Posted on 07/22/2008 5:37:49 PM PDT by Soliton
Many scientists believe that life started out as nothing more than strands of proto-genetic material known as RNA. A new device automates studies of RNA evolution and could lend insights into the origin of life on Earth.
“This is testing evolution – real evolution, not a simulation. The molecules are evolving a new function before your eyes,” says Joyce.
(Excerpt) Read more at astrobio.net ...
Who built the machine? Or did it assemble its self?
I wish there were more detail in this article. How plausible would it be in Earth’s history that a given RNA strand would be in a soup containing suitable oligonucleotides and appropriate proteins for self-replication? A related question is under what conditions would such oligonucleotides (and proteins) be created abiotically and in quantity?
I posted another thread a couple a days ago. They have found RNA enzymes (Ribozymes)that can reproduce. Crick predicted it in 1969.
It is simply protons, neutrons and electrons assembled by other protons, neutrons, and electrons that were assembled by biological/ chemical processes that occur naturally.
Then the results are meaningless happenstance. Thanks.
Everything is meaningless to those without the knowledge , education, and willingness to understand the meaning.
Wrong. The RNA had to be fed nucleotides which were generated for it by people.
Also, unless you believe in cold fusion, protons and neutrons are not assembled into elements under terrestrial conditions using "biological/chemical processes;" the elements necessary for life were probably generated long ago and far away by nuclear processes in stars, which are not considered to be within the realm of "chemistry."
People are the protons, neutrons and electrons that I was referring to that arose from naturally occuring biological/ chemical processes.
“early studies began with a pool of random RNA sequences and challenged them to attach an oligonucleotide to themselves. The oligonucleotide bore a signal that recruited proteins, also present in the mixture, which in turn replicated the RNA. This enabled successful RNA sequences to be reproduced, just as occurs in natural selection.”
Sorry guys, you’re chasing a wild goose. Evolution and creation are not two sides of the same coin.
Evolution — improving a population through selection and mutation — does occur; it is a widely recognized branch of computing these days (see for example http://www.amazon.com/dp/3540401849) as well as biology.
The existence of evolution says nothing about the creation of life.
Who designed the blueprint for the machines?
My point is that life on earth is made up of protons, neutrons and electrons (together an "atom") just like the experimental machine is. I left out the step that some lighter atoms were formed in the big bang, some elements are formed by fusion in single stars, some in successions of stars, and those heavier than iron are formed in super-novae.
These protons, neutrons, and eletrons are arranged by the natural occuring chemival/biological processes.
darwinism says nothing about the origins of life, but chemical evolution does
There is absolutely nothing in the linked article which indicates where people came from. You are trying to stretch a very limited experiment in order to support your belief that our existence is a matter of pure chance. You continue to neglect, or seek to distract attention from, these facts: 1) the RNA molecules did not assemble themselves at the beginning of the experiment, and 2) the RNA was fed by highly intelligent beings using very sophisticated apparatus.
And again, protons, neutrons, and electrons do not arise by "biological/chemical processes!"
Aren't atoms made up of protons, neutrons and electrons. Do not atoms join other atoms based on their outer shell electrons and isn't that the definition of chemistry? Aren't we made of atoms and doesn't our remaining alive depend on chemical processes?
I’d like to see it, if I can find it.
Still, from what I’ve seen elsewhere, a plausible “bootstrap” scenario is still lacking, where enough of the first self-replicating molecules (let alone their precursors) are generated abiotically and randomly from simpler stuff, in stable conditions where they can then self-replicate for a good long time, sufficiently long to yield versions of greater and greater robustness.
I also haven’t seen a serious analysis addressing the statistical likelihood of those conditions occurring spontaneously somewhere, some time on the early Earth. I have seen some hand waving, but that leaves us deep in the world of conjecture.
Psychologists and others in the humanities run into something similar all the time.
You can control things in the lab, yes; but away from the lab how many other factors are interfering or overshadowing the subtle effects you have isolated?
Cheers!
Cheers!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080717140459.htm
Glimpses Of Earliest Forms Of Life On Earth: Remnant Of Ancient ‘RNA World’ Discovered
“We predicted that there would be an ancient ‘RNA city’ out there in the jungle, and we went out and found it,’’ Breaker said.
Bacterial use of RNA to trigger major changes without the involvement of proteins resolves one of the questions about the origin of life: If proteins are needed to carry out life’s functions and DNA is needed to make proteins, how did DNA arise?
The answer is what Breaker and other researchers call the RNA World. They believe that billions of years ago, single strands of nucleotides that comprise RNA were the first forms of life and carried out some of the complicated cellular functions now done by proteins. The riboswitches are highly conserved in bacteria, illustrating their importance and ancient ancestry, Breaker said
How is this different than experimental research in any other branch of science?
Thanx.
That is, while you may be able to remove the confusing causes in the lab, once you are in the wild, it becomes much more of a challenge to list all of them, let alone assign them relative or absolute importance.
And as far as history -- we can't re-create the battle of Waterloo; and we can't *guarantee* that the mole fractions of the substrates used in these experiments is a good approximation to those present under primodial conditions; let alone the other conditions.
(Was it you who posted the fascinating article about the kinetics of self-organization of RNA at low T??)
All it means is, the conclusions are not as easily extended as they might be in some other physics/engineering studies.
Or, as Murphy's Laws state, "under the most rigorously controlled conditions of temperature, pressure, and humidity, the organism will do as it damn well pleases."
Cheers!
And again, the experiment does not demonstrate that nucleic acids can form without assistance from intelligent living beings. (It doesn't prove they can't, either.)
Did you miss my reply that stated how elements were formed in stars?
It's obvious you are an ideological zealot who wants to see evolution everywhere, even where there is no evidence. That's exactly like the people who keep harping on Global Warming.
” The existence of evolution says nothing about the creation of life.” Say what?
That assumes evolution as fact. Evolutionary theory deals with change over time so unless one is willing to say life had no beginning point, evolution must deal with the creation of life. And if something had a beginning point it was at one point in time not alive before it was alive.
The argument is over the causative agent not whether there was one.
No I didn't, I just wasn't explicit. I thought I corrected that. All experiments require an experimenter. This fact does not invalidate all experimental results.
What barrier do you see in chemistry that would prevent pyrimidine and purine from naturally producing RNA over say a billion years?
No I didn't, I just wasn't explicit. I thought I corrected that. All experiments require an experimenter. This fact does not invalidate all experimental results.
What barrier do you see in chemistry that would prevent pyrimidine and purine from naturally producing RNA over say a billion years?
You "corrected it," then went right back to stating that a bunch of elementary subatomic particles sat around and spontaneously turned into nucleic acids and even human beings! You're using tactics reminiscent of Barack Obama. Your whole approach is to convince people of a radically materialistic, reductionist worldview regarding everything in life, including human beings.
The idea that there ever was or can be an "RNA world," capable of developing spontaneously into complex life, is pure speculation at this point, not hard science. The article you cite is junk science, like the one on mustard plants "evolving" in few years. Darwin himself would be horrified by that one. He sat on his ideas for decades, rather than shooting off his mouth in order to get grants and glory.
“The article you cite is junk science.”
Ribozymes and Riboswitches have been found as predicted by the RNA world hypothesis. That is not “junk science”.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080717140459.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.