Abstract excerpt: “We believe that delicate long-range electrostatic interactions could be responsible for such high-level chiral recognition and selection.”
Article excerpt: “This self-assembly allows relatively simple building blocks to organize themselves into larger supramolecular structures, a phenomenon that has parallels with the formation of viral capsids (both in morphology and kinetics)37.”
Excerpt: “The origin of life is still a mystery with many unsolved puzzles. How were molecules created? How did they assemble into large structures? Among the conundrums, the “homochirality” phenomenon upon which amino acids and sugars form is particularly fascinating.”
Excerpt: For many people, the generation of amino acids from simple chemical compounds thought to be present in early Earth’s atmosphere meant that life could originate all on its own without the need for a Creator.
Excerpt: Miller passed a continuous electric discharge through the gas mix and showed that the primitive atmosphere of the early Earth could, in principle, generate amino acids, one of the key building blocks of life.
Excerpt: Today, the Miller-Urey experiment is considered to be irrelevant to the origin-of-life question.
Light-induced amino acid substitutions appear to link the biophysically constrained chemistry of protein folding from RNA-directed DNA methylation and RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that differentiate all cell types in all individual of all genera. Is the problem the failure of physicists to communicate with biologists or the fact that the explanations of biologically-based cause and effect don’t fit the theories of “big bang” cosmologists or evolutionary theorists?
Excerpt: “…similarly, most random sequences of amino acids are lab-proven (Doug Axe’s work) to be non-functional gibberish”
Excerpt: …the substitution of glycine for a chiral amino acid in GnRH during evolution allows a more constrained conformation for receptor binding and that this subtle single amino acid substitution in a site remote from the ligand functional domains has marked effects on its structure and activity.”
My comment: I tried to discuss this with Laurence A. Moran who thinks he is merely a skeptical biochemist.
He wrote: “The simplest amino acid is glycine where the R group is just a hydrogen atom. Thus, glycine is not a chiral compound and there’s no such thing as L-glycine or D-glycine. All other natural amino acids are chiral. Glycine might have formed spontaneously from acetate or glycerol. According to this scenario, the exclusive presence of L-amino acids instead of D-amino acids is just an accident.”
I wrote: Larry,
It might benefit others and me if you would comment on the most likely role of the achiral glycine substitution in the molecule of GnRH. I have the impression that the added stability of protein folding caused it to be conserved across 400 million years of vertebrate evolution because GnRH integrates all sensory input and its pulses of GnRH distribute information to every neuron in the vertebrate brain. The link from the epigenetic landscape via olfactory/pheromonal input to the physical landscape of DNA becomes clearer in the context of thermodynamically controlled alternative splicings and protein folding. It is that link that excludes mutations theory from further consideration at a time when people here seem destined to believe in nonsense unless you step in.
I was banned from his blog site and my comment was removed. That seems to be the most likely approach to conflict that I have encountered. Theorists simply ban or ignore the comments of serious scientists.
Excerpt: “…nature’s clear bias toward certain amino acids and sugars and against others isn’t accidental. All life molecules are paired as left-handed and right-handed structures. That is chirality. Nature’s selection of only right-handed sugars and left-handed amino acids upon which to build life might be much simpler than hypothesized, he says.”
My comment: The problem for serious scientists who don’t believe that the origin of life was something “meant to be” is that achiral glycine appears to link nutrient-dependent biodiversity to the pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction in all vertebrates via the biophysically-constrained chemistry of RNA-mediated protein folding and fixation of the amino acid substitutions in the organized genomes of species from microbes to man.
Others have tried but failed to link the increasing number of amino acids and the exponential increase in the number of proteins to a last universal common ancestor. Are we now expected to believe that the last common ancestor was simply meant to be — even if it can’t be found at the biophysically constrained origin of non-living viruses or living cells.
If the origin of life was simply meant to be, book sales should increase for Masatoshi Nei. He wants everyone to also believe that “…genomic conservation and constraint-breaking mutation is the ultimate source of all biological innovations and the enormous amount of biodiversity in this world.” (p 199) Mutation-Driven Evolution
It is much easier to believe in the pseudoscientific nonsense about mutation-driven evolution, especially if you need not link your ridiculous claims a last common ancestor — since there does not appear to be one, except in theory. In theory, not only did organisms self-assemble themselves, but their lineage of self-assembly led to sex differences and mate selection in vertebrates, like birds. The question arises: What about birds? Does anyone really believe they evolved from dinosaurs?