Scientists Closer to Solving the Origin of Life on Primitive Earth

04SCTLS

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Messages
3,188
Reaction score
7
Location
Lockport
Scientists Closer to Solving the Origin of Life on Primitive Earth

Posted by schafersman at 5/14/2009 3:27 AM CDT

http://www.chron.com/commons/reader...&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

With masterful scientific work, Dr. John D. Sutherland, a chemist at the University of Manchester, has solved a major problem concerning the origin of life: how the building blocks of RNA, called nucleotides, could have spontaneously assembled themselves in the conditions of primitive Earth. This discovery will quickly lead to further discoveries about life's origin and scientists may ultimately have a plausible explanation for how information-carrying biological molecule could have emerged through natural processes from chemicals on early Earth.

Scientists have long suspected that the first forms of life carried their biological information not in DNA but in RNA. The RNA before DNA theory has been accepted by origin of life theorists for many years. Two Nobel Prize winners, Thomas Cech and Sidney Altman, have written brief essays about this probability. Before DNA, all life existed in an RNA World. RNA has many chemical abilities, such as catalyzing reactions, transporting biological information within a cell, and preserving biological information between generations. DNA is a more stable molecule and it appears that RNA gave up the task of preserving and transporting biological information between individuals and generations to DNA.

RNA is composed of four nucleotides, so the question was how these chemical building blocks could spontaneously and naturally synthesize and join together on primitive Earth. The nucleotides--each formed of a chemical base, a ribose sugar molecule, and a phosphate group--can form spontaneously from natural chemicals that could be present in early Earth environments, but until now there was no known way the separate and different nucleotides would chemically join together. This is the problem that Dr. Sutherland and his colleagues solved.

Dr. Sutherland searched for ten years, methodically working through every possible combination of starting chemicals to try and make them react in different orders and different combinations. He and his colleagues ultimately discovered their non-intuitive recipe which will be published in this week's Nature. As explained in the article in the New York Times by science writer Nicholas Wade, the only source available to me right now,

[FONT=trebuchet ms,geneva]Instead of making the starting chemicals form a sugar and a base, they mixed them in a different order, in which the chemicals naturally formed a compound that is half-sugar and half-base. When another half-sugar and half-base are added, the RNA nucleotide called ribocytidine phosphate emerges. A second nucleotide is created if ultraviolet light is shined on the mixture. The reactions he has described look convincing to most other chemists. “The chemistry is very robust — all the yields are good and the chemistry is simple,” said Dr. Joyce, an expert on the chemical origin of life at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif. In Dr. Sutherland’s reconstruction, phosphate plays a critical role not only as an ingredient but also as a catalyst and in regulating acidity. Dr. Joyce said he was so impressed by the role of phosphate that “this makes me think of myself not as a carbon-based life form but as a phosphate-based life form.”[/FONT]​



In a separate article, Wade describes Sutherland's chemical synthesis recipe in more detail:

Both reactions start off with simple chemicals believed to have been present on the primitive earth. They are glyceraldehyde, cyanimide, cyanoacetaldehyde and cyanoacetylene. These chemicals will naturally form the base cytosine and ribose. But the cytosine cannot be made to join to the ribose under natural conditions. Working through all possible chemical combinations for 10 years, Dr. Sutherland's team discovered a different and quite unintuitive route. Their reaction system combines the carbon-nitrogen chemistry that leads to the bases with the carbon-oxygen chemistry that makes the sugars. They make a half-sugar/half-base, add another half-sugar and then a half-base to make an intermediate that easily becomes ribo-cytidine phosphate. Ultraviolet light converts ribocytidine to the uracil-containing nucleotide.
[FONT=trebuchet ms,geneva]Once the four nucleotides have been formed, they can join together to make an RNA molecule. If Dr. Sutherland's work is correct, it provides for the first time a plausible explanation of how an information-carrying biological molecule like RNA could have arisen on early Earth. Now that the origin of the information-bearing molecule can be explained, the natural origin of the information itself will be the next object of investigation by biochemists. Much work has already been conducted in this area, but scientists were always unsure of how the molecules that carried the information were constructed. Now that this is probably known, efforts to discover how biological information originated will be accelerated, and this will directly lead to a deeper explanation of both the origin of life and the origin of species.[/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,geneva]Charles Darwin would have been proud of [/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,geneva]John Sutherland.[/FONT]


d8c81136-00ce-4eed-a6b8-45cfce940613_Large.jpg
 
Boy they sure are trying hard. But they still can't prove evolution.

"Could have," "can form," "may ultimately have a plausible explanation," "it appears," "can join together."

LOLZ

Note that they still admit that they don't know where the original information came from. In essence, they've simulated creation. Well done. :rolleyes:

Judgment day will be a sad, horrifying shock.
 
More reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Boy they sure are trying hard. But they still can't prove evolution.

"Could have," "can form," "may ultimately have a plausible explanation," "it appears," "can join together."

LOLZ

Note that they still admit that they don't know where the original information came from. In essence, they've simulated creation. Well done. :rolleyes:

Judgment day will be a sad, horrifying shock.
Nice trollin skillz sir.

Pretty ignorant view though. The old "It's only a theory" argument.

There's a chick on youtube, i'll let her take over (i have to find it, so many videos).

YouTube - How to be a good Creationist - In 5 easy steps

Now, that's pretty black and white. And since you're not ready to un-believe as it were, i'm going to leave it here.
 
Fossten, I've seen you compose extensively detailed posts on this subject, perhaps it'd be worth revisiting again?
And Wiggles, perhaps you should have read the article before posting?

Because the story doesn't prove or disprove any theory.
It's a fascinating article, but it doesn't make a conclusion regarding the origins of life.
 
This is funny! Considering the complex recipe for formation of one RNA nucleotide, one would think it's all not only too complex to have occurred randomly, but also, it's just the beginning, if that, of a simple organism. Then, of course, no one is sure if the chemicals need to generate this RNA nucleotide even existed. Assuming arguendo that they did, what are the chances that everything RANDOMLY happened in the perfect sequence being necessary to generate one RNA nucleotide?

Atheists reject the notion that life is too complex to have occurred randomly. Yet, just the theory that one RNA nucleotide could spontaneously appear in itself without an intelligent creator, is dubious at best. But this begs the question as to where did the chemicals come from that were necessary to generate one RNA nucleotide? No matter where, scientists must always contend it was all by mere coincidence--because, frankly, this is the only position they can take. ;) Otherwise, they're forced to admit that there must be a supernatural creator. :eek:
 
More reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils


Nice trollin skillz sir.

Pretty ignorant view though. The old "It's only a theory" argument.

There's a chick on youtube, i'll let her take over (i have to find it, so many videos).

YouTube - How to be a good Creationist - In 5 easy steps

Now, that's pretty black and white. And since you're not ready to un-believe as it were, i'm going to leave it here.
Wiggles, clearly you don't know the difference between trolling and an actual response. I also know you haven't spent any real time investigating the articles on those websites.

I have.

Wikipedia isn't credible and talkorigins, while it has some scientific backing, is easily debunked.

You might want to try this site before you claim triumphant victory. And claiming creation to be an ignorant view isn't the same as constructing an actual argument. I understand why you 'left it here.' :rolleyes:
 
Wiggles, clearly you don't know the difference between trolling and an actual response. I also know you haven't spent any real time investigating the articles on those websites.

I have.

Wikipedia isn't credible and talkorigins, while it has some scientific backing, is easily debunked.

You might want to try this site before you claim triumphant victory. And claiming creation to be an ignorant view isn't the same as constructing an actual argument. I understand why you 'left it here.' :rolleyes:
That totally looks like a reputable site. I would trust that over wiki any day. :rolleyes: I wasn't claming creation is a ignorant view. You said "Chance chance could be etc etc"; that's what i was saying was ignorant.

How do you debunt the stuff posted? Is it the person that is debunked or the experiment or the conclusions? If it's the latter 2, how do they come to those conclusions? By replicating the experiment or giving reasons for why it would be?

I haven't seen these origin of life experiments too often, as a matter of fact, first time was about 2 weeks ago. Which leads me to think that these experiments aren't the center of focus, or aren't experimented on to often.

This is funny! Considering the complex recipe for formation of one RNA nucleotide, one would think it's all not only too complex to have occurred randomly, but also, it's just the beginning, if that, of a simple organism. Then, of course, no one is sure if the chemicals need to generate this RNA nucleotide even existed. Assuming arguendo that they did, what are the chances that everything RANDOMLY happened in the perfect sequence being necessary to generate one RNA nucleotide?

Atheists reject the notion that life is too complex to have occurred randomly. Yet, just the theory that one RNA nucleotide could spontaneously appear in itself without an intelligent creator, is dubious at best. But this begs the question as to where did the chemicals come from that were necessary to generate one RNA nucleotide? No matter where, scientists must always contend it was all by mere coincidence--because, frankly, this is the only position they can take. ;) Otherwise, they're forced to admit that there must be a supernatural creator. :eek:

This made me rage in so many ways.

Funny thing about the weak minded, they all think the same way for the same reasons.

YouTube - 10 Questions every Atheist must answer

Now, i would post responses to those questions.... i would be talking to a wall though. At least deviate once in a while :Bang
 
Get back to me when you've actually read some of the scientific articles you linked to rather than posting silly youtube videos. Until then, you have no credibility, especially when you use pejorative terms like 'weak minded.' You have literally no idea what kind of minds creationists have. You're an idiot for believing stereotypes, and you're typical of the atheists in general because you resort to name calling rather than actual arguments.
 
That totally looks like a reputable site. I would trust that over wiki any day. :rolleyes: I wasn't claming creation is a ignorant view. You said "Chance chance could be etc etc"; that's what i was saying was ignorant.

How do you debunt the stuff posted? Is it the person that is debunked or the experiment or the conclusions? If it's the latter 2, how do they come to those conclusions? By replicating the experiment or giving reasons for why it would be?

I haven't seen these origin of life experiments too often, as a matter of fact, first time was about 2 weeks ago. Which leads me to think that these experiments aren't the center of focus, or aren't experimented on to often.

This made me rage in so many ways.

Funny thing about the weak minded, they all think the same way for the same reasons.

YouTube - 10 Questions every Atheist must answer

Now, i would post responses to those questions.... i would be talking to a wall though. At least deviate once in a while :Bang

You are only showing your complete and utter ignorance in this post. However, you try to cover it up with condescension toward credible websites and people holding alternative points of view. It is rather funny how someone so intolerant of opposing views that he refuses to even consider them (prejudice) seems to think that it is others who are intolerant, weak minded, etc. You have yet to demonstrate that you have any depth of knowledge about most anything you talk about in this forum, yet you feel the need to talk down to us. You are a belligerent, pompous little man-child who's character flaws prevent him from seeing or accepting the truth over the dogma he has accepted.

FYI: the website fossten gave was at least as credible as any you gave, and the only weak-minded person in this thread is you.

Now, read (or at least skim) this thread and at least have the courtesy to familiarize yourself with the various arguments on this subject that have been made on this forum before, instead of rudely forcing us to rehash stuff because you are intellectually lazy. If you are not going to do that and are not willing to consider other views, then have the courtesy to STFU, and stay out of this debate instead of mocking and belittling points of view you are unwilling to consider. dude.
 
I sort of reviewed the old thread on Stein's movie "Expelled" - I did see the movie as well.

There seems to be a few questions that arise when debating evolution that didn't appear to be in my quick perusal of the old thread.

One - our viewpoint of evolution is a historical one as well as a continuing one. ID (Intelligent Design) looks as humans as the desired end result, not as a random 'guided' result. It assumes that human beings are predetermined, when there wasn't any predetermined end point 1/2 million years ago, unless you believe that a superior being had a desired end point. So, you are injecting a 'superior being' without proving a 'superior being'. We could have easily ended up with 4 legs (with better physiology) a brain that we used all of, and green hair - except for random events, that were guided, or 'ruled' by natural selection.

So, ID approaches how we have ended up as we are as a teleological process...
the doctrine that phenomena are guided not only by mechanical forces but that they also move toward certain goals of self-realization.

Sort of like looking at a war after we won. Winning the war seems inevitable after you have won - but before the war takes place, and during the war - if most elements are equal, the end result isn't predetermined. Just like humans weren't 'predetermined' when the first creatures created strands of DNA or even with the introduction of RNA.

ID is rather a 'vain' point of view - humans, just as we are, are the 'desired' result. Why? Whose 'desire'? We could go by Genesis and quote
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."​

And that gives us some insight on why ID is important to some people. It has highly religious overtones.

So, ID in many respects looks at evolution backwards - from the end result (us). But evolution doesn't look at a predetermined 'goal' it just looks at the path to that goal. ID believes we are a 'desired' goal, where evolution just looks as us as a result... There is a big difference between 'goal' and 'result'.
 
I sort of reviewed the old thread on Stein's movie "Expelled" - I did see the movie as well.

There seems to be a few questions that arise when debating evolution that didn't appear to be in my quick perusal of the old thread.

Thank you for doing that. It is greatly appreciated. A lot of ground was covered in that debate, a lot of energy and thought put into it, and it would be a waste of time to cover that ground again in this debate.


One - our viewpoint of evolution is a historical one as well as a continuing one. ID (Intelligent Design) looks as humans as the desired end result, not as a random 'guided' result. It assumes that human beings are predetermined, when there wasn't any predetermined end point 1/2 million years ago, unless you believe that a superior being had a desired end point. So, you are injecting a 'superior being' without proving a 'superior being'.

You seem to be putting the cart before the horse. ID doesn't assume a superior being or that this was the desired end result. In fact, ID is defined by a minimum of assumptions in the theory. Darwinism has more assumptions in it.

Basically, the biggest difference between ID and Darwinism is methodological naturalism; Darwinism assumes it and ID does not. Both look at the same information but Darwinism interprets it through the prism of methodological naturalism while ID doesn't.

So, ID isn't assuming a superior being without proving it, Darwinism is the only theory that assumes anything about a superior being. Through methodological naturalism, it assumes that there is no superior being without logically justifying that assumption.

ID doesn't assume that a superior being exists or doesn't exist; it makes absolutely no assumptions regarding that. It looks at the evidence and, because methodological naturalism is not assumed, concludes that the most reasonable explanation is that some sort of intelligence designed life. ID doesn't say what that intelligence is. It could be God, it could be cylons, it could be aliens, who knows. ID doesn't answer that and doesn't attempt to answer that.

In short, ID makes absolutely no metaphysical assumptions of any kind while Darwinism does.

I must admit, I am a little leery to reopen this debate. It was a kind of a pandora's box when it was discussed in the "Expelled" thread (which is why it ended up being 7 pages long). That thread ultimately became a "war of attrition" of sorts. Most anything that needed saying was covered in that thread, IMO.

The article in the first post of this thread is interesting, but, in and of itself, doesn't change anything.

Again, thanks for first reading through that thread before posting. ;)
 
Thank you for doing that. It is greatly appreciated. A lot of ground was covered in that debate, a lot of energy and thought put into it, and it would be a waste of time to cover that ground again in this debate.

Well, I will say I didn't read every post - but, in looking over it - there didn't seem to be a lot regarding how evolution really differs from ID.

You seem to be putting the cart before the horse. ID doesn't assume a superior being or that this was the desired end result. In fact, ID is defined by a minimum of assumptions in the theory. Darwinism has more assumptions in it.

Shag, have you ever looked at the blind man and the skyscraper story - it is often used in defense of ID. The story asks how could a blind man start at the bottom of a skyscraper and end up at the top - unless he has 'help'. It uses that analogy to ask how could we start out as 'goo' (the basement of the skyscraper) and end up as the highly technological beings we are now (the penthouse)? The problem lies that you assume that the penthouse is the only destination. The blind man could have instead ended up outside, in a different building, that was much shorter and ended on the roof of that building. ID places that cart - the top of the penthouse - in front of the horse - evolution. ID 'assumes' we are the desired result.

ID doesn't assume that a superior being exists or doesn't exist; it makes absolutely no assumptions regarding that. It looks at the evidence and, because methodological naturalism is not assumed, concludes that the most reasonable explanation is that some sort of intelligence designed life. ID doesn't say what that intelligence is. It could be God, it could be cylons, it could be aliens, who knows. ID doesn't answer that and doesn't attempt to answer that.

What ID does do is assume we are the 'desired' result. Without that there is no need to look at the whole 'superior being' question. Do you understand that fairly important point Shag? We aren't a goal - as ID assumes. People who believe in ID take us, humans, and work backwards - implying that without some 'intervention' at some point 'we' as humans couldn't exist. But, if you work from the bottom 'goo' as it were, then we are a mere 'result', no intervention needed.

In short, ID makes absolutely no metaphysical assumptions of any kind while Darwinism does.

However, Shag, don't most view metaphysical assumptions as those that cannot be tested? Evolution can be tested, and recreated. However ID cannot either be tested or recreated.

I must admit, I am a little leery to reopen this debate. It was a kind of a pandora's box when it was discussed in the "Expelled" thread (which is why it ended up being 7 pages long). That thread ultimately became a "war of attrition" of sorts. Most anything that needed saying was covered in that thread, IMO.

The article in the first post of this thread is interesting, but, in and of itself, doesn't change anything.

Again, thanks for first reading through that thread before posting. ;)

Why the rolled eyes shag - I looked at the old thread - and I believe the idea that ID is a teleological process wasn't discussed.
 
I still don't understand how anybody can shun somebody who believes in creationism... Any way you slice it, you will always come back to the basic question of how and why anything exists in the first place. People assume that there has ALWAYS been some form of matter. In its purest most simple form, how and why did it exist?
 
Atheists reject the notion that life is too complex to have occurred randomly. Yet, just the theory that one RNA nucleotide could spontaneously appear in itself without an intelligent creator, is dubious at best. But this begs the question as to where did the chemicals come from that were necessary to generate one RNA nucleotide? No matter where, scientists must always contend it was all by mere coincidence--because, frankly, this is the only position they can take. ;) Otherwise, they're forced to admit that there must be a supernatural creator. :eek:


:I :Beer
 
That totally looks like a reputable site. I would trust that over wiki any day. :rolleyes: I wasn't claming creation is a ignorant view. You said "Chance chance could be etc etc"; that's what i was saying was ignorant.

How do you debunt the stuff posted? Is it the person that is debunked or the experiment or the conclusions? If it's the latter 2, how do they come to those conclusions? By replicating the experiment or giving reasons for why it would be?

I haven't seen these origin of life experiments too often, as a matter of fact, first time was about 2 weeks ago. Which leads me to think that these experiments aren't the center of focus, or aren't experimented on to often.

This made me rage in so many ways.

Funny thing about the weak minded, they all think the same way for the same reasons.

YouTube - 10 Questions every Atheist must answer

Now, i would post responses to those questions.... i would be talking to a wall though. At least deviate once in a while :Bang

Hey DUMBASS!

Just remember that nothing has been proven regarding the origin of the universe. NOTHING! The Big Bang is in dispute as well. So, when you atheist say prove there is a God, I say prove the scientific theories regarding the origin of the universe, including the origin of energy and matter. The bottom line is that scientist are no closer to proving how matter suddenly sprang into existence then those of us who believe in God can prove his existence through empirical data.

Nevertheless, it's only logical to ask how something can come from nothing. And it's only logical to wonder how could it be possible that everything from the a single atom, to chemicals, to the universe, and to life, are all a products of RANDOM chance. :D Bottom line is that you do not know squat except what you think you know. :rolleyes:

Speaking of weak minded! :D
 
Well, I will say I didn't read every post - but, in looking over it - there didn't seem to be a lot regarding how evolution really differs from ID.

Look for anything having to do with methodological naturalism.

ID 'assumes' we are the desired result.

Where? Can you prove that? It looks like nothing more then speculation and conjecture on your part. An analogy that has been used to defend ID doesn't prove that ID starts from a different perspective. ID starts from the same point of view as Darwinism ("evolution" is not a precise enough term, as there are many different definitions of evolution). ID doesn't "assume" we are the desired result any more then Darwinism does.

Here is the definition of teleology:
  1. The study of design or purpose in natural phenomena.
  2. The use of ultimate purpose or design as a means of explaining phenomena.
  3. Belief in or the perception of purposeful development toward an end, as in nature or history.
I assume you are talking about the 3rd definition, as that would seem most appropriate to this discussion. ID assumes no purpose. In fact, it assumes nothing. But it does know the end result; humans, and various other species today. Fossil records give an indication of life long before today. All this is the same for both ID and Darwinism. The only difference is that ID doesn't interpret how life came about by first disregarding the idea of anything other then natural causes. Darwinism assumes there is no explanation other then natural causes, then looks at the information and concludes Darwinian evolution is the means of creation of the various forms of diverse life. That is called circular reasoning. More importantly; it is decidedly not an empirically reached conclusion and thus, by any definition, cannot be considered a scientific conclusion. This all stems from the idea of methodological naturalism.

What ID does do is assume we are the 'desired' result. Without that there is no need to look at the whole 'superior being' question. Do you understand that fairly important point Shag?

I understand that you are claiming ID assumes something when it doesn't. ID looks at the info available without any preconceived notions (assumptions) and concludes that life could not come about randomly, and that it is more likely due to some sort of intelligence intervening in the process.

What you are doing is asserting the conclusion as an assumption used to reach the conclusion.

We aren't a goal - as ID assumes.

Again, what textual basis do you have for that?

People who believe in ID take us, humans, and work backwards

No more so the Darwinism.

However, Shag, don't most view metaphysical assumptions as those that cannot be tested?

Metaphysical means supernatural. Darwinism assumes the supernatural doesn't exist. ID doesn't assume it does or doesn't exist.

Evolution can be tested, and recreated. However ID cannot either be tested or recreated.

Darwinian evolution cannot be tested. It never has been and won't be. The process takes too long to test (millenia). What Darwin calls adaptation, and others call evolution can be tested. But in any discussion of ID verse evolution, "evolution" is referred to in the Darwinian sense as that is the only type of "evolution" that ID challenges. If you are going to keep saying evolution when referring to what Darwin calls adaptation, you are perpetuating a dishonest equivocation.

Why the rolled eyes shag - I looked at the old thread - and I believe the idea that ID is a teleological process wasn't discussed.

First; no rolled eyes. Check again.

Second, to call ID a teleological process is to mischaracterize it and set up a straw man; something most people seem to do without realizing it when it comes to ID (the disinformation and lies about ID are very pervasive).

Can you provide anything more then conjecture to show that ID is somehow a teleological process? Specifically in a way that Darwinism is not equally a teleological process?
 
I am waiting for the hrmwrm "wall 'o' text' post....
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top