It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by rhinoceros
Originally posted by edmc^2
So how did them "Inanimate RNA molecules" came to be before they became "autocatalytic RNA molecules" then?
Thru natural chemical processes.
Text ......Scientists have long suspected that the first forms of life carried their biological information not in DNA but in RNA, its close chemical cousin. Though DNA is better known because of its storage of genetic information, RNA performs many of the trickiest operations in living cells. RNA seems to have delegated the chore of data storage to the chemically more stable DNA eons ago. If the first forms of life were based on RNA, then the issue is to explain how the first RNA molecules were formed.
For more than 20 years researchers have been working on this problem. The building blocks of RNA, known as nucleotides, each consist of a chemical base, a sugar molecule called ribose and a phosphate group. Chemists quickly found plausible natural ways for each of these constituents to form from natural chemicals. But there was no natural way for them all to join together.
The spontaneous appearance of such nucleotides on the primitive earth “would have been a near miracle,” two leading researchers, Gerald Joyce and Leslie Orgel, wrote in 1999. Others were so despairing that they believed some other molecule must have preceded RNA and started looking for a pre-RNA world.
The miracle seems now to have been explained. In the article in Nature, Dr. Sutherland and his colleagues Matthew W. Powner and Béatrice Gerland report that they have taken the same starting chemicals used by others but have caused them to react in a different order and in different combinations than in previous experiments. they discovered their recipe, which is far from intuitive, after 10 years of working through every possible combination of starting chemicals.
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. Dr. Sutherland said he had not yet found natural ways to generate the other two types of nucleotides found in RNA molecules, but synthesis of the first two was thought to be harder to achieve.
If all four nucleotides formed naturally, they would zip together easily to form an RNA molecule with a backbone of alternating sugar and phosphate groups. The bases attached to the sugar constitute a four-letter alphabet in which biological information can be represented.
“My assumption is that we are here on this planet as a fundamental consequence of organic chemistry,” Dr. Sutherland said. “So it must be chemistry that wants to work.”
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.”
Dr. Sutherland’s proposal has not convinced everyone.
.....................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.”
“in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts.”
Dr. Robert Shapiro, a chemist at New York University, said the recipe “definitely does not meet my criteria for a plausible pathway to the RNA world.” He said that cyano-acetylene, one of Dr. Sutherland’s assumed starting materials, is quickly destroyed by other chemicals and its appearance in pure form on the early earth “could be considered a fantasy.”
A serious puzzle about the nature of life is that most of its molecules are right-handed or left-handed, whereas in nature mixtures of both forms exist. Dr. Joyce said he had hoped an explanation for the one-handedness of biological molecules would emerge from prebiotic chemistry, but Dr. Sutherland’s reactions do not supply any such explanation. One is certainly required because of what is known to chemists as “original syn,” referring to a chemical operation that can affect a molecule’s handedness.
Dr. Sutherland’s reactions do not supply any such explanation.
how to enclose the primitive RNA molecules in some kind of membrane as the precursor to the first living cell.
.
‘What we lack still, as mentioned earlier, is a plausible model for the origin of fats.” (Page 145)
mentally challenged
Originally posted by edmc^2
And on thing is clear NO Life was created from inanimate materials. All they've accomplish was an ingenious way of synthesizing and manipulating existing (RNA) materials like the RIBOZYMES - to self-assemble and self-replicate - just like other chemical reactions. And then assumed that this might have been the way how life got its start -
how about you apply the same level of criticism to whatever book you consider holy?
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by rhinoceros
how about you apply the same level of criticism to whatever book you consider holy?
Yeah, chances of that happening are about as high as seeing a pig fly through the sky like an eagle
Originally posted by Barcs
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by rhinoceros
how about you apply the same level of criticism to whatever book you consider holy?
Yeah, chances of that happening are about as high as seeing a pig fly through the sky like an eagle
A creationist holding their religion to the same impossible standards they falsely hold science to? That'll be the day This guy doesn't even understand the differences between science and religion, despite it being explained several times and probably has never been to an actual school. Another victim of bad parenting and home schooling. Break the system, EMC2, don't blindly believe something because your parents or Kent Hovind says so.edit on 25-4-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)
never been to an actual school....Break the system, EMC2, don't blindly believe something because your parents or Kent Hovind says so.
This guy doesn't even understand the differences between science and religion,
Originally posted by rhinoceros
Originally posted by edmc^2
And on thing is clear NO Life was created from inanimate materials. All they've accomplish was an ingenious way of synthesizing and manipulating existing (RNA) materials like the RIBOZYMES - to self-assemble and self-replicate - just like other chemical reactions. And then assumed that this might have been the way how life got its start -
That's the whole point. To see how complex things need to be in order to become autocatalytic. Turns out, not very complex. All that was needed in this case was 4 RNA strands of ca. 50 nt length each. If you read the whole thing, you must have noticed that their next plan was to try it with even shorter pieces? Either way, they already showed that from short pieces of RNA rise autocatalytic molecules (RNA life). Then the other experiment showed how the material, i.e. the RNA pieces, could also form naturally. That's it. Their aim was not to prove abiogenesis, but to show that it's possible. And that they did. Anyway, I'm very impressed you manage to be critical about the material, now how about you apply the same level of criticism to whatever book you consider holy?edit on 24-4-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by rhinoceros
how about you apply the same level of criticism to whatever book you consider holy?
Yeah, chances of that happening are about as high as seeing a pig fly through the sky like an eagle
This guy doesn't even understand the differences between science and religion, despite it being explained several times and probably has never been to an actual school. Another victim of bad parenting and home schooling. Break the system, EMC2,
Originally posted by edmc^2
so you really believe that man can create life from non-living things Dr. Frankenstein?
Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by edmc^2
I understand the calculations, but what does that have to do with a creator or fine tuning? Obviously a planet's orbit around the sun is directly proportionate to the gravitational pull of the sun and distance from the sun. It makes logical sense.
You're essentially using the same formula that I mentioned earlier in the thread.
1. State scientific or mathematical fact.
2. Compare it with something using equivocation / false association.
3. Make wild assumption based on the facts that really has nothing to do with them.
How do you know that the planet's orbits are fine tuned by an external force and not just the result of the sun's gravity? Where do you see the fine tuning that can't happen naturally?edit on 26-4-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by rhinoceros
Originally posted by edmc^2
so you really believe that man can create life from non-living things Dr. Frankenstein?
I believe these scientists are not lying about the experiment they did, in which RNA life arose from short stretches of RNA.
RNA life arose from short stretches of RNA.
Chemist Shows How RNA Can Be the Starting Point for Life
Originally posted by edmc^2
where did they say that they created life?
Can you please point it to me?
And do you actually believe that RNA is alive - that it's LIFE?
Or is it just a building block for life - ingredient for life?
Like what the title of the article said:
Chemist Shows How RNA Can Be the Starting Point for Life
know what I mean?
tc
They create the environment for the experiment based on earth back when they believe first life started...
...and given that we have ZERO evidence that the environment back then was influenced by some "intelligence", as long as they recreate the environment correctly...no...no fine tuner required.
So unless you can provide objective evidence that the environment back then was the result of some "intelligence", a successful experiment like that is in fact a strong indication that life can in fact arise through natural forces without any magic guidance.
The only way to define life so that it includes bacteria, archaea, and eukarya, and excludes autocatalytic RNA, is to insist that life has to be DNA-based or cellular, but how would you back that up? Who are you to claim that life needs to be that. I doubt very much that would you e.g. argue that your God has DNA or cells just like us? You're right, they didn't write anywhere that they created life, but that doesn't mean that it isn't exactly what happened, i.e. they created primitive RNA life very similar to hypothesized early RNA world life.
Originally posted by edmc^2
Why can't you just answer a simple question - Is RNA a living thing?
Originally posted by edmc^2
Is the Autocatalytic RNA that scientists synthesize in the lab a living thing?
Originally posted by edmc^2
But a body that is NOT breathing - taking in oxygen and exhaling carbon dioxide - is dead - inanimate.
Originally posted by edmc^2
Reason why you can't see why a Master Tuner is needed in order to fine tune a system - any system - is your lack of logic and common sense.
Sure you understand the calculations - but that just about it - your knowledge can't go any further because you don't have the thinking ability to logically think things through.
The only answer you've got is either it evolve or we doooon't knowwww!
How do you know that the planet's orbits are fine tuned by an external force and not just the result of the sun's gravity? Where do you see the fine tuning that can't happen naturally?
How do you know that the planet's orbits are fine tuned by an external force and not just the result of the sun's gravity? Where do you see the fine tuning that can't happen naturally?
Please answer the questions, and don't resort to saying some nonsense like, "You aren't smart enough to notice it". Give me the evidence or admit its faith. It's not that hard.
Originally posted by rhinoceros
Originally posted by edmc^2
Why can't you just answer a simple question - Is RNA a living thing?
Because there is no universally accepted definition of life.
Originally posted by edmc^2
Is the Autocatalytic RNA that scientists synthesize in the lab a living thing?
In my opinion, yes. It can reproduce itself and evolve under natural selection.
Originally posted by edmc^2
But a body that is NOT breathing - taking in oxygen and exhaling carbon dioxide - is dead - inanimate.
Really? Stuff needs to breath oxygen to be considered life in your books? Your definition of life excludes like 99.99% of life on Earth. Are you seriously arguing that e.g. bacteria are not alive?edit on 27-4-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)
In my opinion, yes. It can reproduce itself and evolve under natural selection.