CREATING life in the primordial soup may have been easier than we thought. Two essential elements of RNA have finally been made from scratch, under conditions similar to those that likely prevailed during the dawn of life.
The question of how a molecule capable of storing genetic information – even DNA’s simpler cousin RNA – could ever have arisen spontaneously in the primordial cooking pot has perplexed scientists for decades. RNA consists of a long chain composed of four different types of ribonucleotides, which each consist of a nitrogenous base, a sugar and a phosphate.
Most people assumed that these three components first formed separately, and then combined to make the ribonucleotides. The only trouble was that it seemed impossible that two of the four bases with particularly unwieldy chemistry ever reacted spontaneously with the sugar.
To tackle this problem, John Sutherland from the University of Manchester, UK, tried to work out a new recipe for RNA that gets by without forcing isolated bases and sugar molecules to react. His team experimented by cooking up ribonucleotides from five small molecules thought to be present in the primordial soup. “We started with the same building blocks as others, but take a different route,” Sutherland says.
Found by Misanthropic Scott on Cage Match.
I wonder if the scientists who eventually create life will claim the right to torture it at will. I don’t know which way to bet on that one.
Perhaps they’ll follow existing precedent đ
Darwin speculated that life had begun in a “little pond”. Now that guy was ahead of his time.
# 14 Alfred1 said, on May 15th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
You canât prove a builder doesnât exist by building another buildingâŚindeed, you then document it requires a builder for a building to exist.
Nonsense.
# 15 nonee said, on May 15th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
The Big Bang needed a âBig Bangerâ. You canât get around that without throwing out logic.
You canât disprove my statement without using logic.
Nope, all you need is a near infinite amount of time for the big bang to occur with virtual particle pairs. Religion not required, nor a builder.
Given that our solar system is a 2nd/3rd generation solar system and that our planet has supported life for billions of years the issue raised is only a facet of the real question.
To me, the real question is, why hasn’t something already shown up and taken over this planet a long time ago? As in millions of years ago.
That not even self replicating machines spreading at sublight speeds have shown up suggests that some sort of problem exists.
I’m left with:
a) Life is uncommon.
b) Life is common but life is mostly single celled or for some reason doesn’t develope tech beyond the most basic level.
d) Getting out of a solar system even at sublight speeds using replicating machines is extremely unlikely and hasn’t occured anywhere within thousands of light years of us long enough ago for such to have moved in and taken over.
Since a couple of hundred years of tech advances at our current rate would, I think, allow us to pull off that last trick I’m forced to wonder if the problem might be at or near this stage of the game.
For one thing any sudden major climate shift could completely disrupt civiliation by sharply limiting the food supply resulting in a vicious struggle to survive with nothing left over for scientific advance. Such climate events are actually known to be fairly common on both a small and a large scale and the fact that we haven’t been seriously nailed for a while is surprising.
Other issues are nuclear and biological warfare, running out of fossil fuels, or the society stagnating for cultural reasons.
It may well be that tech using beings hit some sort of plateau and stagnate until they go extinct without ever reaching for the stars with success.
I do know we aren’t going to reach the stars in my lifetime.
@35 deowll said, “…some interesting stuff…”
It’s OK. We don’t have to reach the stars. We can just surf their web portal.
Primordial soup experiments have the benefit of taking into account almost ETERNITY TIME, which will allow for almost endless combinations. It doesnât take the Infinite Monkey Theorem to think life had a very good chance of just happing.
Itâs much more plausible than faith in some sort of deity just making it all up for fun. Then you get in to who created god? And who created who created god? And the big one why is existence?(ok we all have that last one)
True believers will tell you
God has no need to have been created, since He exists outside of time and space where cause and effect do not operate.
Ya maybe if they legalize LSD maybe Iâll be able buy that fable.
The only god believers I respect are those who give up on arguing Science vs. Scripture and just admit it takes a âleap of faithâ to believe and there chosen denomination or lack of denomination has to do with there personal history geography and life style. Then if they go bad mouthing some other guyâs denomination they loose that respect.
# 14 Alfred1 said, “You canât prove a builder doesnât exist by building another buildingâŚindeed, you then document it requires a builder for a building to exist.”
No, Alfie. You only show that a builder MAY build. Not that he is required. Saturate a cup of hot water with salt and watch the crystals form. Unless you think that god is sitting there precipitating NaCl, then your thesis is disproved.
# 15 nonee said, “The Big Bang needed a âBig Bangerâ. You canât get around that without throwing out logic.”
Big Banger leads to several weenie jokes but I’ll refrain. You cannot prove a Big Banger exists. You can only rely on your faith, trust and mythology to convince yourself it is so. I can’t prove your BB does NOT exist. I can only rely on science to show and demonstrate how the same things could have come about without divine intervention. So, you have beliefs, I have evidence.
#14
*Shakes his head*.
Basically, you are saying that proving the *possibility* a random event cannot be done via a controlled experiment. Of course it can just as it is possible to recreate small vortexes in a lab to study tornadoes. In the natural world, “random events” are simply those that have so many variables for their occurrence that we cannot account for all them. In some cases, we have enough significant information that we can recreate “random” events in a lab.
In this case, they were able to establish that it is possible under specific conditions for the building blocks for life to develop on their own.
#16
The building blocks on which all life is based were able to be created. It logically follows that it would then be possible for life itself to develop over millions of years.
#22
…And who made the person that made the ham, and who made the person that made the person that made the ham, and who made the person that made the person that made the person that made the ham….
#35
Even getting to the nearest star beyond the sun at the speed of light is a lengthy process (forgetting problems like infinite mass and such). My personal guess it that there is plenty of life out there; just no one has the capability of communicating over such vast distances.
“Activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides can be formed in a short sequence that bypasses free ribose and the nucleobases, and instead proceeds through arabinose amino-oxazoline and anhydronucleoside intermediates.”
Hmmm… sounds like something a god would play around with. Snap his fingers and get ready-made worshipers? … Pffft. Not if you can start with Quarks, Gluons and other miniscule particles and wait about 14 billion years for them to find each other and interact v–e–r–y s–l–o–w—l–yyyyyyyyy.
Personally, I think cancer was his greatest achievement.
#40
“Personally, I think cancer was his greatest achievement.”
No Jim to general after all we are talking about GOD not just a party of minor deities from the Halls of Asgard.
Iâd go with all of human suffering. Since Aquinas reasoned animals donât have souls we can discount out there suffering.
# 15 nonee said, âDid the scientist create the elements used in the experiment to create life,âŚâ
Mute point, there was no life created.
You make it sound like an on-off switch. Actually, there are a number of things that needed to be done.
1. Self replicate (not life, but no life without it)
2. Organization (not life, but no life without it)
3. Metabolize (does that meet your life threshold?)
4. Grow/replicate (does that?)
There are obviously others.
So, all these guys have done, which is important is get us on the way to step one.
Re: #41, Alfred1…
…you call a 14 billion year-long miracle efficient?
I can’t wait for his next miracle.
No. Really. I can’t wait.
Primordial soup contains sugar? Cane sugar? Beet sugar? High fructose corn syrup?
No! Space alien sugar!
http://tinyurl.com/primordial-sugar
#16 “Mute point, there was no life created.”
I think you mean ‘moot point’.
Alfred1,
“An analogy: I do not prove post #20 supposedly written by Olo Baggins of Bywater did in fact appear by chance arrangement of electronsâŚby typing and posting a similar paragraph.”
Throwing around the old infinite monkey theorem simply establishes that you’re unfamiliar with the subject of evolutionary biology.
“Hence, you cannot prove there is no builder, by building a building yourself.”
But that’s not really the problem. The problem is for you to show positively what the builder did, when he did it, how he did it and with what result.
We really haven’t see the builder do anything anywhere. There is literally not a single scientific principle which turns on your builder doing anything. Now, since we can’t find your builder doing anything, anywhere, why should we assume that he pops up at the creation event for the house.
While we still don’t know how life came about, there is no reason to assume your builder was involved. However, you’re free to build your case, but that case can’t be an argument from ignorance.
Did somebody say the big bang needs a big banger? Oh my.
Anyway, why the rush to assume a “big banger” was needed? As a matter of fact, why do you think Mother Nature owes us an explanation?
14 billion years to create a human being… and yet souls are no problem. … Instant at the point of conception! Zzzap!
Bipolar disorder on a cosmic timeline?
RE: #46, Zybcy… I think Patrick meant mute. He made a point and nobody heard it.
#48, Dallas… yes Mother Nature doesn’t owe us an explanation, but Human Nature will figure it out.
# 46 Zybch said, “I think you mean âmoot pointâ.”
Yes, my bad for typing whilst eating.
Anyone who can provoke Alfred1 to prove his point by quoting scripture gets a mystery prize đ
I always enjoy people trotting Thomas Aquinas’ 5 proofs for the existence of God (i.e. efficient cause). The logic that is used is in the reasoning is also the same logic to refute it – turtles all the way down.
Bertrand Russell is right, no one has to prove that God doesn’t exist. The burden of proof lies only with those trying to prove it and it’s a fools errand. Stick with honest faith, all logical justifications are a house of cards.
Re: #39, Thomas,“âŚAnd who made the person that made the ham, and who made the person that made the person that made the ham, and who made the person that made the person that made the person that made the hamâŚ.”
That would be Dr. Seuss.
There is no god.
There is no design.
There is only scant evidence for intelligence anywhere in the universe.
I hope the Rupture comes soon.
#41 Alfredi1, “Hence, you cannot prove there is no builder, by building a building yourself.”
Correct Alfred, but that’s not what happened. The evidence from these experiments shows that it is very possible that the “building” assembled itself through natural processes.
#53, Gary… Alfred never quotes scripture to me. Is it my breath?
Re: #56 bobbo… I hope the Rupture comes soon.
Appendicitis?
#57 JimR, I sensed you were close a couple of times, so I thought maybe a prize could inspire you reach for Olympic-style greatness.
This debate is interesting but it doesn’t answer my question:
When can I successfully clone my own John C. Dvorak and Adam Curry fir the NoAgenda Home Edition?
# 35 deowll said,
“To me, the real question is, why hasnât something already shown up and taken over this planet a long time ago? As in millions of years ago.”
Who says we didn’t! Personally, I like the hypothesis that picnickers’ litter four billion years ago got life started on this planet. Or —
MORG: “You should have thought of that before we left!
There isn’t a rest stop for four light years!”
GORG: “I tell you I’ve gotta go! Look, there’s a nice warm
little planet just up ahead. It’ll just take a minute…”
They cheated. Let’s face it, these scientists did not create their own RNA. They took EXISTING molecules causing them to bond in a unique way to form RNA. I’ll be impressed, and they can truly claim to have created life when they are able to create their own matter and form their own molecules from NOTHING. Until then, this is nothing more than new fancy cake recipe using someoneelse’s ingredients.