A simple fusion to jump-start evolution

EurekAlert! ^ | 18-Dec-2008

[CE2949BB]

With the aid of a straightforward experiment, researchers have provided some clues to one of biology's most complex questions: how ancient organic molecules came together to form the basis of life.

[CE2949BB]

Paper: Nonenzymatic RNA ligation in water

[Matchett-PI]

Perspectives on an Evolving Creation by Keith B. Miller (Editor)
“Before Discussing how the relationship of “creation” and “evolution” might be best understood, it is useful first to define the terms...” (more)
Here: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/Education/origins/pec.htm
And here: http://www.amazon.com/Perspectives-Evolving-Creation-Keith-Miller/dp/0802805124

<>

Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? by Denis Alexander
http://www.amazon.com/Creation-Evolution-Do-Have-Choose/dp/1854247468

<>

Nature’s Witness: How Evolution Can Inspire Faith (Living Theology) by Daniel M. Harrell (Author), Tony Jones
http://www.amazon.com/Natures-Witness-Evolution-Inspire-Theology/dp/0687642353

<>

The Bible, Rocks and Time: Geological Evidence for the Age of the Earth by Davis A. Young (Author), Ralph F. Stearley (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Rocks-Time-Geological-Evidence/dp/0830828761

<>

Beyond the Firmament: Understanding Science and the Theology of Creation by Gordon J. Glover (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Firmament-Understanding-Theology-Creation/dp/0978718615

<>

Origins: A Reformed Look at Creation, Design, and Evolution by Deborah B. Haarsma (Author), Loren D. Haarsma (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Reformed-Creation-Design-Evolution/dp/tags-on-product/1592552277

bttt

[Coyoteman]

From the article:

They found that under favorable conditions (acidic environment and temperature lower than 70 C), pieces ranging from 10-24 in length could naturally fuse into larger fragments, generally within 14 hours.

The RNA fragments came together as double-stranded structures then joined at the ends. The fragments did not have to be the same size, but the efficiency of the reactions was dependent on fragment size (larger is better, though efficiency drops again after reaching around 100) and the similarity of the fragment sequences.

The researchers note that this spontaneous fusing, or ligation, would a simple way for RNA to overcome initial barriers to growth and reach a biologically important size; at around 100 bases long, RNA molecules can begin to fold into functional, 3D shapes.

Cool!

[js1138]

Ah, but I thought this was already settled in the negative, and research was futile.

Move on. Nothing to see here.

[woollyone]

Sew together some scrap tissue
...screw a bolt into each side of neck
...suspend from dilapidated Gothic castle tower during lightning storm...at night
...allow subject to be jolted to life.

...simple really.

Surprised it actually took so long for the evos to think of it, considering the movie has been out now, for what?...40 some odd years?

The movie sequel will be how eyes evolved...two of them!
wait for it....
...wait...
...hang in there...

SPOILER ALERT!!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The sun caused a sunspot with morphed into an eyeball...actually it happened TWICE...in the forehead region of a small critter...which evolved into stereoscopic vision...

..and there you have it.
Ain't fairy tales wonderful?

[freedumb2003]

So, you are saying this experiment did not happen?

[freedumb2003]

Ah, but I thought this was already settled in the negative, and research was futile.

Huh?

[js1138]

I believe that opinion was presented by tpanther. Apologies if I have the wrong poster. I’ll search for the reference.

I believe he has a quote form a chemist — someone who worked with Stanley Miller — to the effect that he tried as hard as he could to form complex molecules but failed. So no one else should try.

[Matchett-PI]

I meant to add this book to the list I posted in #2 above:

Evolution from Creation to New Creation: Conflict, Conversation, and Convergence by Ted Peters (Author), Martinez Hewlett (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Creation-New-Conversation-Convergence/dp/0687023742

bttt

[woollyone]

no I was going for the “thread-killer-sarcasm” post of the day award.

But, now that you asked...
yep, the experiment probably may have “happened”.

However, the real question is “does this prove the origins of life”?

No more so than the Frankenstein monster story.

But, like all hopeful monster theories, you're welcome to believe it if you wish.

However, any person who would actually say with a straight face that they believe that their ancestors were primordial ooze, them small mammals, the primates swinging from trees...well...that person has already began the conversation with silliness, so for me to “pile on” is rather expected and welcomed, don't you think?

And for you, I ask this...

Did you actually believe that this thread was finally the one where all the creationists would suddenly abandon their views for the crevo primate-tree-swinging-anscestor world view?

If so, you take yourself much too seriously FRiend.

[js1138]

Did you actually believe that this thread was finally the one where all the creationists would suddenly abandon their views for the crevo primate-tree-swinging-anscestor world view?

No. I expect that will take at least 400 years.

[freedumb2003]

You’re not familiar with how scientific inference works, do you?

Good thing scientists do, else you wouldn’t have most drugs available today.

Nor would you have electricity, airplanes, cars — we would be living in the 1st century, still.

[freedumb2003]

I knew you would help — I am a little behind (about 2 years).

[js1138]

Here’s the reference:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2150183/posts?page=118#118

“As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry – and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.

Edward Peltzer
Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry”

[RobRoy]

>>I believe he has a quote form a chemist — someone who worked with Stanley Miller — to the effect that he tried as hard as he could to form complex molecules but failed. So no one else should try.<<

Well dang. I was about to get a grant to do just that.

Never mind...

[js1138]

Here's the money quote:

But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.

I wonder, for example, what Mr. Land would have made of one of his chemists who took this attitude while working on instant film developing.

[freedumb2003]

I wonder, for example, what Mr. Land would have made of one of his chemists who took this attitude while working on instant film developing.

"It isn't possible, since chemistry says it is possible and my understanding of how chemistry works says it isn't possible. The fact that it works is just more hand-waving by people who have an agenda.

"Also, you have to prove how the Universe came into existence to show how instant film developing works."

[woollyone]

well THAT didn’t take long...

The silly argument aside...
“You’re not familiar with how scientific inference works, do you?”

...you mixed up your verbs.
So much for your “so much smarter than the rest” argument eh!?!

Speakin of rest.
give it one.
One thing we certainly know about science is that it can never know the end of all things, despite the arrogance of most scientists who are convinced that they actually do.

You’ll never convince me that my ancestors were primates and I’m only going to continue believe you when you say that yours were.

So here we remain stuck.
And on that thought, Merry Christmas.

[freedumb2003]

Yes I mixed my verbs — rethought the sentence and improperly used the Preview button. Grammar errors are not indicative of “smartness” — they are usually a sign the author was rushing. They certainly do not undermine the argument at hand (unless truly egregious).

Science is a tool that can be used to weigh data and come to conclusions. Those conclusions are evaluated by a rigorous method. Frequently those conclusions are put to use in practical ways — resulting in things like electricity, airplanes, drugs, cars, etc.

Any scientist who says that science knows the “end of all things” (from which I infer you mean the entirety of knowledge — it is hard to tell) is not a scientist at all.

As long as we don’t mess kids up by conflating science and religion, there is no problem. Beliefs are personal, but are of no value in science.

Merry Christmas to you and yours, also.

[GOPJ]

If there was one missing link stories like this would be more interesting. There are millions of missing links - and animals like sharks and stuff caught in amber are the same. Something big doesn’t add up.