The origin of life: Cell membranes.

Cisco Qid said:
Not to be a fuddy-duddy about this, especially since I don't what started it but hydrogen bonding does keep water molecules together.
Click to expand...
There is an ambiguity in "keep water molecules together". Do you mean it keeps the oxygen together with the two hydrogens with a molecule? That was Nathan's original claim (though I think he is distancing himself from it now), and is not true.

If you mean one molecule of water is kept together with its neighbour, and hence water remains liquid at room temperature, then yes, it does.
 
rossum said:
No parts "evolved"; they formed chemically. Evolution happens in living populations. Before the first life there were no living populations, obviously.

Many experiments in abiogenesis have been done showing how organic chemicals can form through purely chemical processes. The first of these was the Miller-Urey experiment in 1952. There have been many other experiments since showing how other chemicals, such as pyrimidines, could form.

Chemistry is sufficient, no miracles are required.
Click to expand...
The point is parts of the cell evolved one step at a time and not all the parts of the cell evolved at the same time correct?
 
Nathan P said:
The point is parts of the cell evolved one step at a time and not all the parts of the cell evolved at the same time correct?
Click to expand...
Some parts of the cell were there from before the origin of life. for example lipid bilayers and short RNA strands. Those parts formed chemically.

Other parts of the cell evolved later as life became more complex. The nucleus, chloroplasts and mitochondria are examples. Those parts are not essential; Bacteria lack a nucleus for example and human cells lack chloroplasts.

Early life was very simple, much simpler than life today.
 
The Pixie said:
There is an ambiguity in "keep water molecules together". Do you mean it keeps the oxygen together with the two hydrogens with a molecule? That was Nathan's original claim (though I think he is distancing himself from it now), and is not true.

If you mean one molecule of water is kept together with its neighbour, and hence water remains liquid at room temperature, then yes, it does.
Click to expand...
You have hydrogen bonding between water molecules and covalent bonding between atoms. I don't see the point.
 
rossum said:
Some parts of the cell were there from before the origin of life. for example lipid bilayers and short RNA strands. Those parts formed chemically.

Other parts of the cell evolved later as life became more complex. The nucleus, chloroplasts and mitochondria are examples. Those parts are not essential; Bacteria lack a nucleus for example and human cells lack chloroplasts.

Early life was very simple, much simpler than life today.
Click to expand...
We are talking about the cell itself and not the lipid bilayer that forms a barrier around the cell.
 
Nathan P said:
We are talking about the cell itself and not the lipid bilayer that forms a barrier around the cell.
Click to expand...
Look at the title of this thread please. See that "cell membranes" in there? The lipid bilayer cell membrane has always bee part of the conversation.
 
The Pixie said:
Agreed.


Nathan said there was hydrogen bonding within the molecule preventing it falling a part. The point is that he was wrong. There is no more to it than that.
Click to expand...
Without hydrogen bonding the molecules would fly apart into a gas and we wouldn't have water from an off the top of the head perspective.
 
Cisco Qid said:
Without hydrogen bonding the molecules would fly apart into a gas and we wouldn't have water from an off the top of the head perspective.
Click to expand...
Right. But hydrogen bonding does not keep the oxygen atoms together with the hydrogen atoms. A single molecule of water does not stay together because of hydrogen bonding. Therefore Nathan was wrong.
 
Cisco Qid said:
Hey, I sarcasm like I see'em. And you misspelled a word which means that your premise must be wrong. That's at least as bad as mixing covalent with hydrogen bond.
Click to expand...
Really? Which word do you think I misspelled? I don't recall mentioning either hydrogen or covalent bonds. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else who thinks you are wrong. It must be difficult to keep track sometimes.
 
Temujin said:
Really? Which word do you think I misspelled? I don't recall mentioning either hydrogen or covalent bonds. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else who thinks you are wrong. It must be difficult to keep track sometimes.
Click to expand...
It's recognizing not recognising. Not that is makes any difference since I have misspelled many a word. But you did involve yourself in the the covalent/hydrogen bond issue which make you an accessory.
 
Cisco Qid said:
It's recognizing not recognising. Not that is makes any difference since I have misspelled many a word. But you did involve yourself in the the covalent/hydrogen bond issue which make you an accessory.
Click to expand...
Lol! You are showing your ignorance, and parochial short-sightedness. "-ise" is a perfectly acceptable form, and is normal in the UK. I speak as a self-confessed grammar Nazi. I too make occasional mistakes, but on this occasion, not guilty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top