PDA

View Full Version : Model Suggests How Life's Code Emerged From Primordial Soup



The Night Owl
09-01-2009, 10:26 AM
Model Suggests How Life's Code Emerged From Primordial Soup

by ScienceDaily

ScienceDaily (Aug. 31, 2009) — In 1952, Stanley Miller filled two flasks with chemicals assumed to be present on the primitive Earth, connected the flasks with rubber tubes and introduced some electrical sparks as a stand-in for lightning. The now famous experiment showed what amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, could easily be generated from this primordial stew. But despite that seminal experiment, neither he nor others were able to take the next step: that of showing how life’s code could come from such humble beginnings.

By working with the simplest amino acids and elementary RNAs, physicists led by Rockefeller University’s Albert J. Libchaber, head of the Laboratory of Experimental Condensed Matter Physics, have now generated the first theoretical model that shows how a coded genetic system can emerge from an ancestral broth of simple molecules. “All these molecules have different properties and these properties define their interactions,” says first author Jean Lehmann, a postdoctoral fellow in the lab, whose work appears in the June issue of PLoS One. “What are the constraints that allow these molecules to self-organize into a code? We can play with that.”

The genetic code is a triplet code such that every triplet sequence of letters on messenger RNA corresponds to one of the 20 amino acids that make up proteins. Molecular adapters called transfer RNAs (tRNAs) then convert this information into proteins that can achieve some specific tasks in the organism. Let’s say that each triplet sequence on messenger RNA, known as a codon, represents an outlet that can only accept a tRNA with a complementary anticodon. Translation works because each codon-anticodon match corresponds with an amino acid. As each tRNA is plugged in, a chain of amino acids is formed in the same order as the codons until translation is complete.

...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090829091049.htm

Rebel Yell
09-01-2009, 10:28 AM
http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k6/bajan_2006/not_again_cat1.jpg

linda22003
09-01-2009, 10:37 AM
The headline led me to believe that Claudia Schiffer, Kate Moss, or Heidi Klum had come up with her own theory of evolution. That might be pretty interesting.

http://dimpost.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/hot_for_teacher.jpg

jinxmchue
09-01-2009, 02:16 PM
In 1952, Stanley Miller filled two flasks with chemicals assumed to be present on the primitive Earth

Um... Except, of course, that decades later, scientists decided that the experiment actually didn't accurately represent the conditions on the "primitive Earth." I guess that as long as you don't widely broadcast that information, it's okay to run with the experiment's results today.

FlaGator
09-01-2009, 02:58 PM
Scientific proof of planned alien invasion.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Finally-proof-that-theres-an-Alien-invasion-base-on-Moon

stsinner
09-01-2009, 03:09 PM
Scientific proof of planned alien invasion.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Finally-proof-that-theres-an-Alien-invasion-base-on-Moon

LOL.. As I watched that silly video I couldn't help by feel sorry for the man who did the majority of the narrating...

wilbur
09-01-2009, 05:56 PM
Um... Except, of course, that decades later, scientists decided that the experiment actually didn't accurately represent the conditions on the "primitive Earth." I guess that as long as you don't widely broadcast that information, it's okay to run with the experiment's results today.

Well, the nice thing about science is, it never stops with just one experiment. Experiments in this area have been ongoing since that time... and there has been much success in naturally producing pre-biotic organic molecules under a variety of conditions.... and they've even found pre-biotics in space.

"Debunking" the Miller experiments does nothing to discredit the dozens (if not hundreds) of experiments that have been done since that time... but Miller's experiment will always be notable, because it was the first.

BadCat
09-01-2009, 05:59 PM
Well, the nice thing about science is, it never stops with just one experiment. Experiments in this area have been ongoing since that time... and there has been much success in naturally producing pre-biotic organic molecules under a variety of conditions.... and they've even found pre-biotics in space.

"Debunking" the Miller experiments does nothing to discredit the dozens (if not hundreds) of experiments that have been done since that time.

They found those things in yogurt that keep you "regular", in space?

FlaGator
09-01-2009, 09:36 PM
Well, the nice thing about science is, it never stops with just one experiment. Experiments in this area have been ongoing since that time... and there has been much success in naturally producing pre-biotic organic molecules under a variety of conditions.... and they've even found pre-biotics in space.

"Debunking" the Miller experiments does nothing to discredit the dozens (if not hundreds) of experiments that have been done since that time... but Miller's experiment will always be notable, because it was the first.

Actually the problem they are finding is that there seems to have been way too much oxygen in the atmosphere at the time the primordial soup is suspected to have instigated life. Those experiments that fact alone. Life as we know it can't arise in an oxygen laden atmosphere. I have also read recently that there is some evidence indicating that the oldest life may have begun on land.

All in all, however, until they can demonstrate that dna can be spontaneously generated in at a much early point in creation than the one in which most of the experiments are based.

Rockntractor
09-01-2009, 09:38 PM
Well, the nice thing about science is, it never stops with just one experiment. Experiments in this area have been ongoing since that time... and there has been much success in naturally producing pre-biotic organic molecules under a variety of conditions.... and they've even found pre-biotics in space.

"Debunking" the Miller experiments does nothing to discredit the dozens (if not hundreds) of experiments that have been done since that time... but Miller's experiment will always be notable, because it was the first.

Except with science when it comes to global warming. That is settled!

FlaGator
09-01-2009, 09:39 PM
They found those things in yogurt that keep you "regular", in space?

Pre-biotic is a nice way of saying not biotic. A rock can be considered pre-biotic based on it's mineral make up. I think back to the pet rock and realize that it was an idea that was not quite ready to spring to live.

Bubba Dawg
09-01-2009, 09:45 PM
The headline led me to believe that Claudia Schiffer, Kate Moss, or Heidi Klum had come up with her own theory of evolution. That might be pretty interesting.

http://dimpost.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/hot_for_teacher.jpg

Me too, like Soup a Man Could Enjoy....that kind of thing.

JB
09-01-2009, 10:17 PM
Warning: Classic bait and switch thread. There are no models.

PS - God created the primordial soup.

wilbur
09-01-2009, 11:46 PM
Actually the problem they are finding is that there seems to have been way too much oxygen in the atmosphere at the time the primordial soup is suspected to have instigated life. Those experiments that fact alone. Life as we know it can't arise in an oxygen laden atmosphere. I have also read recently that there is some evidence indicating that the oldest life may have begun on land.


Well, not exactly... a few scientists forwarding a hypothesis that is, as of yet, inconclusive is does not translate to "[scientists] are finding that there seems to have been way too much oxygen". The more established theory (with the most significant evidence behind it) is that the pre-biotic earth had very little oxygen. I'm not even sure that the other theory is vigorously advanced by anyone but the creationists.



All in all, however, until they can demonstrate that dna can be spontaneously generated in at a much early point in creation than the one in which most of the experiments are based.

Not quite sure what you are trying to say here... but they are getting ever closer to RNA.

The Night Owl
09-02-2009, 09:48 AM
Not quite sure what you are trying to say here... but they are getting ever closer to RNA.

True. From June...


How RNA got started
Scientists identify chemical reactions that could be responsible for the origin of life

By Solmaz Barazesh

Scientists may have figured out the chemistry that sparked the beginning of life on Earth.

The new findings map out a series of simple, efficient chemical reactions that could have formed molecules of RNA, a close cousin of DNA, from the basic materials available more than 3.85 billion years ago, researchers report online May 13 in Nature.

“This is a very impressive piece of work — a really excellent analysis,” comments chemist James Ferris of the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y.

...

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/43723/title/How_RNA_got_started

Rebel Yell
09-02-2009, 11:27 AM
If life did begin from a chemical reaction, much like these experiments, someone put the pieces together.:rolleyes:

wilbur
09-02-2009, 12:34 PM
If life did begin from a chemical reaction, much like these experiments, someone put the pieces together.:rolleyes:

I think I get it... so if an experiment proves that life can form naturally, that is proof that life was designed?

:D

Rebel Yell
09-02-2009, 12:40 PM
I think I get it... so if an experiment proves that life can form naturally, that is proof that life was designed?

:D

So, if a scientist puts the elements together, that proves it's natural?

wilbur
09-02-2009, 12:53 PM
So, if a scientist puts the elements together, that proves it's natural?

It would prove that life can emerge on its own, given certain initial conditions. But it would be no more proof of a cosmic tinkerer, than is mold growing on expired food in refrigerators, in the bachelor pads all across the nation. ;)

FlaGator
09-02-2009, 01:30 PM
It would prove that life can emerge on its own, given certain initial conditions. But it would be no more proof of a cosmic tinkerer, than is mold growing on expired food in refrigerators, in the bachelor pads all across the nation. ;)

How does a scientist tinkering with an array of chemicals prove that no one needed to tinker with an array of chemicals in order to create life? All it would prove is that life can be created with outside intervention.

Rockntractor
09-02-2009, 01:34 PM
How does a scientist tinkering with an array of chemicals prove that no one needed to tinker with an array of chemicals in order to create life? All it would prove is that life can be created with outside intervention.

Come on Flagator get with the program. Everyone knows that if you fill a barrel with different chemicals and roll it long enough eventially life will pop out of it!

The Night Owl
09-02-2009, 03:45 PM
How does a scientist tinkering with an array of chemicals prove that no one needed to tinker with an array of chemicals in order to create life? All it would prove is that life can be created with outside intervention.

Scientists can simulate conditions in which no tinkerer is needed.

FlaGator
09-02-2009, 04:57 PM
Scientists can simulate conditions in which no tinkerer is needed.

By tinkering with the conditions... The experiment itself contradicts it's own conclusion.

wilbur
09-02-2009, 05:24 PM
Scientists can simulate conditions in which no tinkerer is needed.

Right. Abiogenesis experiments are simply simulations of presumed natural conditions on primordial earth. Just like any model, the variables are plugged in, its run, then the results are observed.



By tinkering with the conditions... The experiment itself contradicts it's own conclusion.


The ability to design a model does not logically permit one to conclude that the thing being modelled must have been designed too.

To infer design, one has to look elsewhere. Perhaps one might investigate the probability that something could exist naturally, without sentient design. But there is nothing improbable about the conditions abiogenesis researchers try to simulate. Come to think of it, I imagine they constrain themselves to investigating only that which is at least probable enough to have actually occurred naturally... because that's the point.

What they arent doing, is looking for a way to stitch together a manufactured designer organism - there are other fields of biology research that are attempting to do just that. In some ways, their task is probably much easier than that of abiogenesis researchers. Should they succeed in actually manufacturing a synthetic cell in this manner (think factories and assembly lines as opposed to primordial soup) it will be largely irrelevant to abiogenesis theories.

The Night Owl
09-02-2009, 05:24 PM
By tinkering with the conditions... The experiment itself contradicts it's own conclusion.

If you place a rock in a shady area and then notice moss growing on it a few days later would you assume that moss won't grow on rocks unless humans position them? Of course not.

aerojarod
09-02-2009, 05:42 PM
If you place a rock in a shady area and then notice moss growing on it a few days later would you assume that moss won't grow on rocks unless humans position them? Of course not.

What's this about Kate Moss and my growing rock hard...?

Constitutionally Speaking
09-02-2009, 08:25 PM
On the OP.


Talk about needing faith to believe something. That is FAR more of a stretch than the God scenario.

FlaGator
09-02-2009, 09:02 PM
If you place a rock in a shady area and then notice moss growing on it a few days later would you assume that moss won't grow on rocks unless humans position them? Of course not.

I've placed some bread, mayo, ham, cheese and a butter knife on the kitchen counter. I'm going to see how long it takes for a ham sandwich to leap on a plate. I'll probably have to put it together myself when I get hungry but it does prove that it would have done so without my help.

wilbur
09-02-2009, 09:16 PM
On the OP.


Talk about needing faith to believe something. That is FAR more of a stretch than the God scenario.

At least you realize the god scenario is a stretch. That's progress.

wilbur
09-02-2009, 09:17 PM
I've placed some bread, mayo, ham, cheese and a butter knife on the kitchen counter. I'm going to see how long it takes for a ham sandwich to leap on a plate. I'll probably have to put it together myself when I get hungry but it does prove that it would have done so without my help.

Perhaps you need to learn about chemical bonds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_bond) and the electromagnetic force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_force).

The Night Owl
09-02-2009, 09:27 PM
On the OP.

Talk about needing faith to believe something. That is FAR more of a stretch than the God scenario.

There's nothing wrong with having faith as long as it's grounded in evidence.