a tool for investigating truth. Not a validation of it, but merely a tool.

I too do not believe that life randomly assembled itself, but is rather an inherent property of the cosmos, and am attempting to use probability to support my beliefs. The kind biologists and chemists here are taking the time to point out where my calculations may be wrong, as I am stumbling in the the dark to a certain degree understanding all the steps and mechanisms that make abiogenesis possible.

 

[Saidin]

DOH!

I voted, but for the wrong thing! I do not think we live in the Matrix! Is there any way to delete my vote?

 

[benzyme]

we must defend Zion 8)

I can't keep up with all the chemistry that everyone is discussing

it's mainly been a biology discussion, not chem. trust me, these theories don't jive with chem rationale.

 

[Saidin]

we must defend Zion 8)

it's mainly been a biology discussion, not chem. trust me, these theories don't jive with chem rationale.

Interesting...

 

[benzyme]

chemistry is rather rigid in its theories compared to biology. reactions are governed by free energy, and energetically favorable reactions occur spontaneously. the building blocks, once present in a favorable environment, will bond spontaneously and fold accordingly. it's not random, per sé, but it does defy calculations. that's Levinthal's paradox

 

[pau]

Astrobiologist Paul Davies weighs in:
Ideas Are Immortal

" ... it became clear during the 1990s that not only that there is a large traffic of material exchanged between Mars and Earth, but that microbes are hardy enough if protected by the rock, cocooned inside, to survive the harsh conditions of outer space for a long time, many millions of years, and the evidence both theoretical and experimental has firmed up and I think many people now realize that if you get life on either Mars or Earth you’ll get it on both planets from this splashing phenomenon."

 

[Infundibulum]

we must defend Zion 8)

it's mainly been a biology discussion, not chem. trust me, these theories don't jive with chem rationale.

Interesting...

Yup, it is close to impossible to try to understand the structure and function of a protein even if you know almost everything about every single of its amino acid constituents. Chemistry cannot help all the way in understanding biological principles that's why biology is a field of study on it's own.


Saidin, about the macromolecules, yes, geometry plays a big role but we should not forget that the role of sequence is not minimal. As for "sacred geometry" stuff, the macromolecular world thrives with them. My favourite geometries are those of DNA, which adopts a variety of different structures as part of its normal physiology. You can check in the subjects of DNA Topology as well as Holliday Junctions, DNA Cruciforms for loads of fancy conformations the DNA adopts. Whoever believes that DNA is a linear molecule is deeply fooled. There was a guy who was making all sorts of shapes just from DNA, just check the attached paper

 

[Aegle]

This is an interesting thread. Life can never dissipate into nothing, from observing nature since I was really small I have picked up on a recurring process. Which is life goes through a metamorphosis of change from one state of being into another. Nothing ends or begins, everything exist in a constant perpetual dance of existence. Which manifests within the cycle of rebirth and death...

I have experienced one of my many past lives while journeying with the sacred mushroom, life is precious in all forms and needs to be treasured. Compassion is the key to unlock our consciousness from the infinite cycle. I could not vote as I have no origin of being created as I have always existed...


Much Peace and Respect

 

[Saidin]

Yup, it is close to impossible to try to understand the structure and function of a protein even if you know almost everything about every single of its amino acid constituents. Chemistry cannot help all the way in understanding biological principles that's why biology is a field of study on it's own.


Saidin, about the macromolecules, yes, geometry plays a big role but we should not forget that the role of sequence is not minimal. As for "sacred geometry" stuff, the macromolecular world thrives with them. My favourite geometries are those of DNA, which adopts a variety of different structures as part of its normal physiology. You can check in the subjects of DNA Topology as well as Holliday Junctions, DNA Cruciforms for loads of fancy conformations the DNA adopts. Whoever believes that DNA is a linear molecule is deeply fooled. There was a guy who was making all sorts of shapes just from DNA, just check the attached paper.

Holy Crap, thats cool. DNA smiley faces! Reminded me of an article I had seen a while ago.

IBM scientists create DNA computer chip

Innovation | ZDNET

Discover the best technology ideas emerging from around the globe and how they are promising to help build a better future.

www.zdnet.com

So what I am getting from this discussion as it has gone along, is that no one really has any clue. Abiogenesis could be the mechanism, but considering the time available for the universe to evolve, and the ubiquitious nature of these organic molecules wherever we look, it is really nothing more than a best (and unlikely) guess with the information we have available to us.

 

[Entropymancer]

Well, unless you believe life has been here since the big bang (or you don't believe in the big bang and believe life and the universe have both always existed without a beginning point) then abiogenesis has to have occurred somewhere at some place in the universe close enough to reach earth by the time life began here. I suppose you could postulate god as the mechanism for abiogenesis, but then of course you're left with the question of when and how god came into being.

I just read the article linked at the beginning of the thread, and as far as I can tell, it sounds like complete hogwash. It doesn't even hint at how they claim to know some of the dna is of extraterrestrial origin... but the only way I can think this could be established as conclusively as they imply is to compare it to an extraterrestrial dna sample (the availability of which would itself have been breaking news). They don't mention if the ET dna is built on a triplet system like ours, they don't comment on the form or function of the proteins it supposedly would code for. They contradict themselves saying it's in the 'junk dna', then claim it resists anticancer drugs (which implies that the dna is actually expressed).

Furthermore, 'junk dna' is currently regarded as a misnomer. Much of this is remnants of ancient viral components duplicating sections of dna (basically the same mechanism as lateral gene transfer) and contribute to the diversity of life (in the event that useful bits get turned on, so the original copy retains its function, but the new copy can mutate and adapt alternate chemically-related functions.

The whole article just doesn't seem to add up. It has never been reported from any credible or even semi-credible source. Google doesn't turn up any university affiliation for this "sam Chang" and apparently the former co-director of the human genome project has never heard of him... the article appears pretty clearly to be a hoax.

 

[Kazoo...]

one more thought to chew on since were on the subject....

The concepts of SYMBIOSIS comes to mind...

Symbiosis is a biological form of "enlightened self interest" if you will. survival of the fittest still applies, but often the most fit are those who can form strategic alliances with others. extreme cooperation creates a new identity born of the cooperative as a whole. a new kind of individual emerges when a group begins to reproduce as a single entity.

In evolution, the continual, random meandering of forms and species is largely fueled by competition. but the real progress, the major innovations, often involve new forms of cooperation between formerly separate creatures....



what a fun subject its too bad we had to start it off with such a BS article...