I will not discuss evolution here. But I disagree completely regarding your opinions.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Science of Abiogenesis:- By popular demand
- Thread starter sayak83
- Start date
I will not discuss evolution here. But I disagree completely regarding your opinions.
@Jumi
@Mestemia
@Daemon Sophic
@Sapiens
@Kirran
@Animore
@beenherebeforeagain
@Skwim
@A Vestigial Mote
In my previous post I discussed the rationale for the RNA world theory of ancient life. One question that often comes up is whether the RNA molecule itself could have been naturally produced in early earth. Let us look at the unit of RNA.
The picture above shows a DNA and a RNA unit. They are very similar and consists of three parts
1) A nucleobase (the one with lots of N i.e. Nitrogen groups). In the above picture the nucleobase is Guanine, the (G) of the ATCG letter system. There are 4 others with somewhat different structures.
2) The central cyclic pentagonal structure with the O atom at the crown. That is the ribose sugar.
3) Finally the Phosphate group (with phosphorus P in the middle) that acts as a bridge linking the different units in a long chain.
Now the question is how do you make this reasonably complicated molecule naturally?
For 40 years nobody could do it, and it is instructive to see why.
1)We have 3 distinct groups and every chemist who looks at it would think that the best way to design such a thing is to make the 3 groups separately and join them together.
2)Unfortunately for chemists (like me), Nature is not a designer and does not have foresight. Nature does not go about thinking "I must synthesize X-Y-Z at the end; so let me make X then Y and then Z and then paste them together like the proper intelligent designer I am. " Nature, always goes through the path of least resistance, i.e. the path that requires the least amount of energy. And that path is often not how humans would think is logical.
3)Thus all efforts by chemists for 40 years to make phosphate, ribose sugar and nucleobase separately and then join them together resulted in useless mess of all sorts of undesirable compounds.
This went on till 2009 (with creationists referring to this failure in glee) when a group in UK (Sutherland group, Cambridge) decided to mix up nitrogen and oxygen chemistry and try to create a sugar-base hybrid in presence of phosphates from the very beginning. And lo and behold, the entire reaction happened quickly and efficiently and created the RNA cytosine and RNA uracil units in just 5 steps and extremely efficiently!
What starting compounds do we need? They are very simple if completely bonkers:-
1) Hydrogen Cyanide (HCN) that most poisonous of all gases turns out to be the prime ingredient. HCN is found to form quite a bit in the oxygen poor CO2-N2 rich early atmosphere of earth when high impact meteors and comets were striking early earth.
2) Formaldehyde (HCHO) and acetylene (C2H2) the simplest of hydrocarbons also created in the atmosphere of early earth by photolysis of CO2 and H2O by the UV radiation of the sun (no ozone layer then) .
3) Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S), the most ubiquitous gas coming out of volcanoes with the smell of rotten eggs. And ancient earth was much more geologically active.
4) Water soluble phosphate that was leaching out of the iron-nickle meteors and comets that were falling to earth every month in those ancient times.
5) Copper and Zinc minerals, widely present in earth, as catalysts.
6) Lots of UV rays (no ozone layer then)
7) Periodic wet and dry conditions with temperatures ranging from 40 C - 5 C, very normal even for early earth.
Under these simple conditions Hydrogen Cynaide reacts with formaldehyde in the presence of H2S and and Copper salts to produce two simple sugars:- Glycolaldehyde (CHO-CH2-OH) and Glyceraldehyde (CHO-CH(OH)-CH2-OH) along with ammonia (NH3) .
Next Hydrogen Cyanide reacts sequentially with the two sugars above in presence of phosphate as catalyst at 40 C(like sodium phosphate) to create Nitogen-Oxygen hybrid ring structures called oxazoles. These oxazoles crystallize out of the water mixture on slight cooling.
(carbon atoms are at the vertices of the pentagon).
These oxazoles then react with cyanoacetylene (a compound formed by HCN reacting with C2H2) in the presence of phosphate and UV rays to directly create the RNA cytosine and uracil base.
So very briefly
2HCN + simple sugars ⇒ Oxazoles (in presence of phosphates)
Oxazoles + Cyanoacetylene + Phosphate ⇒ RNA units
The full pathway is shown below for reference.
I think the example teaches several things:-
1) God of the gaps always fails. Even in 2007, the leaders of the prebiotic chemistry field were saying RNA synthesis was impossible . There should be a permanent ban of scientists saying that unless they can formulate a law of physics that supports his case. Just because you can't do it does not make it impossible.
2) Nature has no foresight. Economy of means ,not neat categorical planning, is the hallmark of natural phenomena. Who would have thought lethal hydrogen cyanide and sugar-base hybrid would be the means by which nature would go about creating the building blocks of life?
3) In nature, one does not have sterilized labs where only one or two compounds are present at one time. So the way forward is systems chemistry, where most of the reagents are concurrently present and influence the reaction steps through catalytic action.
I am ending with a brief talk by the lead author of the paper (which should be intelligible now
) and the small fact that in the last 6 years the group has gone on to use those above simple reagents to construct in the lab a chemical reaction cascade that very simply and effectively produces 3 of the 5 RNA/DNA units, 12 of the 20 amino acids and the building blocks of all lipid cell membranes. Thus now its an established fact that 70% of all the basic building blocks that life needs for its RNA-DNA-proteins and cell walls can be easily formed at one go in the prebiotic conditions of the early earth even before any evolution. They can now be created in a space of two days in a beaker with a little heating and cooling and a UV lamp once the way of thinking about how to go about the process changed.
Here is the full cascade. Its beautiful but would take me a month to explain. The snippet I tried explaining here is the one with the blue arrows (2-3-5-7-9-10).
Here is a brief and easy to understand talk on this research.
The paper
Prebiotic chemistry: a new modus operandi | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
@Mestemia
@Daemon Sophic
@Sapiens
@Kirran
@Animore
@beenherebeforeagain
@Skwim
@A Vestigial Mote
In my previous post I discussed the rationale for the RNA world theory of ancient life. One question that often comes up is whether the RNA molecule itself could have been naturally produced in early earth. Let us look at the unit of RNA.
The picture above shows a DNA and a RNA unit. They are very similar and consists of three parts
1) A nucleobase (the one with lots of N i.e. Nitrogen groups). In the above picture the nucleobase is Guanine, the (G) of the ATCG letter system. There are 4 others with somewhat different structures.
2) The central cyclic pentagonal structure with the O atom at the crown. That is the ribose sugar.
3) Finally the Phosphate group (with phosphorus P in the middle) that acts as a bridge linking the different units in a long chain.
Now the question is how do you make this reasonably complicated molecule naturally?
For 40 years nobody could do it, and it is instructive to see why.
1)We have 3 distinct groups and every chemist who looks at it would think that the best way to design such a thing is to make the 3 groups separately and join them together.
2)Unfortunately for chemists (like me), Nature is not a designer and does not have foresight. Nature does not go about thinking "I must synthesize X-Y-Z at the end; so let me make X then Y and then Z and then paste them together like the proper intelligent designer I am. " Nature, always goes through the path of least resistance, i.e. the path that requires the least amount of energy. And that path is often not how humans would think is logical.
3)Thus all efforts by chemists for 40 years to make phosphate, ribose sugar and nucleobase separately and then join them together resulted in useless mess of all sorts of undesirable compounds.
This went on till 2009 (with creationists referring to this failure in glee) when a group in UK (Sutherland group, Cambridge) decided to mix up nitrogen and oxygen chemistry and try to create a sugar-base hybrid in presence of phosphates from the very beginning. And lo and behold, the entire reaction happened quickly and efficiently and created the RNA cytosine and RNA uracil units in just 5 steps and extremely efficiently!
What starting compounds do we need? They are very simple if completely bonkers:-
1) Hydrogen Cyanide (HCN) that most poisonous of all gases turns out to be the prime ingredient. HCN is found to form quite a bit in the oxygen poor CO2-N2 rich early atmosphere of earth when high impact meteors and comets were striking early earth.
2) Formaldehyde (HCHO) and acetylene (C2H2) the simplest of hydrocarbons also created in the atmosphere of early earth by photolysis of CO2 and H2O by the UV radiation of the sun (no ozone layer then) .
3) Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S), the most ubiquitous gas coming out of volcanoes with the smell of rotten eggs. And ancient earth was much more geologically active.
4) Water soluble phosphate that was leaching out of the iron-nickle meteors and comets that were falling to earth every month in those ancient times.
5) Copper and Zinc minerals, widely present in earth, as catalysts.
6) Lots of UV rays (no ozone layer then)
7) Periodic wet and dry conditions with temperatures ranging from 40 C - 5 C, very normal even for early earth.
Under these simple conditions Hydrogen Cynaide reacts with formaldehyde in the presence of H2S and and Copper salts to produce two simple sugars:- Glycolaldehyde (CHO-CH2-OH) and Glyceraldehyde (CHO-CH(OH)-CH2-OH) along with ammonia (NH3) .
Next Hydrogen Cyanide reacts sequentially with the two sugars above in presence of phosphate as catalyst at 40 C(like sodium phosphate) to create Nitogen-Oxygen hybrid ring structures called oxazoles. These oxazoles crystallize out of the water mixture on slight cooling.
(carbon atoms are at the vertices of the pentagon).
These oxazoles then react with cyanoacetylene (a compound formed by HCN reacting with C2H2) in the presence of phosphate and UV rays to directly create the RNA cytosine and uracil base.
So very briefly
2HCN + simple sugars ⇒ Oxazoles (in presence of phosphates)
Oxazoles + Cyanoacetylene + Phosphate ⇒ RNA units
The full pathway is shown below for reference.
I think the example teaches several things:-
1) God of the gaps always fails. Even in 2007, the leaders of the prebiotic chemistry field were saying RNA synthesis was impossible . There should be a permanent ban of scientists saying that unless they can formulate a law of physics that supports his case. Just because you can't do it does not make it impossible.
2) Nature has no foresight. Economy of means ,not neat categorical planning, is the hallmark of natural phenomena. Who would have thought lethal hydrogen cyanide and sugar-base hybrid would be the means by which nature would go about creating the building blocks of life?
3) In nature, one does not have sterilized labs where only one or two compounds are present at one time. So the way forward is systems chemistry, where most of the reagents are concurrently present and influence the reaction steps through catalytic action.
I am ending with a brief talk by the lead author of the paper (which should be intelligible now
) and the small fact that in the last 6 years the group has gone on to use those above simple reagents to construct in the lab a chemical reaction cascade that very simply and effectively produces 3 of the 5 RNA/DNA units, 12 of the 20 amino acids and the building blocks of all lipid cell membranes. Thus now its an established fact that 70% of all the basic building blocks that life needs for its RNA-DNA-proteins and cell walls can be easily formed at one go in the prebiotic conditions of the early earth even before any evolution. They can now be created in a space of two days in a beaker with a little heating and cooling and a UV lamp once the way of thinking about how to go about the process changed.Here is the full cascade. Its beautiful but would take me a month to explain. The snippet I tried explaining here is the one with the blue arrows (2-3-5-7-9-10).
Here is a brief and easy to understand talk on this research.
The paper
Prebiotic chemistry: a new modus operandi | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Last edited:
I think a growing number of serious scientists are convinced that life began because of an intelligent designer. They base their belief on the scientific facts available. As to abiogenesis, "In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz highlighted the dilemma. He stated that over the last 50 years, “no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.” (Origin of Life- Five Questions worth Asking)
Please cite a poll.
This is absolutely correct and completely misleading. If you had cared to read anything at all I have written in my last post, the spontaneous synthesis of the molecular components of life occur in real earth-like conditions (UV radiation, wet and dry cycles and cold and hot cycles of day and night) and does not happen in sterile molecular soups in an inert beakers which a quite common in labs but not found in nature.
Message:- If you have to find how life arose on earth, you have make the conditions as they are in actual earth and not in pristine labs.
Finally Dr Meinesz book is a good one but outdated. It was written in 2008 and here is what he says (page 24 -25 chapter 2)
..On the basis of this idea, researchers today are attempting to obtain RNA from inorganic precursors, hoping that the presence of certain minerals would stimulate its formation. ......So far all of these speculative scenario have led to an impasse. None of the molecules carrying the information characterizing life and having the ability to reproduce themselves (RNA and DNA) have been constructed from simple organic molecules.
This was exactly right in 2008 (when the book was published) and exactly wrong today because
Both RNA (2009) and Amino acids (2015) have been synthesized from simple organic molecules as my previous post clearly shows.
RNA molecules capable of reproducing themselves have been created through evolutionary selection in 2009.
Science of Abiogenesis:- By popular demand
Science of Abiogenesis:- By popular demand
From 1990-2005, most of the attention in biology and biochemistry was focused on DNA-gene-protein mapping and functionality and the science of abiogenesis was mostly moribund. Since 2005 a lot of focus has come into synthetic life research and more results of extreme interest has come out in the last 11 years than in the 50 years before. Books before 2010 are unlikely to present the state of abiogenesis research with much fidelity whatsoever.
gnostic
The Lost One
Study them?
LOL
In Australia?
As far as I know there are no universities in Australia offering any course on parapsychology or related subjects. Australia is not the US, so they don't offer such weird courses here. Some years back I heard that some university were offering courses on impersonating "The King" - Elvis Presley. Also in the US, they offer dubious credentials and qualifications, from diploma mills, which many creationists, ID advocates and other quacks have frequently dishonestly acquired these fake qualifications.
Study them! *scoff*
Lastly, I was a civil engineer when I was younger, and became computer programmer & system analyst/engineer, in my mid-30s.
I view myself more as engineer than a scientist, but both courses are listed as "Applied Science", so any subject I did related to science (most often in physics and maths), involved empirical science, not theoretical science, that's why I tends to favour evidence-based science (empirical science) over mathematical-based (or proof-based) science (which is another word for theoretical science).
Look up any encyclopedia, and you will see that they all define parapsychology as PSEUDOSCIENCE, hence fake science, just like Intelligent Design.
Well, then you must think you can describe millions of so-called paranormal events and experiments within the known concepts of modern science. I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt that events occur, that dramatically show the limitation of current science's reach.Study them?
LOL
In Australia?
As far as I know there are no universities in Australia offering any course on parapsychology or related subjects. Australia is not the US, so they don't offer such weird courses here. Some years back I heard that some university were offering courses on impersonating "The King" - Elvis Presley. Also in the US, they offer dubious credentials and qualifications, from diploma mills, which many creationists, ID advocates and other quacks have frequently dishonestly acquired these fake qualifications.
Study them! *scoff*
Lastly, I was a civil engineer when I was younger, and became computer programmer & system analyst/engineer, in my mid-30s.
I view myself more as engineer than a scientist, but both courses are listed as "Applied Science", so any subject I did related to science (most often in physics and maths), involved empirical science, not theoretical science, that's why I tends to favour evidence-based science (empirical science) over mathematical-based (or proof-based) science (which is another word for theoretical science).
Look up any encyclopedia, and you will see that they all define parapsychology as PSEUDOSCIENCE, hence fake science, just like Intelligent Design.
There are many that seem to have a psychological ego that needs to dismiss and scoff at things they can't understand. I think that attitude goes back to the age of enlightenment where science was to do away with all the religious and superstitious thinking of the past. And now, any evidence that some of this religious and superstitious thinking may actually have some basis in reality just seems to anger these Enlightened types and their minds shut down and they spew irrational venom.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Why is it that these supernatural events can't ever seem to take place in a lab?
They have. Controlled experiments showing multi-millions to one odds against chance.
The hard-core skeptic will claim every parapsychologist is incompetent to do a controlled study. Really? Controlled experiments are not rocket science.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
I mean do you have links to accredited experients?
Certainly, and I have done that many times on here. But let's cut to the chase and save a few posts. What exactly determines 'accredited'; who officially determines it?
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Has it been repeated? Was it documented? How was it documented? If you have verified evidence then it is verified evidence.
eh. I"m editing this pretty late but if you see it before responding to save time/post energy just find the best source. A singular best source that you can think of and we can see if we have differences of opinion on what is considered solid evidence.
Last edited:
You failed to answer my question 'What exactly determines 'accredited'; who officially determines it'?
Your answer seems to be it is some best link from 'George-ananda' criticized as best he can by 'Monk of Reason'.
In fact there is some truth to that because on any controversial subject, be it normal or paranormal, we each must consider the evidence and argumentation from all sides and form our beliefs. And our belief then holds sway over our jurisdiction of one person.
gnostic
The Lost One
Now, you are being obnoxious.
You don't know me, so let me tell you, that I used to believe in many things - the supernatural and paranormal.
In my teens, and even in my 20s, I thought many things were possible, and I was and I am avid reader, willing to do research on my own. I had lived through the 70s and 80s, when such belief in paranormal and supernatural were vogue, and I was no exception.
But as time moves forward, I came to realise none of the paranormal or supernatural activities that I used to believe in, exist.
I simply just outgrew in such belief. I am still fascinated by them, but only as entertainment, or with ancient belief, from a sort of anthropological or literary viewpoint, not as belief.
Have you ever read Lord of the Rings, George?
I still enjoy reading the book, even though I know none of them are real. I enjoy them because I have always been a fan of storytelling.
It is the same when I now read any religious book they called scriptures. I just don't believe them to be true or real. And it is samewhen I ever read fantasy, sci-fi or horror stories or watch the tv or movie versions. I more interested in the storytelling than believing in them.
The whole clairvoyance, telekinesis, ghost stories are all fascinating, but they are just stories to me and, just not enough for me to believe in such things being real.
You want to believe in parapsychology, paranormal and supernatural, then fine, you have the ights to believe as you will, but you don't own fact, and there are no scientific evidences that any of them to be real.
You cannot judge me, because you don't know me, and you don't know what I used to believe in. I was nearly join the church, twice, when I was a teenager. So I used to believe in miracles. I don't know, but I am still fascinated by the stories found in the bible.
Heck, though I know longer believe in miracles, in the last 15 years, I have far more religious scriptures on my bookshelves now, than in my teens or 20s.
Parapsychology isn't science. Live with it, because I certainly have.
Last edited:
I was not referring to you personally but showing what I have observed in people's attitudes. You were the one so insulting of parapsychology and the like in the first place
We should just carry on with our very different worldviews then.
@Jumi
@Mestemia
@Daemon Sophic
@Sapiens
@Kirran
@Animore
@beenherebeforeagain
@Skwim
@A Vestigial Mote
In my previous post, I showed research showing how the units of RNA, proteins and cell membranes spontaneously form together in prebiotic conditions from chemistry involving HCN, H2S in presence of metal salts, water and CO2.
The next logical step is to find out how these units could come together in polymer form and interact in a functioning protocell.
I am including an excellent talk by Dr . David Deamer and his research collaborators who had done excellent work in addressing these questions. I will try to explain the various parts of the talk in subsequent posts. But its very worth watching on its own (the video quality becomes excellent after 3 minutes). In brief the talk covers all these steps sequentially:-
1) A specific model of how the polymerization and protocell forming processes occured in proposed.
2) The likely places where such processes might occur is identified (Yellowstone hot spring type environment).
3) Fields studies in Yellowstone and in Russian Kamchatka were conducted in these environments to understand the physics and chemistry that are going on in there.
4) Lab experiments were built to mimic the environment found in these places with changes made to water and atmospheric composition based on early earth conditions (which are hotter, at 60 C, with no free oxygen and the environment dominated by CO2 and N2).
5) Results from the lab tests discussed and it is shown how many of the key steps proposed in the model were actually observed to happen in these experiments.
Here is also a brief article on the work
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160317-david-deamer-origins-of-life/
I would strongly recommend everyone to watch the video as it shows (in a simple manner) how the entire scientific method works and is used (model development, testing out plausibility of models by field study and observations, experiments developed that are guided by these field studies, using the results of the experiment to add finer details to the model and generate new predictions) in the origin of life science.
@Mestemia
@Daemon Sophic
@Sapiens
@Kirran
@Animore
@beenherebeforeagain
@Skwim
@A Vestigial Mote
In my previous post, I showed research showing how the units of RNA, proteins and cell membranes spontaneously form together in prebiotic conditions from chemistry involving HCN, H2S in presence of metal salts, water and CO2.
The next logical step is to find out how these units could come together in polymer form and interact in a functioning protocell.
I am including an excellent talk by Dr . David Deamer and his research collaborators who had done excellent work in addressing these questions. I will try to explain the various parts of the talk in subsequent posts. But its very worth watching on its own (the video quality becomes excellent after 3 minutes). In brief the talk covers all these steps sequentially:-
1) A specific model of how the polymerization and protocell forming processes occured in proposed.
2) The likely places where such processes might occur is identified (Yellowstone hot spring type environment).
3) Fields studies in Yellowstone and in Russian Kamchatka were conducted in these environments to understand the physics and chemistry that are going on in there.
4) Lab experiments were built to mimic the environment found in these places with changes made to water and atmospheric composition based on early earth conditions (which are hotter, at 60 C, with no free oxygen and the environment dominated by CO2 and N2).
5) Results from the lab tests discussed and it is shown how many of the key steps proposed in the model were actually observed to happen in these experiments.
Here is also a brief article on the work
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160317-david-deamer-origins-of-life/
I would strongly recommend everyone to watch the video as it shows (in a simple manner) how the entire scientific method works and is used (model development, testing out plausibility of models by field study and observations, experiments developed that are guided by these field studies, using the results of the experiment to add finer details to the model and generate new predictions) in the origin of life science.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
I didn't give a specific answer because I know that accredited universities and similar research facilities do not have the evidence you speak of. I wanted to see what kind of groups we are dealing with? Is it Ghost Adventures TV show or is it some random guy in India who claims to have pictures of an aura. Or is it someone who claims to have done some double-blind control tests and calculated the results.
The real defining characaristic of something that is trustworthy is something that has invested interest in being right and has something to loose if they are wrong. For example a university that makes a bunch of bunk and false tests will be found out when other universities attempt to replicate it. If that same university kept putting forth the same crap then they would no longer be respected.
Do you have evidence coming out of a group that has a good track record? Has had the experiments replicated by others?
Generally the parapsychologists I respect are always very thorough and thoughtful and actually conservative and cautious in their assessments. Some names? Off the top of my head; Dean Radin, Daryl Bem, Ian Stevenson, Charles Tart, Russell Targ, Rupert Sheldrake, Charles Honorton, and several more not popping into my head right now.
One experiment now reproduced on five continents is the Ganzfeld experiment. The critics (who claim to be skeptics but are really haters of anything paranormal) will tell you none of these parapsychologists have ever been capable of doing a well controlled experiment. I have listened to both sides and know how careful parapsychologists are. I know as Dean Radin says that they would be wasting their time if they were not doing properly controlled experiments and he more than anyone is interested in control. As I said before, we each form our own judgment and the skeptics I believe just want to perpetually obfuscate any paranormal finding out of their prejudice against the paranormal. Listen to Dean Radin for example and judge for yourself.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
I read up on a few of the people you listed and then onto the Ganzfeld experiment.
The biggest issue with the Ganzfeld experience was 2 part. First is that the video evidence didn't have sound and was not conducted in a soundproof room. So faking that evidence would be easy. The second part is that there has been no consistant independent replication of the processes. If you have other than what I read I would like to hear it.
I like paranomral stuff. I used to get deep into it as a hobby. I've been on ghost hunts and even had "strange" experiences. Nothing would elate me more than to see that there is something there. Though paranormal events will simply become normal events once we understand them. However the evidences seem to fall on the skeptical side. So in genuine request if you have a link to better evidence I would like to see it.
You can carrry things to the point that you should believe nothing normal or paranormal. For me, I believe what is most reasonable to believe after considering the evidence and argumentation from all sides.
I believe the Ganzfeld experiments, for example, were properly conducted and replicated on five continents. They lead me to believe that telepathy is a weak but real human ability.
Last edited:
KBC1963
Active Member
New Theory For Origin Of Life On Earth Challenges RNA World Hypothesis Of DNA Evolution
29 September 2016
Findings of a new study... offer evidence suggesting that RNA would not have been able to sustainably give rise to DNA....
The research conducted by chemists from The Scripps Research Institute in California leads researchers to suggest a second alternative RNA-DNA origin story that proposes the two molecules may have formed at the same time.
If the RNA world theory is correct, there would have been an intermediary stage that created heterogenous strands characterized by RNA nucleotides serving as the rungs and the DNA sugar molecules as the side.
Ramanarayanan Krishnamurthy, an associate professor of chemistry at TSRI, and colleagues built these so-called DNA-RNA chimeras and found instability problems. The chimeras do not stay together as pure DNA or pure RNA compromising the molecules' ability to hold genetic information and replicate.
In cells today, sophisticated enzymes will make a quick fix if RNA nucleobases mistakenly join a DNA strand. Evolution favors more stable, homogeneous molecules. Researchers said these enzymes have not yet likely existed during the early evolution of the RNA and DNA so the substitution may have crippled the molecules' ability to replicate and function.
The findings led researchers to propose an alternative theory that suggests RNA and DNA may have risen in tandem.
"These results point to the difficulties for the transition from one homogeneous system (RNA) to another (RNA/DNA) in an RNA world with a heterogeneous mixture of ribo- and deoxyribonucleotides and sequences, while suggesting an alternative scenario of prebiological accumulation and co-evolution of homogeneous systems (RNA and DNA)," the researchers wrote in their study, which was published in Angewandte Chemie on Sept. 21.
Krishnamurth and colleagues were not the first to propose this theory but their findings offer scientists new evidence that could strengthen what Canadian American biologist Jack Szostak of Harvard University has already demonstrated. The 63-year-old Nobel laureate has shown there is loss of function when RNA and DNA are mixed.
New Theory For Origin Of Life On Earth Challenges RNA World Hypothesis Of DNA Evolution
RNA must be how it all started.... wait, our tests show how unlikely this would be.... ok lets change the theory.... RNA and DNA began it all in tandem....
How long will it be before a believer in this revised theory will write in these forums that this was how it all likely began...
29 September 2016
Findings of a new study... offer evidence suggesting that RNA would not have been able to sustainably give rise to DNA....
The research conducted by chemists from The Scripps Research Institute in California leads researchers to suggest a second alternative RNA-DNA origin story that proposes the two molecules may have formed at the same time.
If the RNA world theory is correct, there would have been an intermediary stage that created heterogenous strands characterized by RNA nucleotides serving as the rungs and the DNA sugar molecules as the side.
Ramanarayanan Krishnamurthy, an associate professor of chemistry at TSRI, and colleagues built these so-called DNA-RNA chimeras and found instability problems. The chimeras do not stay together as pure DNA or pure RNA compromising the molecules' ability to hold genetic information and replicate.
In cells today, sophisticated enzymes will make a quick fix if RNA nucleobases mistakenly join a DNA strand. Evolution favors more stable, homogeneous molecules. Researchers said these enzymes have not yet likely existed during the early evolution of the RNA and DNA so the substitution may have crippled the molecules' ability to replicate and function.
The findings led researchers to propose an alternative theory that suggests RNA and DNA may have risen in tandem.
"These results point to the difficulties for the transition from one homogeneous system (RNA) to another (RNA/DNA) in an RNA world with a heterogeneous mixture of ribo- and deoxyribonucleotides and sequences, while suggesting an alternative scenario of prebiological accumulation and co-evolution of homogeneous systems (RNA and DNA)," the researchers wrote in their study, which was published in Angewandte Chemie on Sept. 21.
Krishnamurth and colleagues were not the first to propose this theory but their findings offer scientists new evidence that could strengthen what Canadian American biologist Jack Szostak of Harvard University has already demonstrated. The 63-year-old Nobel laureate has shown there is loss of function when RNA and DNA are mixed.
New Theory For Origin Of Life On Earth Challenges RNA World Hypothesis Of DNA Evolution
RNA must be how it all started.... wait, our tests show how unlikely this would be.... ok lets change the theory.... RNA and DNA began it all in tandem....
How long will it be before a believer in this revised theory will write in these forums that this was how it all likely began...