Liquid Crystal Phases of DNA, Beginning of Life?

An anonymous reader writes "A team led by the University of Colorado at Boulder and the University of Milan has discovered some unexpected forms of liquid crystals of ultrashort DNA molecules immersed in water, providing a new scenario for a key step in the emergence of life on Earth. CU-Boulder physics Professor Noel Clark said the team found that surprisingly short segments of DNA, life's molecular carrier of genetic information, could assemble into several distinct liquid crystal phases that "self-orient" parallel to one another and stack into columns when placed in a water solution. Life is widely believed to have emerged as segments of DNA- or RNA-like molecules in a prebiotic "soup" solution of ancient organic molecules.

Re:Life?

[Kjella]

Obviously off on the religious mockery tangent, but this isn't really offtopic. If (I'd say when) we discover how to make life from inanimate matter, there's bound to be yet another clash between Genesis [wikipedia.org] and Abiogenesis [wikipedia.org]. And some people will yet again claim that the Book is right and science is wrong. Obviously religion gets a lot less personal if God is someone that once snapped his fingers and there was a Big Bang - and that everything that follows can be replicated in a test tube. But I think that we in the not too distant future will make the connection from inanimate molecules into primitive replicating beings. And if God doesn't smite us down at that point for invading his turf he never will.

Re:Life?

[sigzero]

Where did the stuff that made up the "Big Bang" come from? If it was inert what was the "catalyst"? I don't think there ever will be a connection from the inanimate to the animate.

Re:Life?

[brainnolo]

The fact that you do not get it, or nobody gets it does not mean that there is no explanation. Our brain is amazing but I doubt that it is the top intelligence ever achievable by a living creature, so it is plausible that we are just not intelligent enough to understand some things.

Re:from ooze we came?

[ScentCone]

do not be dismayed, it is the way it was meant to be

I'm curious. Do you ever, you know, actually read your own posts? Unpunctuated, case-mangled, non-sequitor-ish loony ramblings have the very subtle effect of, you know, making you look like a simpering, witless, theo-clown. Just sayin'. Other than that, have a great weekend!

Re:Life?

[foniksonik]

We're plenty intelligent enough... we just don't have enough data and probably never will, but we can make guesses - more educated guesses than those made by early philosophers (religious academics and natural academics). Personally I don't see the disconnect between early science/religion and modern science. They sought answers with what information they had available.. we do the same. Just because some cult of people want to believe that we were at the pinnacle of understanding some 2 - 3 thousand years ago, doesn't discount the efforts made at the time.

Those Rabbis, Greeks and monks were very smart people - they also had to deal with politics and ignorance however and sometimes the best way to deal with that is to dumb it down to a lowest common denominator. "That's right, God made that happen. Don't go to war over it... it was a miracle. Now give us money so we can keep teaching your kids how to read/write and count to ten."

not intelligent enough...

[CrazedWalrus]

...Or don't have the proper perspective. For example, consider one of those huge walk-through mazes. Those things are dog-simple when seen from above, but when you're inside of it, it can take an hour to get out. You do eventually get out, but it takes a lot longer to solve that way than the seconds it would take when seen from a better point of view.

I'm personally of the opinion that nothing science concludes will ever be able to prove or disprove the existence of (a) God(s), so I'm not sure why this discussion keeps coming up. Yeah, science never "proves", only "shows to be likely", whatever. The point is that you either believe in God or you don't. There's no scientifically veritable "correct" answer that can ever be had until some day in the future when it's too late to do anything about it anyway. You're either worm food or in your final eternal resting place... wherever that may be.

Honestly, the religion bashing is completely pointless and is getting really, really old hat.

Re:not intelligent enough...

[Daniel Dvorkin]

I'm personally of the opinion that nothing science concludes will ever be able to prove or disprove the existence of (a) God(s), so I'm not sure why this discussion keeps coming up.

It keeps coming up because religious ideologues keep insisting that science is wrong because it contradicts their beliefs. And they want to base public policy and education on those beliefs. The beliefs themselves are a personal matter, of course, and they've got every right to believe that Rapture is imminent or that life was created in its current form 6000 years ago; the conflict occurs when they try to base things like environmental management or what's taught in high-school science classes on it.

Honestly, the religion bashing is completely pointless and is getting really, really old hat.

The science bashing isn't pointless at all -- it's a means of gaining political power -- but it's definitely old hat, which doesn't keep fanatics from doing it. Scientists who bash religion, e.g. Dawkins, do so out of disgust with religion's continual insistence on trying to replace knowledge with ignorance, and the consequences thereof.

God of the Gaps

[Liquidrage]

It's shrinking. One day they'll be no place to hide.

Re:God of the Gaps

[Anonymous Coward]

Doubtful, if the universe never existed at one point, therefore an the potential for it's existence must have always existed or we wouldn't exist, so something exists. Whether that something is a god, or something else know one can know.

You can't draw an existent from an absolute-never-existance. Science must submit to logic in the end, else science falls apart since:

Definition Logic:
1. A method of human thought that involves thinking in a linear, step-by-step manner about how a problem can be solved. Logic is ***the basis*** of many principles *including the scientific method.*

Re:not intelligent enough...

[Daniel Dvorkin]

However, religion bashing has come to a point where even admitting of being religious is a cause of ridicule or arrogance.

[shrug] I haven't seen that; I have seen a lot of religious believers being hypersensitive and interpreting fanatic-bashing as religion-bashing generally. E.g., when someone attempts to jump in on a discussion of the origins of DNA in the early terrestrial environment with, "That can't be true because Genesis says ..." then mockery is the only reasonable response. That's not religion-bashing, that's fanatic-bashing. If you are willing to accomodate your religious beliefs to scientific observations, as many religious scientists have done, then hardly anyone is going to attack you for it. (And those who do can be ignored; there are cranks and professional malcontents on both sides of every argument.)

I do science and I am religious. Is there something wrong in that?

Of course not. Motivation is irrelevant when science is done right. You can study a problem because you have a personal interest in solving it, because you want to unravel the mysteries of God's creation, because someone is paying you a whole lot of money to do so, or just out of simple curiosity -- all of these motivations can produce good science, and will no doubt continue to do so. But it's important to acknowledge that some motivations are more likely to lead to bias than others; and it is absurd to deny that religion has introduced considerable bias into the study of the origins of life.

Re:not intelligent enough...

[Eli Gottlieb]

[shrug] I haven't seen that;

Welcome to the internet. Population: every smug, religion-hating atheist on the planet.

Re:not intelligent enough...

[Pax681]

erm... pope boniface orderd the first crusade... against ther muslims.... to get jerusalem and the "holy land" into charistian hands....... there fore the church of rome ordered the crusades ad backed ALL of the crusades. to say this wasn't a war of religion..which it BLATANTLY was , AND to then say read books on it is quite frankly amazing. you see when the poster reads up on it he will see that it was a war of religion. i give talk on a semi regular basis about the Templars, their history, the crusades and such and have been on UK radio talking abot them on more than one occassion. i am by no means the leading world expert but i would say i am competant in my knowledge and recgnised as such by groups, organisations and radio(BBC Scotland being one of them) you can try to wish away the absolute fact that there have been more torture, deaths ,murders,attempted genocides and general inhumanity(look to the cathars for a start) in the name of religion to utterly quash your statement. and Christianty(both roman and non roman) does have to shoulder it's burden there(yes jesus pun intended)

Not excited yet

[sammysheep]

First, we need the spontaneous formation of a membrane that can selectively remove calcium. Calcium at higher concentrations is cytotoxic and will aggregate proteins/nucleic acids. Calcium regulation is therefore tight and ubiquitous in living things. See article. [sciencedirect.com]

Given such a membrane and some short DNA polymers, we also need to translate this random "information" into something meaningful. The current mechanism is: DNA -> RNA -> PROTEIN. This requires RNA polymerase or, at least, some ribosome-like enzyme to make a protein product. These enzymes are usually proteinaceous themselves--catch 22. We also need a DNA polymerase for replication if we wish to propagate our newly acquired "information".

I am more interested in how this spontaneous aggregation of DNA crystals could play a role in living cells.