follow-up work to Miller and Urey's groundbreaking study look at the
synthesis of organic compounds in a primordial environment, it
was shown that
RNA monomeric bases could form under conditions similar to those of a
prehistoric Earth. More recent work has shown how such
individual bases, floating in a water environment, could link
together into chains.But none of that explains how the
life made the jump from RNA to DNA and how it added a protective and
sustaining soup of organic compounds along the way. The answer
may lie in a little known concept -- RNA can act as an enzyme.It
is now generally regarded in most of the biochemistry community as
sufficiently proven that RNA acts as the enzyme to make the proteins
in our body (the so called "ribozyme"). Thus it
doesn't take a huge leap of logic to think that RNA enzymes, despite
their lesser catalytic prowess, could slowly generate sugars,
proteins, phospholipids and other key macromolecules. In fact,
a number of RNA enzymes that generate various organic molecule types
have been discovered -- including enzymes to accomplish
self-replication of the enzymes themselves.A
critical question that remained unanswered, though, was how the
ancient RNA enzymes could survive. RNA naturally undergoes
hydrolysis reactions in water that can break its chains. While
occurring at a low rate, the large number of the phosphodiester
linkages in a long RNA chain make it virtually inevitable that and
RNA molecule would break apart in days, if not months. So how
did our potential RNA ancestors escape destruction?Now
researchers at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in the United
Kingdom think they have cracked that puzzle. By placing RNA
inside liquid pockets of water encased inside cooling ice, they found
that RNA enzymes could function and at the same time escape
degradation. At these cooler temperatures the energy barrier
was presumably too high for uncatalyzed hydrolysis of the
phosphodiester linkages to occur -- thus safeguarding the RNA.
But with sufficient ions (added via dissolving commonly occurring
salts like magnesium-halogen salts in water), the RNA enzyme could
lower the energy barrier of the desirable reactions and survive and
self-replicate.Thus the origin of life on Earth might not
have been in a deep-sea vent or open ocean, but in a cold muddy
puddle in the icy north or south, which contained a mix of water and
organic byproducts of freed carbon from the Earth's crust.The
study's lead author Philipp Holliger explains, "It’s like the
tortoise and the hare problem. The tortoise is slower, but
it keeps on going, rather than falling apart. One thing that was
available at the beginning of the Earth was time."Over
time this life form could have built up an arsenal of useful
chemicals -- evolution at its most basic microscopic form. The
most critical developments would have been the creation of a
protective phospholipid bilayer, the creation of protein enzymes to
offer faster catalysis, and last, but not least, the switch to the
more chemically stable DNA. Once a self-replicating
RNA-lifeform gained these adaptations, it would at last have been
ready to venture into warmer climates and begin to survive and
reproduce, capturing the sun's power to fix energy in carbon-based
molecules.From there a long
evolutionary road lay ahead, eventually
reaching man and our zoological peers in the modern world.So
is the theory true? We may never know. But it appears
that science has at last provided a somewhat plausible explanation as
to how life could have made the leap from carbon compounds to a
complex living system.The new study is published in
the September 21 edition of the journal Nature
It builds upon this previous
2004 study, published in Astrobiology,
which suggests that RNA enzymes could have functioned in an icy
quote: By placing RNA inside liquid pockets of water encased inside cooling ice, they found that RNA enzymes could function and at the same time escape degradation. At these cooler temperatures the energy barrier was presumably too high for uncatalyzed hydrolysis of the phosphodiester linkages to occur -- thus safeguarding the RNA. But with sufficient ions (added via dissolving commonly occurring salts like magnesium-halogen salts in water), the RNA enzyme could lower the energy barrier of the desirable reactions and survive and self-replicate.
quote: Your response to those objections has been "Your answer is worthless because it disagrees with my religion"
quote: Sorry, but until science gets around to studying your religion there isn't a connection.
quote: Opinion: A river carved out the canyon over millions and millions of years. You can easily confuse the facts with the opinions; something that plagues this forum much too often.
quote: ..."By placing RNA inside liquid pockets of water encased inside cooling ice, they found that RNA enzymes could function and at the same time escape degradation"...
quote: I would like to see your answer to this
quote: Thus the origin of life on Earth might not have been in a deep-sea vent or open ocean, but in a cold muddy puddle in the icy north or south, which contained a mix of water and organic byproducts of freed carbon from the Earth's crust.
quote: Over time this life form could have built up an arsenal of useful chemicals -- evolution at its most basic microscopic form. The most critical developments would have been the creation of a protective phospholipid bilayer,...
quote: "AFTER the experiments, did they obtain observable results for abiogenesis?"
quote: Someone please answer this question: What in this article is testable and observable?
quote: The problem is that some people aren't intelligent enough to take into account the fact that the relevant parts of the Bible (source of most creationist argument) are completely abstract, and meant to be that way.
quote: People who think the world was made and populated in 6 days are just sheep without enough imagination to wonder about how it happened and how it was written down.
quote: I believe in God, but I don't think the creation story is anything but a myth.
quote: Who says a "day" was anything less than a billion years in that context?
quote: How was an ancient goatherd going to grasp evolution or cosmology? They didn't. They just wrote down some approximation that made sense to them.
quote: If you read Genesis, you will see where "a period of time" simply does not work. The time lapse between the sun and plant life would be millions/billions of years. So either the bible is dead wrong or plants lived without the sun for millions of years. I think the Bible is right...
quote: Occam's razor demands that the bible is dead wrong in this respect as to do otherwise is to throw out piles upon piles of evidence in favor of blind adherence to text.
quote: You do know that Occam's razor is just a guideline, not an infallible rule that even scientists use, right?
quote: It's nice how you apply your opinion of the bible as undeniable fact. If you want to pick and choose which parts of the bible to take as "valid" then you go right ahead, it's your divine right to do so. However, there are definately abstract and anecdotal parts of the bible; It's up to YOUR interpretation as to which is meant to be taken literally. I literally believer every word of the Bible, and I take some of that on faith since some parts can neither be proven or dis-proven. quote: Man and Woman created together, or man created first?Two by two, or 7 clean 2 unclean?Moses or Arron?There were at least TWO seperate Old Testamates prior to King David unifing Isriel; scholars have gone so far as to seperate the two books based on writing style. Hence why every major Old Testamate story prior to David is told twice, each a totally different way. When the Bibles were unified, it looks like nothing was removed, even the inconsistencies.Likewise, the Church (who gave them the power to speak for God, anyways? Oh right, they did) has had a long history of adding/removing chapters from the Bible as seen fit by them in order to secure their own power. Try digging up some older versions and see some of the chapters that have been removed...Farther, how about some of the translation choices throughout the Bible? "Virgin" isn't anywhere in the New Testamate; "Young Woman" is. But, every midevil European knows that EVERY young woman is a Virgin, yes? Boy, make that minor change, and the New Testamate gets a whole new meaning.So yeah, I don't see the Bible as anywhere close to being a reliable source of information.
quote: Man and Woman created together, or man created first?Two by two, or 7 clean 2 unclean?Moses or Arron?There were at least TWO seperate Old Testamates prior to King David unifing Isriel; scholars have gone so far as to seperate the two books based on writing style. Hence why every major Old Testamate story prior to David is told twice, each a totally different way. When the Bibles were unified, it looks like nothing was removed, even the inconsistencies.Likewise, the Church (who gave them the power to speak for God, anyways? Oh right, they did) has had a long history of adding/removing chapters from the Bible as seen fit by them in order to secure their own power. Try digging up some older versions and see some of the chapters that have been removed...Farther, how about some of the translation choices throughout the Bible? "Virgin" isn't anywhere in the New Testamate; "Young Woman" is. But, every midevil European knows that EVERY young woman is a Virgin, yes? Boy, make that minor change, and the New Testamate gets a whole new meaning.So yeah, I don't see the Bible as anywhere close to being a reliable source of information.
quote: Man and Woman created together, or man created first?
quote: At last we have a full science-based theory on how life on Earth could have originated
quote: One textbook, edited by Soper (“Biological Science 1 and 2”; 3rd edition; Cambridge University Press) summarises the situation well (p. 883): Despite the simplified account given above, the problem of the origin(s) of life remains. All that has been outlined is speculation and, despite tremendous advances in biochemistry, answers to the problem remain hypothetical. … Details of the transition from complex non-living materials to simple living organisms remain a mystery.This conclusion is echoed by those who have spent many years researching in this field of biochemistry. Dr D E Hull wrote, The conclusion from these arguments presents the most serious obstacle, if indeed it is not fatal, to the theory of spontaneous generation.Prof Francis Crick, who was a great believer in the accidental origin of life on Earth, said, “The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions that had to be satisfied to get it going.” Prof. Crick goes on to argue that this might be overcome in long periods of time. However, there is no justification for believing that time can overcome basic chemical laws.Dr H P Yockey (in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1981, 91, 26-29) wrote, You must conclude that no valid scientific explanation of life exists at present… Since science has not the vaguest idea how life originated on earth, … it would be honest to admit this to students, the agencies funding research and the public.
quote: "Despite bioenergetic and thermodynamic failings the 80-year-old concept of primordial soup remains central to mainstream thinking on the origin of life," said senior author, William Martin, an evolutionary biologist from the Insitute of Botany III in Düsseldorf. "Butsoup has no capacity for producing the energy vital for life."
quote: But it appears that science has at last provided a somewhat plausible explanation as to how life could have made the leap from carbon compounds to a complex living system.
quote: No point in doing any science at all, am I right?
quote: I'm getting tired of people demanding that science and God be mutually exclusive; because they don't have to be.
quote: Once a self-replicating RNA-lifeform gained these adaptations, it would at last have been ready to venture into warmer climates and begin to survive and reproduce, capturing the sun's power to fix energy in carbon-based molecules.
quote: The existence of viral parasites does not disprove the existence of self sufficient viruses. There are also multicellular parasites that cannot survive or reproduce without a host. The existence of parasites that have evolved to reproduce only with the assistance of another organism does not prove the nonexistence of the host organisms that do can survive on their own.
quote: Perhaps you don't understand that bacteria that requires a host to survive is less, not more evolved than the lowest bacteria known to survive on its own.
quote: Even at the bacterial level, the "lesser" evolved organism as you put it, might not be able to survive in the extremely hostile environment that is the host. Meanwhile the bacterium that has adapted to live there doesn't simply eek out an existence, but often thrives there.
quote: Bacteria are perfectly capable of taking in food without assistance.
quote: The earliest ancestor organism could survive on its own. Once in the host, evolution disposed of unneeded functions.
quote: An example is the human need for vitamin C. The human body has MOST of the sequence needed to make vitamin C internally, but one key step is broken by a genetic change. Humans with this break no longer spend energy making C, instead they eat plants and animals that still make their own. Without that external source humans die of scurvy. By your definition humans are a lower life form as they cannot survive without a host that supplies vitamin C :P
quote: That's after the fact. We are talking about a time when NO life existed. Focus on that point, not on creating smoke screens.
quote: You and others haven't explained why RNA even can replicate itself into something more than itself.
quote: This is a [supposedly] SCIENCE site
quote: Seems like the article covers 1-7
quote: Give me an observed example of God
quote: Religion then on itself is same as your "Voodoo Science" Like you said yourself "Give me an observed example of God".
quote: Yet you are pushing the notion that "goddidit," based on the most untestable, unpredictable, unpeer-reviewable (is that a word?) reasoning around - namely, an old book says so and you can't prove otherwise.
quote: Please avoid airplanes in the future as they do not exist. This is proven by the fact that they were not created by God :P
quote: Some chose to believe that something, not nothing, made life because they see the evidence of design down to the cell.Others say there is no design because they have that prior commitment to materialism.
quote: It's not a voodoo science article. Rather, it "assumes a reader who is willing to learn something new and therefore to think for himself".
quote: The foundation for all of modern biology is evolution, so of course they mention it all the time. If you're reading this textbook, how do you not know that?
quote: They are "forcing it down your throat" because it is so significant and important to the study of biology.
quote: It is taught because it is the only theory that explains and is supported by every single piece of biological evidence we have to date, with no evidence contradicting it.
quote: or the theory will be thrown out completely if the evidence is so contradicting that no such an alteration can be made.
quote: Now I'll wait for you to throw a standard "example" of how evolution is wrong, and I know that "example" is going to do more in showing how little you understand evolution than it will in disproving evolution.
quote: Again with the evidence argument! ENOUGH ALREADY! EVIDENCE IS SUBJECTIVE. Just because a lot of people believe the evidence is in support of evol. doesn't make them any more right than I am.
quote: Now you're just talking straight out of your ass lol. you KNOW that will never happen. Especially with the cases of fraud and cover-ups that are plagued by this stupid theory. When evidence doesn't support the theory, it is simply thrown out or CHANGED to fit the theory.
quote: Go talk to yourself in a corner somewhere; I'm not going to waste my time if you are going to be a self centered jerk-off.
quote: No, evidence isn't subjective. Yes, it does make them more right then you. You have no evidence to support your beliefs, they have all of the evidence.
quote: Since you refuse to accept that all evidence is OPINIONATED
quote: So what's your point in comparing apples to oranges?
quote: The point is that science is working towards the ability to observe it, test the theory.IF it happened in nature, we should be able to recreate it with the right tools, technology and conditions.
quote: Seriously, what are you after?
quote: You seem to be confusing the simple fact that too many out there are SET OUT to "prove" a theory instead of just test, observe, and record results
quote: They performed the experiment and they are now in the history books for proving that the speed of light IS a constant. That is, the theory they were testing was wrong and they are famous for proving they were mistaken :)
quote: "The Bible says so" will usually not be accepted by non-Christian scientists when they are testing your conclusions to see if the physics of the real world agrees with you.
quote: So do peanut butter producers... If life were to spontaneously pop up in their sealed and sterilized products wouldn't cell.
quote: The overwhelming majority of people out there are moderate, level-headed individuals who are able to reconcile science and religion into a single worldview.
quote: also the people who scream the loudest in public forums regarding how science and belief cannot mix.
quote: quote:also the people who scream the loudest in public forums regarding how science and belief cannot mix. [end quoted quote]Direct me to where I did this please. Otherwise you are making untrue assumptions.
quote: You have done so repeatedly in your comments under this article. You merely need to review your own posts for examples.
quote: Demanding that scientific research be discounted because your preacher diasgrees
quote: and strongly defending that position, all in a public forum is a good example.
quote: That is an excellent example of how you refuse to allow science to have any place in your life aside from making use of the things created by those not holding your beliefs :)
quote: the problem arises with Fundamentalists who insist science is wrong if there is even a hint of evidence that the preacher might be mistaken.
quote: ...people questioning the existence of God due to the lack of experimental evidence (in their opinion) to support such a being.
quote: We didn't understanding lightning, so we used Zeus or Thor to explain it
quote: As for what happens when you die... well, this one is gunna be hard to "prove" to anyone,
quote: This one sentence leads me to believe that you have never studied mythology, but are merely regurgitating one of the tired talking points from atheists and evolutionists. Mythology was a collection of stories for ENTERTAINMENT. At the time they were written, they were intended to be ENTERTAINMENT. There were some religious ideas tossed around, but they were quite rare. So much for that theory...
quote: The problem we have with you, is you always go on about the Scientific method, when you yourself refuse to follow it; you demand more evidence, but when we provide evidience against YOUR belifs, its somehow not valid.
quote: I now make that same claim about Christianity: Entertainment wrapped around allegory. Of course, I'm sure you'll take some offense to that, becuase THOSE stories are of course true, because you BELIEVE them. Sorry, I don't buy hypocracy.
quote: I have given countless pages of rebuttals to the aforementioned "evidence against my beliefs". And every single time it always ends up the same way: Someone thinking that their opinion is somehow superior to mine.
quote: then you ignore the evidence we present because it disagrees with your "belief".
quote: Either debate the theory presented in the article and put religion to the side, or get out.
quote: No, you are arguing that Evolution is automatically false, and therfore there is nothing to debate.
quote: I could go on and on and on about specific points again, but theres no reason. ... If thats what you mean by Rebuttal, then yes, you've done exactly that in the past.
quote: 2) make empty statements that have already been covered in previous debates
quote: radio-carbon dating proves absolutely nothing when it comes to dating material. We have discussed this endlessly. I'll say YET AGAIN: for anyone who wants to read that discussion, go look it up for yourself. I gave at least 5 or 6 major points about radio-dating that completely crippled it's validity. Obviously that pissed you off, because you believe radio-dating is some kind of unfailing fool proof method, when in reality it is fundamentally flawed and takes faith to believe that it works.
quote: That is why it is only used to date things that have other evidence supporting that the thing in question's relative age falls into carbon dating's accuracy range.
quote: There are also direct methods of dating such as tree rings that have been used to calibrate carbon dating :)
quote: Carbon dating has been shown to be accurate within an error range.
quote: AGAIN I WILL SAY: I HAVE REBUTTED EVERY SINGLE COUNTER TO THE "EVIDENCE" AND IT ALWAYS ENDS UP BEING THAT MY OPINION IS WRONG. YOU ARE JUST PLAIN AND SIMPLY TOO STUPID TO KEEP UP SPEED WHEN I SAY THIS.
quote: Try again lol...
quote: the fact that you simply dismiss people who call you on your bulls*** is your problem, not mine.
quote: Moses parting the Red Sea (and the Egyptian somehow forgetting to write down such a sight) is much more believable than someone that controls lightning.
quote: That isn't a failure, that's a world shattering event, conclusive evidence that there is a God and you've pissed him off royally. It's certainly not the kind of thing that a culture is going to forget in a few decades by agreeing not to talk about it.
quote: People see what they want to see when looking at evidence; The real argument here is that some think theirs is somehow more valid than others.
quote: you believe in it no matter what evidence is presented to the contrary.
quote: The problem is, a lot of organized "faith"s also hold true that they need to convert everyone else... so we all get to put up with this hyperbole pretending to be intelligent debate.
quote: If evolution is true, then you are here to breed and then die. So death is the motivation in evolution; no need for emotions ie. love.
quote: Once there's evidence found of intelligent creation, then it becomes a much better time to investigate that - you know, like if we find 'God was here!' in the background radiation patterns of the Big Bang.
quote: At least until you ask where a creator came from and dodge it with 'eternity'.
quote: I'm getting tired of people demanding that science and God be mutually exclusive; because they don't have to be.
quote: lol. Still trying soooooo hard to erase God huh? Sorry, not gonna happen
quote: Nope ... it is actually you who put no faith in their works. All of them invoked "scientific method" to justify the results they are famous for.They may have said that their discoveries declared the Glory of God, but their published results, theories and newly devised mathematics were not the result of meditation on the nature of God.
quote: This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centers of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One, especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun and from every system light passes into all the other systems; and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another.This Being governs all things not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called "Lord God" . . . or "Universal Ruler." . . . It is the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a God. . . And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent and powerful Being. . . he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. . . He endures forever, and is everywhere present; and by existing always and everywhere, he constitutes duration and space. . . In him are all things contained and moved; yet neither affects the other: God suffers nothing from the motion of bodies; bodies find no resistance from the omnipresence of God. . . As a blind man has no idea of colors so we have no idea of the manner by which the all-wise God preserves and understands all things. He is utterly void of all body and bodily figure, and can therefore neither be seen, nor heard, nor touched; nor ought to be worshipped under the representation of any corporeal thing. We have ideas of his attributes, but what the real substance of any thing is we know not.... Much less, then, have we any idea of the substance of God. We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things. . . We reverence and adore him as his servants, and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and everywhere, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing. . . And thus much concerning God, to discourse of whom from the appearances of things does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy.
quote: ...wrote occasional papers on theology, but he never claimed to be a theologian. He regarded himself as a layman who was a mathematician, a (natural) philosopher, a historian. And yet, he was probably the scientist who par excellence regarded science and religion as different aspects of an integrated world-not an artificial, academic bifurcation. The goal of science, he believed, is to bring man to God; the principle of his scientific work is praise of God. "We astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature." "God is the beginning and end of scientific research and striving"-the keynote of his thought, the basis of his purpose, the "life-giving soil of his feeling." For him, "geometry is unique and eternal, a reflection of the mind of God. That mankind shows in it is because man is an image of God."
quote: Shortly after Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, Pasteur began to challenge the idea of spontaneous generation—the foundation of the evolutionary view on the origin of life. Pasteur’s simple, but elegant swan-necked flask experiments not only put to rest the organic life-from-non-life idea, but also set the foundation for the law of biogenesis: life only comes from life. The genesis of germs in hospital patients were the result of microbes having parents, not a result of spontaneous generation. This revolutionary idea would have application in many areas of medicine. It forms the basis of sterilization, asepsis in surgery, and the germ theory of disease.
quote: I shall express my belief that the earth, after having brought forth the first plants and animals at the beginning by order of the Supreme and Omnipotent Creator, has never produced any kinds of plants or animals, either perfect or imperfect; and everything which we know in past or present times that she has produced, came solely from the true seeds of the plants and animals themselves, which thus, through means of their own, preserve their species.
quote: The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.
quote: # Recently I have gone back to church regularly with a new focus to understand as best I can what it is that makes Christianity so vital and powerful in the lives of billions of people today, even though almost 2000 years have passed since the death and resurrection of Christ. Although I suspect I will never fully understand, I now think the answer is very simple: it’s true. God did create the universe about 13.7 billion years ago, and of necessity has involved Himself with His creation ever since. The purpose of this universe is something that only God knows for sure, but it is increasingly clear to modern science that the universe was exquisitely fine-tuned to enable human life. We are somehow critically involved in His purpose. Our job is to sense that purpose as best we can, love one another, and help Him get that job done....The burden of proof is on those who don’t believe that “Genesis” was right, and there was a creation, and that Creator is still involved.....Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading Origins of Life with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear that [biological] evolution could not have occurred...
quote: Tell me, truthfully - what would have to happen for you to admit that Genesis is false."
quote: Good question. Several things could happen that would undermine my worldview. We could find proof that the Universe had always been here. We could get contacted by an advanced alien race. Israel could be wiped off the map. I realize that none of these things are related to evolution per se, but my worldview is falsifiable.
quote: In a previous thread - http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=19440... - we had a long argument where you admitted to believing that the Old Testament is a factually correct account of the the creation of the world
quote: You go on to claim that fossils aren't as old as science claims
quote: That's hardly what I would call someone who is open to a change of opinion.
quote: Since most Christians do not hold the OT to be literally true, you are in fact a Fundamentalist
quote: It seems that the only threads you contribute to are those that contradict the biblical account of creation. That isn't a coincidence.
quote: So which part of God created the world in days match that the Universe have been in existenc for 13.7 billion years?
quote: I can tell this site is American.
quote: God creating himself has no flaws
quote: Thus the origin of life on Earth might ... have been ... in the icey north or south, which contained a mix of water and organic byproducts .
quote: To have organic byproducts you must have organic products. What he was pointing out was completely valid.