Re: Let's create an alien biosphere!
Posted: January 23rd, 2021, 12:49 pm
What are the more obvious biological consequences I meant.
Forums for Conway's Game of Life
https://conwaylife.com/forums/
What are the more obvious biological consequences I meant.
Silicon would enjoy miscellaneous uses where a large and/or more electropositive carbon analog is optimal. It might also be useful for the analog of DNA in the analog of nitrogenous base pairs. Now that I think about it, using silicate instead of phosphate would likely decrease the amount of energy that can be obtained by breaking off a pyrophosphate or triphosphate group from the nucleotide analog. However, replacing carbon with silicon in the ribose/deoxyribose analog would likely make polymerizing DNA and RNA easier due to the increased electropositivity of silicon. Shall we work on the analogs of DNA and proteins now?Schiaparelliorbust wrote: January 23rd, 2021, 12:49 pmWhat are the more obvious biological consequences I meant.
Yes. I hope we aren't going to figure out their whole chemical structure though. I just looked up why DNA is double helixed, and just as I thought it's to avoid mutations. We could assume the same thing happens here.MathAndCode wrote: January 23rd, 2021, 2:16 pm Silicon would enjoy miscellaneous uses where a large and/or more electropositive carbon analog is optimal. It might also be useful for the analog of DNA in the analog of nitrogenous base pairs. Now that I think about it, using silicate instead of phosphate would likely decrease the amount of energy that can be obtained by breaking off a pyrophosphate or triphosphate group from the nucleotide analog. However, replacing carbon with silicon in the ribose/deoxyribose analog would likely make polymerizing DNA and RNA easier due to the increased electropositivity of silicon. Shall we work on the analogs of DNA and proteins now?
I figured that it could be interesting and give us an idea of what substances could cause mutations. However, if you want, we'll skip it.Schiaparelliorbust wrote: January 23rd, 2021, 2:30 pmI hope we aren't going to figure out their whole chemical structure though.
What I meant was we don't have to specifically determine the structure of the molecule, but if you think it's important we can. I was thinking that we can just determine the general properties and components of the molecule.MathAndCode wrote: January 23rd, 2021, 2:40 pm I figured that it could be interesting and give us an idea of what substances could cause mutations. However, if you want, we'll skip it.
I guess that it's not necessary to determine the specific properties in order to make sure that it works because DNA works for us, and this planet will have all of the elements required for it.Schiaparelliorbust wrote: January 23rd, 2021, 3:26 pmWhat I meant was we don't have to specifically determine the structure of the molecule, but if you think it's important we can. I was thinking that we can just determine the general properties and components of the molecule.
What do think the overall structure should be like then? Don't forget what I said about redundancy.MathAndCode wrote: January 23rd, 2021, 3:31 pm I guess that it's not necessary to determine the specific properties in order to make sure that it works because DNA works for us, and this planet will have all of the elements required for it.
I think that your idea of having two strands is good.Schiaparelliorbust wrote: January 23rd, 2021, 3:36 pmWhat do think the overall structure should be like then? Don't forget what I said about redundancy.
That wouldn't be enough though. There would be no way to tell which strand is right and which is wrong. We should have legal and illegal combinations of bases to help that. Any other ideas?MathAndCode wrote: January 23rd, 2021, 3:57 pm I think that your idea of having two strands is good.
I don't think that we can solve those problems without going into the specific structure.Schiaparelliorbust wrote: January 23rd, 2021, 4:38 pmThat wouldn't be enough though. There would be no way to tell which strand is right and which is wrong. We should have legal and illegal combinations of bases to help that.
I think we can solve them without determining what the molecule looks like necessarily. We don't need to understand the structure of DNA to understand some basic things about it after all.MathAndCode wrote: January 23rd, 2021, 4:43 pm I don't think that we can solve those problems without going into the specific structure.
Do you mean simply saying that there should be base-pairing or ensuring that there is base-pairing?Schiaparelliorbust wrote: January 23rd, 2021, 6:15 pmI think we can solve them without determining what the molecule looks like necessarily. We don't need to understand the structure of DNA to understand some basic things about it after all.
Yes, something like that. I don't see why base pairs should have two different pairs though. Would base groups of 3 be too complex?MathAndCode wrote: January 23rd, 2021, 10:05 pm Do you mean simply saying that there should be base-pairing or ensuring that there is base-pairing?
I think that that would be too complicated. On the other hand, there's nothing to prevent increasing the number of different base pairs from four to six or eight.Schiaparelliorbust wrote: January 24th, 2021, 4:42 amYes, something like that. I don't see why base pairs should have two different pairs though. Would base groups of 3 be too complex?
Yes, we could do six. That will allow for a smaller group of legal combinations compared to illegal ones. Thus it should be easier to spot and fix mistakes.MathAndCode wrote: January 24th, 2021, 11:56 am I think that that would be too complicated. On the other hand, there's nothing to prevent increasing the number of different base pairs from four to six or eight.
Okay; what's next?Schiaparelliorbust wrote: January 24th, 2021, 12:02 pmYes, we could do six. That will allow for a smaller group of legal combinations compared to illegal ones. Thus it should be easier to spot and fix mistakes.
Either the structure of the genetic molecule or the protein analogues.
It should be double-stranded, and the backbone should be made of phosphate groups and a sugar-like molecule that includes some silicon.Schiaparelliorbust wrote: January 24th, 2021, 12:09 pmEither the structure of the genetic molecule or the protein analogues.
By backbone I guess you mean the outer edge of the molecule, right? Do we need a formula for the sugar-like molecule?MathAndCode wrote: January 24th, 2021, 12:14 pm It should be double-stranded, and the backbone should be made of phosphate groups and a sugar-like molecule that includes some silicon.
I don't think that that's necessary.Schiaparelliorbust wrote: January 24th, 2021, 12:21 pmBy backbone I guess you mean the outer edge of the molecule, right? Do we need a formula for the sugar-like molecule?
Ok so there are three base pairs, and the genetic molecule of made of them, the silicon-containing sugar analogue and phosphate groups. Is that enough?
Yes, that should be enough.Schiaparelliorbust wrote: January 24th, 2021, 3:54 pmOk so there are three base pairs, and the genetic molecule of made of them, the silicon-containing sugar analogue and phosphate groups. Is that enough?
When I stated this project, I was thinking of a single planet. I know we kind of tried to make a super-Earth, but we already have the atmosphere and water figured out fort the first planet and I don't see why this genetic molecule can't work there, so I'm proposing going back to a single planet.
Okay, so we're changing the system back to P-type?Schiaparelliorbust wrote: January 24th, 2021, 5:49 pmWhen I stated this project, I was thinking of a single planet. I know we kind of tried to make a super-Earth, but we already have the atmosphere and water figured out fort the first planet and I don't see why this genetic molecule can't work there, so I'm proposing going back to a single planet.
I don't ever remember it being S-type, but yes. Can we create out photosynthesizers now?