I’ve been waiting for this paper all my life.

Background. The Miller-Urey experiment produced a heck of a lot of interesting chemicals other than amino acids but nobody, repeat, nobody has had a look at them. Here we go. Hold on, this is part 2, where’s the rest?

Chemical Analysis of a Miller-Type Complex Prebiotic Broth Dec 2017

Methods: Coherent anti-Stokes Raman scattering, two-dimensional gas chromatography followed by mass spectrometry, NMR spectroscopy.

Results: The gas phase mainly consisted of aromatic compounds and molecules containing C≡C or C≡N triple bonds. The hydrophilic phase contained at least a few thousands of different molecules, primarily distributed in a range of 50 and 500 Da. The hydrophobic phase is characterized by carbon-rich, oil-like compounds and their amphiphilic derivatives containing oxygen.

Besides amino acids …

Some of the chemicals detected.

So what’s the significance of those chemicals in regard to the origin of life?

What would be the most dissimilar molecules with the same things but a single different link.

I wonder if you could try and mimic the surface conditions of Titan and see what happens

Bubblecar said:

So what’s the significance of those chemicals in regard to the origin of life?

Yes!

That’s the question I’ve been asking for the past 45 years. I even proposed doing a research masters on the topic at the local Uni.

At least now we’ve got some data to begin answering it.

mollwollfumble said:

I’ve been waiting for this paper all my life.

Background. The Miller-Urey experiment produced a heck of a lot of interesting chemicals other than amino acids but nobody, repeat, nobody has had a look at them. Here we go. Hold on, this is part 2, where’s the rest?

Chemical Analysis of a Miller-Type Complex Prebiotic Broth Dec 2017

Methods: Coherent anti-Stokes Raman scattering, two-dimensional gas chromatography followed by mass spectrometry, NMR spectroscopy.

Results: The gas phase mainly consisted of aromatic compounds and molecules containing C≡C or C≡N triple bonds. The hydrophilic phase contained at least a few thousands of different molecules, primarily distributed in a range of 50 and 500 Da. The hydrophobic phase is characterized by carbon-rich, oil-like compounds and their amphiphilic derivatives containing oxygen.

Besides amino acids …

Some of the chemicals detected.

Some look like very simple viruses, structurally.

Michael V said:

mollwollfumble said:

I’ve been waiting for this paper all my life.

Background. The Miller-Urey experiment produced a heck of a lot of interesting chemicals other than amino acids but nobody, repeat, nobody has had a look at them. Here we go. Hold on, this is part 2, where’s the rest?

Chemical Analysis of a Miller-Type Complex Prebiotic Broth Dec 2017

Methods: Coherent anti-Stokes Raman scattering, two-dimensional gas chromatography followed by mass spectrometry, NMR spectroscopy.

Results: The gas phase mainly consisted of aromatic compounds and molecules containing C≡C or C≡N triple bonds. The hydrophilic phase contained at least a few thousands of different molecules, primarily distributed in a range of 50 and 500 Da. The hydrophobic phase is characterized by carbon-rich, oil-like compounds and their amphiphilic derivatives containing oxygen.

Besides amino acids …

Some of the chemicals detected.

Some look like very simple viruses, structurally.

Would be interesting if they were precursor viruses that evolved

> Would be interesting if they were precursor viruses that evolved

Viruses, as we know them now, evolved from bacteria/archaea rather than the other way around. If there were any viruses before then then they went extinct.

Bubblecar said:

So what’s the significance of those chemicals in regard to the origin of life?

One significance can be found in the abstract.

“formation of alkylated polyethylene glycol (PEG) in the oil/water interface”

The first cell walls were probably made of alkylated PEG, if that’s the first biopolymer produced at the oil/water interface. Rather than of proteins or lipids.

I would love to see an analysis of exotholins but I’m not aware of any sample return missions planned for tholin bearing places

Aha, Found part 1.

Wollrab E, Scherer S, Aubriet F, Carré V, Carlomagno T, Codutti L, Ott A (2015) Chemical analysis of a “Miller-type” complex prebiotic broth; part I: chemical diversity, oxygen and nitrogen based polymers. Orig Life Evol Biosph 46:149–169.

Scanning Electron Microscope images of organic filaments from Miller-Urey type experiment. Difficult to read the distance scale on this. The organic filaments are of the order of 10 to 30 microns in diameter. The average bacterial cell is 3 to 5 microns in diameter, in the same ballpark.

“In the mass spectra from the ESI+ and ESI- measurements we identified 668 substances … Most intense peak for C8H12O4, which is a carboxylic acid or ester.”

Oh, this stuff is nice . Look at the following chart about the diversity of chemicals found to be produced abiologically.

dv said:

I would love to see an analysis of exotholins but I’m not aware of any sample return missions planned for tholin bearing places

Hayabusa2 ?

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

I would love to see an analysis of exotholins but I’m not aware of any sample return missions planned for tholin bearing places

Hayabusa2 ?

Haven’t heard about any tholins on Ryugu

mollwollfumble said:

Aha, Found part 1.

Wollrab E, Scherer S, Aubriet F, Carré V, Carlomagno T, Codutti L, Ott A (2015) Chemical analysis of a “Miller-type” complex prebiotic broth; part I: chemical diversity, oxygen and nitrogen based polymers. Orig Life Evol Biosph 46:149–169.

Scanning Electron Microscope images of organic filaments from Miller-Urey type experiment. Difficult to read the distance scale on this. The organic filaments are of the order of 10 to 30 microns in diameter. The average bacterial cell is 3 to 5 microns in diameter, in the same ballpark.

“In the mass spectra from the ESI+ and ESI- measurements we identified 668 substances … Most intense peak for C8H12O4, which is a carboxylic acid or ester.”

Oh, this stuff is nice . Look at the following chart about the diversity of chemicals found to be produced abiologically.

The above diagram explodes one of my long-held beliefs.

I had thought that lipids and proteins could be made together, but not at the same time as carbohydrates and nucleic acids.

I’m very glad to be wrong. That makes the origin of life much eadier.

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

Aha, Found part 1.

Wollrab E, Scherer S, Aubriet F, Carré V, Carlomagno T, Codutti L, Ott A (2015) Chemical analysis of a “Miller-type” complex prebiotic broth; part I: chemical diversity, oxygen and nitrogen based polymers. Orig Life Evol Biosph 46:149–169.

Scanning Electron Microscope images of organic filaments from Miller-Urey type experiment. Difficult to read the distance scale on this. The organic filaments are of the order of 10 to 30 microns in diameter. The average bacterial cell is 3 to 5 microns in diameter, in the same ballpark.

“In the mass spectra from the ESI+ and ESI- measurements we identified 668 substances … Most intense peak for C8H12O4, which is a carboxylic acid or ester.”

Oh, this stuff is nice . Look at the following chart about the diversity of chemicals found to be produced abiologically.

The above diagram explodes one of my long-held beliefs.

I had thought that lipids and proteins could be made together, but not at the same time as carbohydrates and nucleic acids.

I’m very glad to be wrong. That makes the origin of life much eadier.

Why do you see the origin of life being eadier as a good thing?

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

Aha, Found part 1.

Wollrab E, Scherer S, Aubriet F, Carré V, Carlomagno T, Codutti L, Ott A (2015) Chemical analysis of a “Miller-type” complex prebiotic broth; part I: chemical diversity, oxygen and nitrogen based polymers. Orig Life Evol Biosph 46:149–169.

Scanning Electron Microscope images of organic filaments from Miller-Urey type experiment. Difficult to read the distance scale on this. The organic filaments are of the order of 10 to 30 microns in diameter. The average bacterial cell is 3 to 5 microns in diameter, in the same ballpark.

“In the mass spectra from the ESI+ and ESI- measurements we identified 668 substances … Most intense peak for C8H12O4, which is a carboxylic acid or ester.”

Oh, this stuff is nice . Look at the following chart about the diversity of chemicals found to be produced abiologically.

The above diagram explodes one of my long-held beliefs.

I had thought that lipids and proteins could be made together, but not at the same time as carbohydrates and nucleic acids.

I’m very glad to be wrong. That makes the origin of life much eadier.

Why do you see the origin of life being eadier as a good thing?

easier or earlier ?

Easier is good as then the conditions may exist all over the universe

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

The above diagram explodes one of my long-held beliefs.

I had thought that lipids and proteins could be made together, but not at the same time as carbohydrates and nucleic acids.

I’m very glad to be wrong. That makes the origin of life much eadier.

Why do you see the origin of life being eadier as a good thing?

easier or earlier ?

Easier is good as then the conditions may exist all over the universe

Why is that good?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Why do you see the origin of life being eadier as a good thing?

easier or earlier ?

Easier is good as then the conditions may exist all over the universe

Why is that good?

Life could exist elsewhere needing only simpler conditions, its good I suppose for the prospect of life not confined to Earth.

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

easier or earlier ?

Easier is good as then the conditions may exist all over the universe

Why is that good?

Life could exist elsewhere needing only simpler conditions, its good I suppose for the prospect of life not confined to Earth.

I got that, I just don’t see why life being common in the Universe is seen as being a good thing.

I have this weird idea that if it becomes clear that life is very very rare, it might encourage people to work a bit harder at preserving suitable conditions for life here.

The Rev Dodgson said:

I have this weird idea that if it becomes clear that life is very very rare, it might encourage people to work a bit harder at preserving suitable conditions for life here.

Hippy.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Why is that good?

Life could exist elsewhere needing only simpler conditions, its good I suppose for the prospect of life not confined to Earth.

I got that, I just don’t see why life being common in the Universe is seen as being a good thing.

I have this weird idea that if it becomes clear that life is very very rare, it might encourage people to work a bit harder at preserving suitable conditions for life here.

Possibly, I was hopefully thinking we could leave and start again and do a better job next time

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I have this weird idea that if it becomes clear that life is very very rare, it might encourage people to work a bit harder at preserving suitable conditions for life here.

Hippy.

True.

Nightfall

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I have this weird idea that if it becomes clear that life is very very rare, it might encourage people to work a bit harder at preserving suitable conditions for life here.

Hippy.

True.

Nightfall

That’s not the Asimov short story.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Why is that good?

Life could exist elsewhere needing only simpler conditions, its good I suppose for the prospect of life not confined to Earth.

I got that, I just don’t see why life being common in the Universe is seen as being a good thing.

I have this weird idea that if it becomes clear that life is very very rare, it might encourage people to work a bit harder at preserving suitable conditions for life here.

as the human we grows, along with the convergent perspective that life here is special, the narcissistic transformation will conclude with a more-of us-less-of-other theme, to the satisfaction of many.

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

Life could exist elsewhere needing only simpler conditions, its good I suppose for the prospect of life not confined to Earth.

I got that, I just don’t see why life being common in the Universe is seen as being a good thing.

I have this weird idea that if it becomes clear that life is very very rare, it might encourage people to work a bit harder at preserving suitable conditions for life here.

as the human we grows, along with the convergent perspective that life here is special, the narcissistic transformation will conclude with a more-of us-less-of-other theme, to the satisfaction of many.

I hope you noticed I carefully avoided use of the w word.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Why is that good?

Life could exist elsewhere needing only simpler conditions, its good I suppose for the prospect of life not confined to Earth.

I got that, I just don’t see why life being common in the Universe is seen as being a good thing.

I have this weird idea that if it becomes clear that life is very very rare, it might encourage people to work a bit harder at preserving suitable conditions for life here.

Easier is good. The Drake equation strongly suggests that life is either very common, or totally impossible. So far, biochemistry has said impossible, which means there’s no life on Earth. So a biochemical shortcut is needed, to explain where we came from.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

Life could exist elsewhere needing only simpler conditions, its good I suppose for the prospect of life not confined to Earth.

I got that, I just don’t see why life being common in the Universe is seen as being a good thing.

I have this weird idea that if it becomes clear that life is very very rare, it might encourage people to work a bit harder at preserving suitable conditions for life here.

Easier is good. The Drake equation strongly suggests that life is either very common, or totally impossible. So far, biochemistry has said impossible, which means there’s no life on Earth.

Seems more like the Drake equation is crap then …

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I got that, I just don’t see why life being common in the Universe is seen as being a good thing.

I have this weird idea that if it becomes clear that life is very very rare, it might encourage people to work a bit harder at preserving suitable conditions for life here.

as the human we grows, along with the convergent perspective that life here is special, the narcissistic transformation will conclude with a more-of us-less-of-other theme, to the satisfaction of many.

I hope you noticed I carefully avoided use of the w word.

>I have this weird idea..

you’re hiding it in the word weird now, i’m onto you. You say it, yeah it’s in the grunt too.

:)

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

Life could exist elsewhere needing only simpler conditions, its good I suppose for the prospect of life not confined to Earth.

I got that, I just don’t see why life being common in the Universe is seen as being a good thing.

I have this weird idea that if it becomes clear that life is very very rare, it might encourage people to work a bit harder at preserving suitable conditions for life here.

Easier is good. The Drake equation strongly suggests that life is either very common, or totally impossible. So far, biochemistry has said impossible, which means there’s no life on Earth. So a biochemical shortcut is needed, to explain where we came from.

Please show working.

To me, the Drake equations suggest that life is something between very common and very rare, but definitely not impossible.

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

as the human we grows, along with the convergent perspective that life here is special, the narcissistic transformation will conclude with a more-of us-less-of-other theme, to the satisfaction of many.

I hope you noticed I carefully avoided use of the w word.

Damn.

You got me there.

>I have this weird idea..

you’re hiding it in the word weird now, i’m onto you. You say it, yeah it’s in the grunt too.

:)

you can state that the probability of life emerging here on earth, after it happened, was 100%.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I got that, I just don’t see why life being common in the Universe is seen as being a good thing.

I have this weird idea that if it becomes clear that life is very very rare, it might encourage people to work a bit harder at preserving suitable conditions for life here.

Easier is good. The Drake equation strongly suggests that life is either very common, or totally impossible. So far, biochemistry has said impossible, which means there’s no life on Earth. So a biochemical shortcut is needed, to explain where we came from.

Please show working.

To me, the Drake equations suggest that life is something between very common and very rare, but definitely not impossible.

A fully functioning bacteria complete with RNA replication enzymes, protein generatimg machinery and faithful replication. We’re talking odds in the order of 2^10000000000 to one against, or even worse. There are only 2^55 planets in the universe. I call that impossible.

the drake equation, lol.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Easier is good. The Drake equation strongly suggests that life is either very common, or totally impossible. So far, biochemistry has said impossible, which means there’s no life on Earth. So a biochemical shortcut is needed, to explain where we came from.

Please show working.

To me, the Drake equations suggest that life is something between very common and very rare, but definitely not impossible.

A fully functioning bacteria complete with RNA replication enzymes, protein generatimg machinery and faithful replication. We’re talking odds in the order of 2^10000000000 to one against, or even worse. There are only 2^55 planets in the universe. I call that impossible.

We have no idea how many planets there are in the Universe, but we know it is a lot more than 2^55.

The anthropic principle isn’t limited to the visible universe.

If the frequency of intelligent life is say 1 per googolplex visible universe volumes, we may be sure that each instance has exactly one observable planet where life has evolved.

ChrispenEvan said:

the drake equation, lol.

What’s so wisible about the dwake equation Chwispen?

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

the drake equation, lol.

What’s so wisible about the dwake equation Chwispen?

apart from the first few variables of the original equation you can just about put whatever figure you like in the rest. some of the modified versions are a little better.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation#Modifications

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

the drake equation, lol.

What’s so wisible about the dwake equation Chwispen?

apart from the first few variables of the original equation you can just about put whatever figure you like in the rest. some of the modified versions are a little better.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation#Modifications

OK, I agree with that.

I don’t know about modified ones being better though.

Might read the link.

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

the drake equation, lol.

What’s so wisible about the dwake equation Chwispen?

apart from the first few variables of the original equation you can just about put whatever figure you like in the rest. some of the modified versions are a little better.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation#Modifications

Had a look.

Doesn’t appear to address the “what if life only very rarely develops, even under suitable conditions” question.

Until we have some reasonable mechanism by which an evolvable life form might come into being we have no idea how frequently it might get started.

A fully functioning bacteria complete with RNA replication enzymes, protein generatimg machinery and faithful replication. We’re talking odds in the order of 2^10000000000 to one against, or even worse. There are only 2^55 planets in the universe. I call that impossible.

Literally no one thinks that’s how life arose, with a bacterium suddenly forming via random processes. A bacterium is an advanced form of life, the result of many stages of development.

We have no idea how many planets there are in the Universe, but we know it is a lot more than 2^55.

Seems fair. Recent estimates of the number of stars in the visible universe are in the range from 50e21 to 500
e21 . If the average number of planets is 2 to 5, that’s 100e21 to 2500e21, which is like 2^76 to 2^81.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

What’s so wisible about the dwake equation Chwispen?

apart from the first few variables of the original equation you can just about put whatever figure you like in the rest. some of the modified versions are a little better.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation#Modifications

Had a look.

Doesn’t appear to address the “what if life only very rarely develops, even under suitable conditions” question.

Until we have some reasonable mechanism by which an evolvable life form might come into being we have no idea how frequently it might get started.

The Drake Equation is useful in that it lists the unknowns, and hence breaks the discussion into a set of focal points. I don’t think a well read person would suggest that it could really be used to make a meaningful estimate at this stage ( because the uncertainty in several variables is very high).

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

apart from the first few variables of the original equation you can just about put whatever figure you like in the rest. some of the modified versions are a little better.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation#Modifications

Had a look.

Doesn’t appear to address the “what if life only very rarely develops, even under suitable conditions” question.

Until we have some reasonable mechanism by which an evolvable life form might come into being we have no idea how frequently it might get started.

The Drake Equation is useful in that it lists the unknowns, and hence breaks the discussion into a set of focal points. I don’t think a well read person would suggest that it could really be used to make a meaningful estimate at this stage ( because the uncertainty in several variables is very high).

Yep. bin saying that for nearly a couple of decades.

dv said:

A fully functioning bacteria complete with RNA replication enzymes, protein generatimg machinery and faithful replication. We’re talking odds in the order of 2^10000000000 to one against, or even worse. There are only 2^55 planets in the universe. I call that impossible.

Literally no one thinks that’s how life arose, with a bacterium suddenly forming via random processes. A bacterium is an advanced form of life, the result of many stages of development.

We have no idea how many planets there are in the Universe, but we know it is a lot more than 2^55.

Seems fair. Recent estimates of the number of stars in the visible universe are in the range from 50e21 to 500
e21 . If the average number of planets is 2 to 5, that’s 100e21 to 2500e21, which is like 2^76 to 2^81.

(Of course, life could arise somewhere other than a planet: on a satellite for instance)

dv said:

A fully functioning bacteria complete with RNA replication enzymes, protein generatimg machinery and faithful replication. We’re talking odds in the order of 2^10000000000 to one against, or even worse. There are only 2^55 planets in the universe. I call that impossible.

Literally no one thinks that’s how life arose, with a bacterium suddenly forming via random processes. A bacterium is an advanced form of life, the result of many stages of development.

We have no idea how many planets there are in the Universe, but we know it is a lot more than 2^55.

Seems fair. Recent estimates of the number of stars in the visible universe are in the range from 50e21 to 500
e21 . If the average number of planets is 2 to 5, that’s 100e21 to 2500e21, which is like 2^76 to 2^81.

OK, but my point was that if we are trying to estimate the chance of a very unlikely event occurring at least once in the Universe, we should consider the whole Universe (however big that is), not just the tiny little bit of it we can see.

dv said:

A fully functioning bacteria complete with RNA replication enzymes, protein generatimg machinery and faithful replication. We’re talking odds in the order of 2^10000000000 to one against, or even worse. There are only 2^55 planets in the universe. I call that impossible.

Literally no one thinks that’s how life arose, with a bacterium suddenly forming via random processes. A bacterium is an advanced form of life, the result of many stages of development.

Well at least one person seems to think it is a possibility. I suspect there may be several others; some creationists might suggest that it is the only alternative to divine creation for instance, and sincerely believe that to be true.

It is anyway a reasonable lower limit on the probability that life might get started by chance, so it’s a reasonable number to consider.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

A fully functioning bacteria complete with RNA replication enzymes, protein generatimg machinery and faithful replication. We’re talking odds in the order of 2^10000000000 to one against, or even worse. There are only 2^55 planets in the universe. I call that impossible.

Literally no one thinks that’s how life arose, with a bacterium suddenly forming via random processes. A bacterium is an advanced form of life, the result of many stages of development.

We have no idea how many planets there are in the Universe, but we know it is a lot more than 2^55.

Seems fair. Recent estimates of the number of stars in the visible universe are in the range from 50e21 to 500
e21 . If the average number of planets is 2 to 5, that’s 100e21 to 2500e21, which is like 2^76 to 2^81.

OK, but my point was that if we are trying to estimate the chance of a very unlikely event occurring at least once in the Universe, we should consider the whole Universe (however big that is), not just the tiny little bit of it we can see.

I concur

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

A fully functioning bacteria complete with RNA replication enzymes, protein generatimg machinery and faithful replication. We’re talking odds in the order of 2^10000000000 to one against, or even worse. There are only 2^55 planets in the universe. I call that impossible.

Literally no one thinks that’s how life arose, with a bacterium suddenly forming via random processes. A bacterium is an advanced form of life, the result of many stages of development.

We have no idea how many planets there are in the Universe, but we know it is a lot more than 2^55.

Seems fair. Recent estimates of the number of stars in the visible universe are in the range from 50e21 to 500
e21 . If the average number of planets is 2 to 5, that’s 100e21 to 2500e21, which is like 2^76 to 2^81.

OK, but my point was that if we are trying to estimate the chance of a very unlikely event occurring at least once in the Universe, we should consider the whole Universe (however big that is), not just the tiny little bit of it we can see.

I concur

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

A fully functioning bacteria complete with RNA replication enzymes, protein generatimg machinery and faithful replication. We’re talking odds in the order of 2^10000000000 to one against, or even worse. There are only 2^55 planets in the universe. I call that impossible.

Literally no one thinks that’s how life arose, with a bacterium suddenly forming via random processes. A bacterium is an advanced form of life, the result of many stages of development.

We have no idea how many planets there are in the Universe, but we know it is a lot more than 2^55.

Seems fair. Recent estimates of the number of stars in the visible universe are in the range from 50e21 to 500
e21 . If the average number of planets is 2 to 5, that’s 100e21 to 2500e21, which is like 2^76 to 2^81.

OK, but my point was that if we are trying to estimate the chance of a very unlikely event occurring at least once in the Universe, we should consider the whole Universe (however big that is), not just the tiny little bit of it we can see.

I concur

early onset

https://tokyo3.org/forums/holiday/?main=https%3A//tokyo3.org/forums/holiday/posts/1393115/