| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Robert Karl Stonjek
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:45 am Post subject: Paper: Origins of life: How leaky were primitive cells? |
 |
|
Nature 454, 37-38 (3 July 2008) | doi:10.1038/454037a; Published online 2
July 2008
Origins of life: How leaky were primitive cells?
David W. Deamer
Top of pageAbstractIf the first cells were simple vesicles, how did
nutrients cross their membranes without help from transport proteins? A
model of a primitive cell suggests that early membranes were surprisingly
permeable.
How life began remains an open question. There are now a dozen or more
competing ideas that fall into two general categories: life began either as
an autotrophic organism that used primitive metabolic pathways to make its
own organic components, or as a heterotroph that incorporated
carbon-containing nutrients already available in the environment.
Source: Nature
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7200/full/454037a.html
Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Tom Hendricks
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 5:52 am Post subject: Re: Paper: Origins of life: How leaky were primitive cells? |
|
|
On Jul 7, 12:45 am, "Robert Karl Stonjek" <rston...@bigpond.net.au>
wrote:
[quote]Nature 454, 37-38 (3 July 2008) | doi:10.1038/454037a; Published online 2
July 2008
Origins of life: How leaky were primitive cells?
David W. Deamer
Top of pageAbstractIf the first cells were simple vesicles, how did
nutrients cross their membranes without help from transport proteins? A
model of a primitive cell suggests that early membranes were surprisingly
permeable.
How life began remains an open question. There are now a dozen or more
competing ideas that fall into two general categories: life began either as
an autotrophic organism that used primitive metabolic pathways to make its
own organic components, or as a heterotroph that incorporated
carbon-containing nutrients already available in the environment.
Source: Naturehttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7200/full/454037a.html
Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek
[/quote]
I think there is a third way. Both of the two you suggest are pop and
adapt.
Chemistry pops out of nothing then adapts to its environment (and
somehow
survives the time it takes to adapt). I think that is indefensible.
And I>m looking
for any real sense to it.
The third way is that life processes were a reaction , not action,
reaction to the
environment. And with each step life processes were a more stable
reaction
to the environment than what went before. It is the only plausible
scenario
for chemical processes that happen in an environment outside a lab. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
