'Monumental' Experiment Suggests How Life on Earth May Have Started (pressherald.com) 127
An anonymous reader shared this article from the Washington Post:
A much-debated theory holds that 4 billion years ago, give or take, long before the appearance of dinosaurs or even bacteria, the primordial soup contained only the possibility of life. Then a molecule called RNA took a dramatic step into the future: It made a copy of itself. Then the copy made a copy, and over the course of many millions of years, RNA begot DNA and proteins, all of which came together to form a cell, the smallest unit of life able to survive on its own.
Now, in an important advance supporting this RNA World theory, scientists at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, Calif., have carried out a small but essential part of the story. In test tubes, they developed an RNA molecule that was able to make accurate copies of a different type of RNA. The work, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, gets them closer to the grand goal of growing an RNA molecule that makes accurate copies of itself.
"Then it would be alive," said Gerald Joyce, president of Salk and one of the authors of the new paper. "So, this is the road to how life can arise in a laboratory or, in principle, anywhere in the universe...."
John Chaput, a professor of pharmaceutical sciences at the University of California at Irvine who did not participate in the study, called the crossing of that threshold by the Salk team "monumental," adding that "at first, I looked on it as a little bit jaw-dropping. ... It's super-neat."
The Post adds that "the scenario they tested probably mimics one of the earliest stirrings of evolution." And Michael Kay, a professor of biochemistry at University of Utah, says the new paper has given the RNA World theory "key evidence" to show "it is plausible and reasonable." He added that the RNA copier developed at Salk will "provide a valuable tool for people wanting to do directed evolution experiments."
Now, in an important advance supporting this RNA World theory, scientists at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, Calif., have carried out a small but essential part of the story. In test tubes, they developed an RNA molecule that was able to make accurate copies of a different type of RNA. The work, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, gets them closer to the grand goal of growing an RNA molecule that makes accurate copies of itself.
"Then it would be alive," said Gerald Joyce, president of Salk and one of the authors of the new paper. "So, this is the road to how life can arise in a laboratory or, in principle, anywhere in the universe...."
John Chaput, a professor of pharmaceutical sciences at the University of California at Irvine who did not participate in the study, called the crossing of that threshold by the Salk team "monumental," adding that "at first, I looked on it as a little bit jaw-dropping. ... It's super-neat."
The Post adds that "the scenario they tested probably mimics one of the earliest stirrings of evolution." And Michael Kay, a professor of biochemistry at University of Utah, says the new paper has given the RNA World theory "key evidence" to show "it is plausible and reasonable." He added that the RNA copier developed at Salk will "provide a valuable tool for people wanting to do directed evolution experiments."
I'm not saying it was aliens... (Score:2)
But... it was aliens.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But... it was aliens.
No, it was GOD, y'know your invisible intelligent creator in the sky. He created the world, then he created all life, then he created man from a mud sculpture and finally he took one of the man's rib and transcoded his male DNA to create woma ... wait, ... that means ... women are ... uhh ... transcoded men?? ... uhh ... n-never mind ... I need to go re-examine my entire world view.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah the whole "magical super-being crafting the universe from nothing" makes so much more sense than all that sciency stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, I hadn't seen that before. It's a wonderfully accurate description of what the bible claims happened.
Nothing, and then *POOF*, everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, although I'm an atheist so there's that. :-)
Seriously, though, given how many planets there are just in our galaxy much less the visible universe, I find the odds of an alien race visiting us during this -very- tiny window of time where we've had civilization unbelievable. If there are aliens and they're here or were here, I think it would be because they used the planet as a bio engineering lab and had a hand in creating us or all life or whatever here.
As far as God goes... uhm no. I've never believ
10 years of developing RNA, not self assembling (Score:2)
Reading the paper, it took scientists 10-years to develop (not sure of procedure) hammerhead RNA which is now able to copy itself.
The origin of the RNA in this story is lab created RNA.
Electronic Arts promised me a molecule construction set back in the 90's, where is it?
Re: (Score:2)
10 years is all? The planet had (literally) zillions of chemicals randomly mixing in diverse and fucked up conditions for 500 million years before the first cell life emerged. The Earth timeline according to phylogenetic studies and paleontology record is (if I recall correctly .. please fact check): Earth formation --- 500 million years pass --> single cell life emerges --500 million years go by--> last universal common ancestor (LUCA) --1 billion years--> multicellular life --1 billion years--
Living is a verb (Score:5, Insightful)
Hats off to understanding more about RNA world and how it might have worked. That's great. That said, a growing number of physicists like me think that RNA world could not have been the first life as the headline implies. There's a debate between genome-first and metabolism-first scientists, and I fall into the latter camp. We think metabolism of some kind probably predated RNA. Here's why.
RNA is cool because it can both catalyze reactions and act as a template for making more of itself. Each sugar has an extra hydrogen bond (compared to DNA) which makes RNA able to twist into functional shapes kind of like enzymes, but RNA can also serve as a template for a complementary strand to be made. RNA thus can do a half-assed job of both of DNA and of proteins, and RNA is an intermediate in the DNA -> RNA -> protein synthesis that happens in today's cells, so it's very likely to have been a precursor to both DNA and proteins, and avoids a lot of chicken-and-egg problems with all three having to appear at the same time.
That said, lots of physicists today are pretty confident that the first life had to include some form of metabolism: a channel through which free (i.e. low-entropy) energy is flowing. Any chemical reaction in thermodynamic equilibrium will by definition progress as fast forwards as backwards. "Life" without free energy would statistically be exactly as likely to shrink as to grow in size. Suppose there were a soup of elements at equilibrium and you added RNA to it. It would just sit there or decompose; without a source of free energy any movie of what it does would necessarily be equally likely played forwards or backwards. That's what equilibrium means.
The first life therefore almost certainly was linked to some inorganic source of free energy; probably geochemical in origin. Molecules that shape the chemical reactions in specific, contagious ways would tend to propagate to the limits of the source of free energy. At some point, RNA probably became the dominant molecule enabling metabolism with contagious specific properties, but without the flow of free energy, you'd get no propagation.
Living is a verb. I'd even say that "metabolism with contagious specific properties" might be an interesting definition for life. (NASA's current definition is "a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution" but self-sustaining discounts the necessity of the flow of free energy and you might not always have the time to see Darwinism in action. Is my spayed cat alive by NASA's definition? She needs cat food to sustain herself and cannot participate in Darwinian evolution anymore! Yet, her metabolism's specifics can be contagious and infect her cat food, causing its molecules to make more cat in a way the cat specifies.) The idea that the right brew of RNA in the absence of free energy flow and metabolism could "be" life is misguided and doesn't do justice to the centrality of metabolism in understanding what life really is.
Re: (Score:2)
The headline doesn't imply that RNA was the first form of life.
Re: (Score:2)
The argument about an energy gradient being required to allow localized reversal of entropy is pointless, because it's such an obvious and necessary assumption it does not normally bear mentioning. The entire universe requires it, so there is almost never any point in mentioning it for smaller scale specific cases unless you're trying to identify locations where the energy gradient is within the range that supports the chemical reactions you are looking for.
Also, if you abstract your individual cat to the
Re: (Score:2)
The argument about an energy gradient being required to allow localized reversal of entropy is pointless, because it's such an obvious and necessary assumption it does not normally bear mentioning. The entire universe requires it ...
I would say a star doesn't require an external energy gradient to keep being a star. It needed free energy to become a star, but it isn't reliant on continued external flows of free energy to keep on being a star.
Channeling free energy from an external source is a key property of living matter.
Metabolism without replication cannot evolve (Score:2)
Natural selection is the key.
Without replication, metabolism is just a chemical reaction.
The environment in which the first replication arose might indeed have many support molecules that supply appropriate energy. But they cannot evolve without replication.
My guess is that the first life was not RNA but something that eventually evolved into RNA.
Re: (Score:3)
It seems pretty obvious that there was some sort of machinery in place (which by definition might be considered as life) to have created something as complex as RNA. This is basically the concept of assembly theory. If RNA is made in the lab, then humans are the assembler.
I agree with Stuart Kaufmann's "At home in the universe" that self-perpetuating "metabolisms" would be almost inevitable in the right environment, and this seems infinitely more plausible as the origin of life. RNA would be many steps late
Re: (Score:2)
I completely agree!
Re: (Score:2)
probably geochemical in origin
I disagree. The only regularly changing source of energy is/was the Sun. No geochemical process is likely to have stayed stable long enough to get the changes that were necessary for further evolution. And change is what 'motivates' evolution.
Everything else you said seems perfectly reasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the Sun is incredibly important as a vast source of free energy. The consensus is that photosynthesis evolved a little bit after life arose (see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov] for example). There are some geochemical processes like alkaline vents and hot springs that provide a steady enough source of free energy to get life going, but as soon as photosynthesis evolved the Sun became our main meal ticket.
Why is RNA special? (Score:5, Interesting)
RNA is different from DNA in a few aspects.
One of them is that RNA is less stable, and therefore has a higher mutation rate than DNA.
That is one reason why the Influenza viruses keep changing from season to season, because the flu is an RNA virus.
Another aspect of RNA, is that in addition to carrying genetic information, it can also act as a catalyst (enzyme).
So it is a dual tool if you like ...
Life today still depends on that latter function of RNA: the ribosomes in every living cells depend on RNA's catalytic function for one of the most essential functions: protein synthesis.
Even after DNA took over, and after eukaryotes evolved (including multicellular life like us), RNA from the RNA World is still around.
There are also similarities between RNA and certain essential nutrients such as some B vitamins (niacinamide, ...), which suggest common biochemical origins.
You could also get started with two molecules ... (Score:3)
You could also start with:
- two molecules that (moderately) accurately copied each other (though getting them both at the same time makes the time scale to the big event much longer.)
- A molecule that makes NEARLY always inacurate (but occasionally acurate and complete) copies of itself. (This also drastically pulls in the time to a two-molecule solution.)
- A molecule that makes inaccurate copies but with string of typical errors that occasionally loops back to an accurate and complete (mod a few errors in unimportant places) copy of a previous version.
These could eventually mutate into a version that can perform a one-step copy-itself loop.
=====
I've always been partial to an RNA-only origin. RNA can do it all (self-copy, enzymes, energy transport batteries in at least two sizes with self-pluggin-in connectors: ATP/ADP and UTP/UDP, expression regulation, directed genetic code editing, etc.). It's also still doing a lot of that in current lifeforms, especially in key parts (such as many of the components of the DNA duplication, DNA repair, DNA-to-MRNA copy, gene expression regulation, MRNA exon-eliminating editing, and MRNA directed protein synthesis machinery)
The alternating copy hypothesis. (Score:2)
> gets them closer to the grand goal of growing an RNA molecule that makes accurate copies of itself.
One interesting hypothesis is that the first life didn't replicate itself directly, but produced a complementary part which then was able to produce the original design: an A-B-A-B-A-B-etc. pattern. The complementary parts would work in tandem to collect and process energy toward reproduction: symbiosis.
This may be more likely because self copying is often pretty tricky. Producing something easier that la
Re:So, Intelligent Design? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If it can be found with 10 years in a lab it can be done with randomness for 500 million years across trillions of star systems. You are assuming Earth is the only dice that the universe was rolling.
Re: (Score:2)
Believing this to be true, and demonstrating that it is true, are two different things.
Your hypothesis is like the one that says that an infinite number of monkeys typing random characters, would eventually compose the works of Shakespeare. This is actually not true, because it would actually require *infinite* time and monkeys. The probabilities of this happening in finite time--both the literature and the RNA--is essentially zero.
Re: (Score:2)
Believing this to be true, and demonstrating that it is true, are two different things.
True, this research is a step towards such a demonstration, but not a demonstration itself.
Your hypothesis is like the one that says that an infinite number of monkeys typing random characters, would eventually compose the works of Shakespeare. This is actually not true, because it would actually require *infinite* time and monkeys.
Except that the chemical processes at work are not entirely random, and the required output is not nearly as complex as "the works of Shakespeare". In fact, that they were able to build this molecule suggests it's complexity wasn't really that high (though I'm admittedly not a micro-biologist).
The probabilities of this happening in finite time--both the literature and the RNA--is essentially zero.
Believing this to be true, and demonstrating that it is true, are two different things.
Re: (Score:2)
the required output is not nearly as complex as "the works of Shakespeare"
This statement only shows how little you understand the complexities of RNA. It's not that the "letters" are complex, but getting them in a sequence that produces something meaningful or useful, is truly staggering...just like sequencing the letters of the works of Shakespeare.
The probabilities are measurable and quantifiable, they are not simply based on my belief.
Re: (Score:2)
the required output is not nearly as complex as "the works of Shakespeare"
This statement only shows how little you understand the complexities of RNA. It's not that the "letters" are complex, but getting them in a sequence that produces something meaningful or useful, is truly staggering...just like sequencing the letters of the works of Shakespeare.
The probabilities are measurable and quantifiable, they are not simply based on my belief.
So show me the calculation.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I don't have access to the article behind the paywall, but I can get close.
Hammerhead ribozymes contain up to 150 nucleotides. The number of possible permutations are 4^150, or 2.04*10^90. The estimated number of atoms in the universe are in the neighborhood of 10^78 to 10^82, which is at least 100 million times less than the number of combinations of the nucleotides in a hammerhead ribozyme.
There's the math. No, even with all the planets in the universe trying random combinations, there would not be en
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I don't have access to the article behind the paywall, but I can get close.
Hammerhead ribozymes contain up to 150 nucleotides.
You mean 50-150 nucleotides [nih.gov]. If the question is the viability of simplest molecule you don't estimate based on the largest molecule.
To be a bit more direct, the fact you knew the 150 number suggests you either knew both numbers and chose a dishonest formulation, or your source knew both numbers and gave you a dishonest narrative.
The number of possible permutations are 4^150, or 2.04*10^90. The estimated number of atoms in the universe are in the neighborhood of 10^78 to 10^82, which is at least 100 million times less than the number of combinations of the nucleotides in a hammerhead ribozyme.
There's the math.
Except you're assuming that each permutation is equally likely. It's definitely not my field but I'd assume it would be some process like smaller molecules joining together, and tha
Re: (Score:2)
Let's take the lower bound of 50. That's still a probability of 1.27*10^30. And no, chemically speaking there is no more probable sequence of nucleotides, than any other. The four DNA letters appear in every conceivable sequence. The only reason that they remain stable from one cell division to the next, is the complex "machinery" that ensures that exact copies are made. This machinery includes enzymes that do error correction, not unlike digital streaming.
The number 50, or 150, are some of the smallest num
Re: (Score:2)
Let's take the lower bound of 50. That's still a probability of 1.27*10^30. And no, chemically speaking there is no more probable sequence of nucleotides, than any other. The four DNA letters appear in every conceivable sequence. The only reason that they remain stable from one cell division to the next, is the complex "machinery" that ensures that exact copies are made. This machinery includes enzymes that do error correction, not unlike digital streaming.
Really? So complex molecules don't exist outside of cells?
Even in DNA itself the chemical stability of different sequences plays a role in evolution.
This is exactly like your 50 vs 150 problem. At each step of the process you take the worst possible interpretation of the facts, even when they're provably wrong, and you follow that line of worse-than-worst-case scenarios and claim the final outcome is impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
worst possible interpretation of the facts
Yeah, that's because I'm an engineer. Engineering has taught me that the worst-case scenario that you can dream up, is actually better than what you will encounter once you start to build whatever it is you are building. People rarely overestimate the complexity and effort, at least 70% of the time they underestimate.
If your stance is that things aren't as hard as they look, you're really not on firm footing.
Re: (Score:2)
worst possible interpretation of the facts
Yeah, that's because I'm an engineer. Engineering has taught me that the worst-case scenario that you can dream up, is actually better than what you will encounter once you start to build whatever it is you are building. People rarely overestimate the complexity and effort, at least 70% of the time they underestimate.
If your stance is that things aren't as hard as they look, you're really not on firm footing.
Your intuition about engineering is based on your attempts to achieve a specific outcome.
It applies well to engineering but it doesn't make sense applied to something like the hard sciences where you're trying to explain existing phenomena.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I think it applies just fine. The "desired" outcome is (as Darwin theorized) survival. We can argue about whether this is a conscious desire or just "the way things are," but without this outcome, life cannot exist. That reality makes it the de-facto "desired outcome" whether conscious or not.
You are taking a pure theoretical approach to this. It works "in theory." Except when it doesn't work in practice. Fusion-based power generation works "in theory" but making it work in practice has proven to be a l
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I think it applies just fine. The "desired" outcome is (as Darwin theorized) survival. We can argue about whether this is a conscious desire or just "the way things are," but without this outcome, life cannot exist. That reality makes it the de-facto "desired outcome" whether conscious or not.
Your engineering intuition comes from the difficulty in creating a very specific outcome that does not already exist, and in fact difficult by definition (otherwise your skills would not be required).
Now you're applying that intuition to outcomes that already exist and are abundant in nature. It's completely the wrong frame of reference.
You are taking a pure theoretical approach to this. It works "in theory." Except when it doesn't work in practice. Fusion-based power generation works "in theory" but making it work in practice has proven to be a long, difficult process.
*looks up into the sky*
Yup! Fusion power is actually working pretty awesome!!
Again, you're confusing the difficultly of achieving a specific human directed outcome vs explai
Re: (Score:2)
Your issue is that you are pretending that these molecules *don't* have a specific purpose. The reality is, if they did not work as they do, life would not be possible. You can't just dismiss the engineering aspect by saying "it's there, and I don't believe in God, so it must have happened randomly!" The conclusion that it happened randomly is the only possible conclusion if you don't believe in a Creator. But if you haven't already come to that presupposition, the coincidental elegance of a highly-function
Re: (Score:2)
You're proposing a classic god of the gaps. "It's there, and science can't explain the entire process, therefore it's God". And worse than that, you're making assertions like the impossibility of a statistical bias among the shorter chains of nucleotides before they coalesced into longer chains. In fact, I don't even understand the model you're supposedly shooting down. Like some process was turning out molecules of exactly 50 atoms in a completely random order?? It's like you're asserting it had to be some
Re: (Score:2)
some process was turning out molecules of exactly 50 atoms in a completely random order
You are the one proposing that these molecules could have been created by some random process, not me.
**I believe that evolution occurs.** I *don't* believe that nothingness can suddenly explode in the form of a "big bang." There is nothing in science to support that. And I don't believe that life could have evolved from non-life, on its own.
Re: (Score:2)
some process was turning out molecules of exactly 50 atoms in a completely random order
You are the one proposing that these molecules could have been created by some random process, not me.
Yes, a random process where individual atoms join together into molecules, the stable molecules in that group join up to make yet larger molecules, and the process repeats until we get sequences that are stable and are able to form copies of themselves.
I doubt that was that exact sequence, but your "statistics" clearly don't apply to that process because the sub-sequences are biased by stability (a mathematical process not entirely unlike evolution).
Your entire argument is based on the mechanism being 50-at
Re: (Score:2)
Your entire argument is based on the mechanism being 50-atom sequences being generated where all 4^50 permutations are equally likely
In the case of nucleotide strands, every permutation is indeed equally likely. There is no chemical reason for one permutation to be more likely than another permutation.
The thread was started by someone claiming Intelligent Design [wikipedia.org], so if you believe in evolution then you disagree with their position
This statement only shows how little you understand about the Intelligent Design thought process. Do your homework before you make assumptions.
We can make this really simple. Explain how the Big Bang could have been caused by nothing at all, from no pre-existing matter of any kind. If you, or science, can explain that, then I will agree tha
Re: (Score:2)
Your entire argument is based on the mechanism being 50-atom sequences being generated where all 4^50 permutations are equally likely
In the case of nucleotide strands, every permutation is indeed equally likely. There is no chemical reason for one permutation to be more likely than another permutation.
Which, even if it were true, is completely irrelevant to the process I proposed. Again, you just keep proposing your own ridiculously unlikely process and going "ahah! see it's ridiculously unlikely!"
The thread was started by someone claiming Intelligent Design [wikipedia.org], so if you believe in evolution then you disagree with their position
This statement only shows how little you understand about the Intelligent Design thought process. Do your homework before you make assumptions.
Oh, I've spent more time looking into the ridiculousness of ID than I'd care to. But the fact is the entire existence of ID came about because US schools weren't allowed to teach Creationism, so they rebranded as ID! In one well know case simply doing a search + replace on the creationist textbook [ncse.ngo]!
We can make this really simple. Explain how the Big Bang could have been caused by nothing at all, from no pre-existing matter of any kind. If you, or science, can explain that, then I will agree that you have a scientific leg to stand on. By contrast, everything else is just details.
We can make t
Re: (Score:2)
I could address each of your points, which are still off base, but we would be just going on circles. Yes, I did address the nucleotide sequence, you keep talking about some "process" that could have ordered them in a useful way, but such a chemical process does not exist, not at the nucleotide level.
I see you refuse to engage on the one issue on which you cannot scientifically stand, but instead just state you have no interest in engaging. Fine, if you won't engage, then we have nothing more to discuss. I
Re: (Score:2)
I could address each of your points, which are still off base, but we would be just going on circles. Yes, I did address the nucleotide sequence, you keep talking about some "process" that could have ordered them in a useful way, but such a chemical process does not exist, not at the nucleotide level.
Hilarious that the creationist is accusing me of a gish gallop.
Though to be fair, you have been steadfast in insisting on your bizarre "only one self-replicating nucleotide sequences was possible, and it needed to be generated by a 4^N unbiased random molecule generator".
Btw, I throw some soil on the ground, it landed in a soft pile, and therefore I've disproven mountains!!
You've also weirdly claimed to believe in evolution, as far as I can tell this belief lasted only as long as necessary to waive away som
Re: (Score:2)
You are putting words in my mouth. I never said "only one self-replicating nucleotide sequences was possible."
Believing that evolution occurs, is not the same as believing that all of life descended from non-life, or that there is not intelligence behind it.
The reason the Big Bang is important here, is because believing that it occurred spontaneously, without a Creator, requires faith, because science has no basis to claim that something can come from nothing. Without that, the whole probability argument ha
Re: (Score:2)
You are putting words in my mouth. I never said "only one self-replicating nucleotide sequences was possible."
Perhaps I overstepped there. I thought you were doing explicit 1 / 4^N calculations, but I misremembered. Either way, I think it is a justifiable assumption that the statistical difference of multiple possible self replicating sequences vs only one it probably not enough to matter.
Believing that evolution occurs, is not the same as believing that all of life descended from non-life, or that there is not intelligence behind it.
What's the role you're assigning to "intelligence"? Because I don't understand how an intelligence guides evolution while having the giraffe's recurrent laryngeal nerve make a massive detour up the neck and around the larynx.
Or do
Re: (Score:2)
Now we're talking.
Personally, I believe that the role of an "intelligent designer" is not unlike the role of a programmer in software. If you were some sort of AI living inside computer chips, you wouldn't really be able to see the ways that your creator interacts with your programming, because you live inside the electronics of the computer chips, and the creator lives outside of those chips. There is an interface between the two, generally a keyboard and mouse, but the bit patterns inside the computer wou
Re: (Score:2)
Now we're talking.
Personally, I believe that the role of an "intelligent designer" is not unlike the role of a programmer in software. If you were some sort of AI living inside computer chips, you wouldn't really be able to see the ways that your creator interacts with your programming, because you live inside the electronics of the computer chips, and the creator lives outside of those chips. There is an interface between the two, generally a keyboard and mouse, but the bit patterns inside the computer wouldn't know anything about that unless the creator communicated it to them.
So I don't think you're describing ID as much as theistic evolution [wikipedia.org].
ID is basically creationism in that even though it accepts the existence of genes and inherited traits, it claims God is micromanaging the process.
Theistic evolution says that God set up the the rules of the game (like your computer analogy) and then largely let things run on their own. It's compatible with science in the sense that for any particular phenomena it generally assumes that God stayed out of it. But it's also compatible with a
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how you got theistic evolution out of what I said. I believe God is constantly intervening, just like software developers are constantly intervening as they tweak and update their code. But that's my faith, not science.
Entropy is a phenomena of our universe, but if you're talking about the pre-universe with other laws then entropy doesn't need to hold.
This statement is a supposition, not based on any observed or observable science.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how you got theistic evolution out of what I said. I believe God is constantly intervening, just like software developers are constantly intervening as they tweak and update their code. But that's my faith, not science.
Theistic evolution gives a lot of variation as to how much God intervenes.
Lets go back to the RLN [mcgill.ca]. How does your belief account for it?
Entropy is a phenomena of our universe, but if you're talking about the pre-universe with other laws then entropy doesn't need to hold.
This statement is a supposition, not based on any observed or observable science.
This is the same thing you were doing with the nucleotide chains. Scientists are examining phenomena from billions of years ago in scenarios we barely understand, and then you jump in with a bunch of really strong assumptions about that scenario and declare they're impossible on that basis.
It's like one of those people who says "you need cranes to build the pyramids and the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The topic of junk DNA is still hotly debated, estimates range from 20% to 80%. There is certainly not enough understanding at this time to make dogmatic claims about it.
Even if there is a lot of junk DNA, these hammerhead ribozymes, even at 150 or so nucleotides, are far too complex to have evolved through random chance. The number of possible permutations are 4^150, or 2.04*10^90. The estimated number of atoms in the universe are in the neighborhood of 10^78 to 10^82, which is at least 100 million times le
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The four DNA letters are equally likely to succeed each other. There is no higher probability that a T will follow an A, than that a G or C, or another A, will follow the A. At the chemical level, the sequence is indeed random. Mitosis only works because of the cellular machinery that ensures that exact copies are made. This process even includes error correction, because even with the copying mechanism, first-draft "errors" are so common. No, you don't get to claim that somehow, the sequence that produced
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am quite literate in genetics. For several years, I managed the software development team at a large DNA lab, whose name you would recognize. Ever since then, I've been involved in genetics research in the nonprofit world. From all that study, what I've learned is that DNA is mind-bogglingly beautiful, engineered like a sophisticated machine. As an engineer, I know that complex well-running machines don't happen by accident. Not in 6 billion years, not ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OK smart one. I bow to your superior knowledge. Your knowledge does not, however, increase the odds of such a coincidence happening randomly.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, when I see engineering in genetics, and not just because I'm an engineer.
This video https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com], though it's significantly dumbed down, does a great job of visualizing how the genetic machinery works, and the sophistication and complexity of that machinery.
What is amazing to me, is that anyone could possibly believe that all this happened by random chance. No, not even in billions of years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Natural selection explains some of how creatures have evolved over time, yes. It is the finger on the thermostat. But it didn't build the thermostat or the equipment it controls. Natural selection is far too blunt an instrument to explain the creation of life itself. Net very word "selection" requires that there be options from which to choose. Natural selection can't start from scratch. The only way this makes logical sense is if you start with the presupposition that there is no Creator. Once you've made
Re: (Score:2)
"The interactions." That's pretty vague. Can you elaborate on how "the interactions" would make it more probable for a working hammerhead ribozyme to be created through random "interactions"? We've already established that there is no such "interaction" that make it more probable for one DNA letter to follow another DNA letter. What other "interactions" do you see at play here, that can support your hypothesis?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can see by your deflection that you're not willing to engage in a serious conversation. That's OK. We've already addressed your chemical synthesis argument, which holds no water in this case because it does *not* in any way lead to a less-random outcome.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OK, so now you're pushing back by judging me as "not learned" (which you have no idea about) and anti-intellectual. Again, deflecting and attacking.
You only seem to be aware of a certain circle of scientists. There is an entire organization, the American Scientific Affiliation, which both believes firmly in (evolutionary) science, and in God the Creator. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] The roster of scientists who are members include names you might know, such as Francis Collins and N.T. Wright. But I'm g
Re: (Score:2)
Theoretically? Yes. Practically? No.
And of course, you have numbers to back your assertion. You probably studied the issue deeply and have serious credentials in the area, of you wouldn't make such categorical statements. You certainly wouldn't go pontificating on the subject only based on your personal incredulity [wikipedia.org] - because that would be a fallacy!
So please show some of the numbers that show there is "practically" no chance that life can appear anywhere without an infinite universe and infinite time!
Re: (Score:2)
I think the burden of proof is on those who assert that this *could* happen by random chance, as there is yet no such evidence. The evidence presented in the article is evidence that Intelligent Design can produce a reproducing molecule, not that it could happen through random chance.
Re: (Score:2)
That something can happen in a lab environment is a demonstration of how it can happen in nature given enough time and lots of options.
Theoretically? Yes. Practically? No. The problem is in "enough time". This universe is neither infinite in size nor infinitely old.
Yet here we are...
Re: (Score:2)
That something can happen in a lab environment is a demonstration of how it can happen in nature given enough time and lots of options.
Theoretically? Yes. Practically? No. The problem is in "enough time". This universe is neither infinite in size nor infinitely old.
So we're left with a really tough statistics problem to establish the practicality.
But demonstrating that such a molecule is possible in the first place is properly framed as monumental.
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming the Earth is the only dice the universe rolled.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
This still required someone to create the RNA molecule in the lab. So, wouldn't this actually be proof of intelligent design?
To quote everyone with 2 or more active brain cells, "No."
Re: (Score:2)
So, wouldn't this actually be proof of intelligent design?
Obviously not. Like basically any "modern" religious delusions, "intelligent" design cannot be proven unless the creator itself decides to show up. The religious fuckups just cleaned up their crap enough so you cannot actually disprove their claims anymore. That does obviously not make them valid in any way.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only does he have to show up, but take an IQ test and probably a mental health evaluation too.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
Re:Ah, RNA became its own God! (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, we can't even synthesize basic fats and carbs needed to create a cell wall
I think you mean cell membranes, not cell walls. Plenty of lifeforms don't have cell walls.
The sine qua non of life is replication, not membranes. Self-replicating RNA is alive.
Re: Ah, RNA became its own God! (Score:2)
Not to disagree with your general point, but it's a stretch to call a floating RNA molecule "alive".
Dunno about you, but I draw that boundary later in the process.
Replicaiton is the key (Score:2)
If some small group of complex molecules can replicate themselves, then they can be subject to natural selection and so be "alive".
It is thought that the earliest life evolved in or pumice or some other natural environment that provided a protected space without the need for a membrane.
And of course, the first living thing did not have to worry about being eaten.
Re: (Score:2)
That is one definition that has been proposed. As I recall, a late 1970s conference in the field came up with several dozen different definitions for "life", all significantly different. All had at least one vocal, respected proponent. Not one convinced a majority - or even a large minority - of the talking heads of the field that they were overwhelmingly better or worse than the rest of the field.
But this is a field whose society discusses th
Re: (Score:2)
"Horizontal gene transfer" is still a significant process in the genetics of bacteria and archaea. I haven't heard of anyone who thinks it was impossible back in the roots of life too.
Detecting that it happened, or proving it ... I know people have tried to understand the nature of LUCA by constructing phylogenetic trees of "Universal" genes (one of the ribozymes that convert mRNA into proteins, I think - at least). I don
Re: (Score:2)
Self-replicating RNA is alive.
I am glad you finally resolved the difficulty in determining what is considered alive and what is not. I missed out on that revelation during all of my studies. Could you point me to where the exact parameters are that determine if a thing is alive or not?
To be quite honest, the last time I was told there was solid consensus was that Bacteria is considered to be Life, but a Virus is not. A virus contains RNA... so where are the new parameters located at so I don't have to trust that you fully understand the
Re: (Score:2)
The bleeding edges of the research topic certainly don't have agreement on the answer, so I'd be astonished if you
Re:Ah, RNA became its own God! (Score:5, Insightful)
another un-falsifiable hypothesis
You seem to be very confused about the meaning of "falsifiable".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Tell me you don't really understand any of this without telling me you don't really understand any of this."
Also as someone else mentioned, you're woefully unclear on the meaning of "falsifiable".
"Falsifiability is a deductive standard of evaluation of scientific theories and hypotheses, introduced by the philosopher of science Karl Popper in his book The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934). A theory or hypothesis is falsifiable (or refutable) if it can be logically contradicted by an empirical test."
Wher
Re: (Score:2)
"Directed evolution" is a bit like a "guided democracy". A smokescreen term for something that belongs into a high-sec lab in a Petri dish because it makes you puke.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This was so stupid that I had to come and tell you how fucking stupid you are.
You're blindingly stupid, so much so that you deserve your own page in the Guinness Book of Really Stupid People.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Form a hypothesis based on current knowledge and understanding.
2. Perform experiments/observations to test the hypothesis.
3. If the experiments/observations refute the hypothesis, then reject the hypothesis. Else accept the hypothesis provisionally and keep testing.
4. Go back to 1.
FTFY
Re:So it wasn't a magic sky fairy after all? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm around the half-century mark, and it's been a steady beat of discovery towards a deterministic origin of life the whole time.
We're now at the point where we have found plausible observation-supported evidence that if you have a high-metallicity yellow or orange dwarf star in a low-density stellar neighbourhood that forms a wet rock of approximately an Earth mass, the raw materials required for life will rain down on it and there's no reason to believe they won't constantly mix all over that world for millions of years until life spontaneously emerges.
It was always the only rational explanation - God just invokes the problem of infinite regress, and if you can say 'God was always there' you can use the same logic to remove God and say 'existence was always there'. Not being someone who gets their scientific knowledge from the ignorant bronze age peoples of the Middle East circa 3500 BCE or so, unless and until God shows up for a cup of tea and a chat I'm going to leave it out of the origins of life.
Re: So it wasn't a magic sky fairy after all? (Score:2)
At least this isn't an ignorant comment, I'll grant you that. But is it so hard to simply say your system of logic (the "scientific method") never was imagined to address questions of origin, which, by definition, are concerned with what cannot be observed? I do not understand this desire to stretch science to answer questions of metaphysics.
Re: (Score:2)
I do not understand this desire to stretch science to answer questions of metaphysics.
Stop bullshitting. No scientific field purports to delve into the metaphysical.
Scientists aren't doing that. If they are, they're not scientists.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm around the half-century mark,
Congrats, I'm ~65 and every single bit of religion I've ever seen has been planted in bullshit, watered with superstition, and sustained by ignorance.
After 2000 years you'd think they'd have something to show for all that preaching and worshiping, but nada. Absolutely nothing. Meanwhile science keeps coming up with the answers- answers that work.
The fact is that every good thing in our lives is the result of science and technology...not whispering into our hands hoping the magic sky fairy will alter his *im
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a tad younger than you.
As a scientist, you would keep looking till you found the proof you were looking for. If you haven't found a religion that satisfies you, you should keep looking.
I doubt that God looks on a lot of what passes as religion favorably either. You have four gospels laying out how you should live. I always figure that if I'm not living up to Christ's example, I need to be the one to improve. If more people felt that way, maybe you wouldn't be so disillusioned with religion. I know tha
Re: (Score:2)
"If you haven't found a religion that satisfies you, you should keep looking."
And if the slot machine doesn't pay off, just keep pullin' that lever, right?
If you're losing at cards, just keep playing! Keep betting until you win! That always works out!
I've seen God work in people's lives just as described in the Bible. I've seen people healed that I personally knew.
Bullshit. What you saw was your confirmation bias finding a place it could finally sit down to have a rest.
I've been around when a miracle happen
Re: (Score:2)
Slot machine... No, you investigate denominations and belief systems and select the most promising ones to investigate. Then you put in the work. Any religion is two things. First it is a belief system. Second it is a group of people trying to follow that belief system. I elect to choose the belief system based on the Bible, then select a denomination that tries to adhere closest to my understanding of the Bible based on the translations I have available to me, and finally a church body with people trying t
Re: (Score:2)
What a waste of a perfectly worthless life, chasing after your personal magic sky daddy. SAD.
And stop with your dumbass threats of godly retribution.
That's what it always comes down to for you pieces of shit- if they don't believe, threaten them with eternal torment! Piss off, you brainwashed jerkoff.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's only one of the four thousand plus stories available to propose how magic sky fairies created humans. Some are even more interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. It's turtles all the way down.
Re: So it wasn't a magic sky fairy after all? (Score:2)
This is such a ignorant take. Science cannot explain the "origin" of anything and still be scientific. Science is a discipline of materialism first and last. To have such a discipline, the material must FIRST exist.
Re: (Score:2)
This is such a ignorant take. Science cannot explain the "origin" of anything and still be scientific.
Wrong, but thanks for sharing your ignorance!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your post boils down to "we don't understand the entire process yet, therefore it is impossible and God exists".
That is the "God of the Gaps" argument, and it's used by people with tiny minds who refuse to accept that the unknown can become the known when smart people dedicate themselves to the task. People who are afraid of a universe without a parent-substitute supernatural being promising everything will be OK so they imagine one.
And you're communicating this stupid, ignorant argument over the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, a book written by ignorant, desert-dwelling sheep herders 20 centuries ago couldn't possibly be wrong about anything, could it?
Never mind that these people knew nothing of science, biology, astronomy, meteorology, oceanography, chemistry, zoology, botany, astrophysics, climatology, cosmology, hydrodynamics, hygienics, immunology, magnetics, neurology, palaeontology, or geology, and never mind that most of them had never been more than about 10 miles from the place they'd been born in their entire li
Re: (Score:2)
I see a lot of blather from you but nothing substantive.
Somehow you know more than all the scientists, and I respect that the same way I respect fortune tellers and psychics, which is not at all.