If evolution were true...
Why does all life require 20 amino acids which are extremely complex, oxidize and are destroyed by oxygen, and favor only right handed molecules.
Wouldnt it be logical that early life would have evolved from a single amino acid and worked its way from a simple amino acid to more complex amio acids before finally becoming a multi-amino acid life form?
But the "earliest life form" uses 20 amino acids all right handed and lives off glucose.
$hit.
37 comments
"Wouldnt it be logical that early life would have evolved from a single amino acid and worked its way from a simple amino acid to more complex amio acids before finally becoming a multi-amino acid life form? "
Yes, something along those lines is most likely what happened.
How do you know what the earliest lifeform was like?
(I'm not even sure the phrase makes sense: there likely wasn't any hard and fast boundary with 'life' on one side and 'not alive' on the other. Nature does fuzzy really well).
This is like looking at an engine with a catalytic converter, seeing that such engines were widespread to the point of exclusion, and then concluding that, since the converter couldn't be invented before the engine, they had to be invented at the exact same time.
Yes, "all"* life now uses 20 amino acids, all of them dextro-aligned. This is likely because life forms with that trait tended to outperform those that lacked it, leading to the extinction of the others. Indeed, evolution would suggest that the earliest forms of life were single amino acids that chained together. That they don't exist any more is no more mystifying than dinosaurs not existing any more.
* well, most. It sort of depends on what you define as "life". Consider viruses, for instance.
Since we don't know exactly what the first life form was, how can you claim that it needed 20 amino acids?
To quote the creationist argument: Where you there?
You have displayed here your deep ignorence of both basic chemistry and basic biology, which could be expected from someone treating a religious book as something providing scientific knowledge.
@[url=http://fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=98828&Page=1#1627019]Frank[/url]
Maybe ID_Neon wanted to speak about Dextrorotation and levorotation but didn't remember the exact name.
"If evolution were true..."
And if Biblical Cre(a)ti(o)nism was fact ...
...why could a supposedly 'Omnipotent ' God just poof a universe, world & all the animal life on it, yet he had to limit his 'omnipotence ' when it came to bringing forth into being the first humans; why couldn't he have just similarly used the same 'poofing' process with them, least of all your so-called 'Jesus'...?!
And amino acids is an infinitely more credible (as it's proven by the likes of Watson & Crick; they got the Nobel Prize for their doing so, for fuck's sake!) - certainly more logical , as it's explainable - than a worse -than fairy story of an invisible sky fairy just taking a handful of dirt ...!
"Why does all life require 20 amino acids which are extremely complex, oxidize and are destroyed by oxygen, and favor only right handed molecules."
Because all life existing today evolved from a common ancestor.
"But the "earliest life form" uses 20 amino acids all right handed and lives off glucose."
Glucose? We don't actually know what the earliest life form was, but chemoautotrophs are considered the likeliest contender. They don't live off glucose. We also don't know that life couldn't have started with fewer aminos.
And of course, evolution and abiogenesis are two different things.
> Why does all life require [...] Wouldnt it be logical [...]
Well! Let me explain it to you...
> $hit.
... ... ...
... ...
...
Never mind, you're probably too daft to understand it anyway...
Wouldnt it be logical that early life would have evolved from a single amino acid and worked its way from a simple amino acid to more complex amio acids before finally becoming a multi-amino acid life form?
Yes... that's right. Well done, have a cookie...
But the "moronic idea of what the earliest life form was" uses 20 amino acids all right handed and lives off glucose.
Give me that cookie back! Fuck off and go find out what evolution suggests... (hint: it would be the first bit I quoted)
"If evolution were true... "
...why are you still a moron?
Anyways, evolution IS true; you prove that some of us are more evolved than others...
There are literally no functional proteins you can make with a single amino acid, so that explanation is right out. I believe the current most popular hypothesis is that the first organisms had no proteins at all. Instead they used RNA to both store information, and catalyse reactions. Once they had developed the ability to separate their internal environment from the environment outside (compartmentalised inside a cell membrane) useful RNAs and amino acids could be concentrated in the same area. Then the ability to code for a functional protein would be a selective advantage, since proteins are more flexible than RNA, but that wouldn't be worthwhile until the organism already had a lot of amino acids available to it.
If you're thinking that that raises the question of where the RNA came from...why yes, yes it does. There's some evidence that nucleotides could form in abiotic conditions, though it hasn't been specifically observed happening. But the chances of it linking up into a polymer large enough to self replicate aren't high. Some think there was an earlier set of catalytic molecules that helped, but we don't have proof. Frankly, science still doesn't have a perfect explanation. Which is my point. When we don't have an adequate explanation, we say so, and then we sit down and look for one. We don't throw out all of the very consistent and cohesive evidence we do have, just because we're having trouble seeing how one or two points fit in.
@ Matante
@ Frank
"Why does all life require 20 amino acids which are extremely complex, oxidize and are destroyed by oxygen, and favor only right handed molecules."
An interesting question, even though you omitted the question mark, for some reason. However, I feel sure that a period of investigation of scientific and biological texts will go some way to you having an understanding. Internet blurting will either get you sagely nodding heads or derision.
Hehe, you don't understand much. A fair few organisms use levo amino acids, as opposed to dextro, like most. Including bacteria.
Unless I was lied to in my chemistry lessons, which wouldn't surprise me.
No, that's bullshit. There's a sharp definition between lying and bullshit. And sarcasm, but hey. Hard to tell. Madman, now having let Distind have his bullshit to himself, away!
If evolution were true...
Here we go... yet again
Why does all life require 20 amino acids
If you really want an answer, read an actual biology book, because the Bible won't have it.
No, that wouldn't be logical at all. You seem to have some false sense that natural selection operates to create increased biologic complexity, rather than increased fitness with respect to specific environments.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
