Abiogenesis ─ and another biochemical angle

[A Vestigial Mote]

I am an atheist and my God is nature in a naturalistic sense

Good for you champ.

 

[Clara Tea]

diamidophosphate (DAP), which was plausibly present on Earth before life arose, could have chemically knitted together tiny DNA building blocks called deoxynucleosides into strands of primordial DNA. >More here<.

If it is further found that the chemical can think, you likely found God (created life and thinks).

 

[osgart]

Of course there is a natural way that RNA and DNA come to happen. This doesn't disprove intelligence nor does it address the phenomenon of consciousness and intelligent life. Find it all that way and my spirituality remains unaffected. It only addresses supernatural means of creation, no big deal.

It's still in the realm of could be possible as well.

There's more to life than chemicals.

 

[1213]

....Earth before life arose, could have chemically knitted together tiny DNA building blocks called deoxynucleosides into strands of primordial DNA.

Why does that matter? >More here<.

Could have doesn’t matter, because you could say that about anything and it really doesn’t mean it would have. Different thing would be, if they could demonstrate how life begins from nonliving items on its own.

 

[Ponder This]

In my days on Beliefnet, from time to time I used to ask the YECs whether, if science created life from non-life in the lab, they'd give up being YECs. And not once did I get a straight answer. It is a problem for them if life doesn't have miraculous beginnings.

If you didn't get an answer from them that they would give up being YECs, then that suggests that it isn't a problem for them if science can create life from non-life in the lab. Just saying.

 

[blü 2]

Based on you choice to agree or disagree.

Why did you place the OP in Religious Debates?

Because of its relevance to fundamentalism.

 

[blü 2]

Two big takeaways:

1. This suggests that a mixture of RNA and DNA may have been involved in the first living things, as opposed to a purely RNA world.

2. This may be a way to eliminate some of the enzymes used in PCR, thereby making it easier to use.

Yes, and if that survives the usual further scrutiny it will be a big step forward in our understanding of the elements at play in abiogenesis.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, and if that survives the usual further scrutiny it will be a big step forward in our understanding of the elements at play in abiogenesis.

One thing that still isn't clear to me is how proteins got into the picture.

 

[blü 2]

If you didn't get an answer from them that they would give up being YECs, then that suggests that it isn't a problem for them if science can create life from non-life in the lab. Just saying.

Yes. And it further suggested to me that their confidence in their position ─ that the only explanation for life is divine intervention ─ was not as solid as they'd previously proclaimed.

However, the history of eg religious leaders predicting particular days for God to end the world, or for the rapture &c, says that the customary response when a religious claim about reality is shown to be wrong, is not for the believer to unbelieve, but to devise an excuse, build it into the story, and keep on going down the old path.

 

[blü 2]

One thing that still isn't clear to me is how proteins got into the picture.

You've aroused my curiosity. I find Wikipedia offers this ─

Protein evolution is inescapably tied to changes and selection of DNA polymorphisms and mutations because protein sequences change in response to alterations in the DNA sequence. Amino acid sequences and nucleic acid sequences do not mutate at the same rate. Due to the degenerate nature of DNA, bases can change without affecting the amino acid sequence. For example, there are six codons that code for leucine. Thus, despite the difference in mutation rates, it is essential to incorporate nucleic acid evolution into the discussion of protein evolution.​

Which, at least in that form, is not yet the answer, but notice to stay tuned while they look for the details of the proto-pathway.

 

[Heyo]

You've aroused my curiosity. I find Wikipedia offers this ─

Protein evolution is inescapably tied to changes and selection of DNA polymorphisms and mutations because protein sequences change in response to alterations in the DNA sequence. Amino acid sequences and nucleic acid sequences do not mutate at the same rate. Due to the degenerate nature of DNA, bases can change without affecting the amino acid sequence. For example, there are six codons that code for leucine. Thus, despite the difference in mutation rates, it is essential to incorporate nucleic acid evolution into the discussion of protein evolution.​

Which, at least in that form, is not yet the answer, but notice to stay tuned while they look for the details of the proto-pathway.

Also, RNA can function as a protein. Which brought up the RNA world hypothesis in the first place as it doesn't require a synchronized evolution of DNA and proteins.

 

[blü 2]

If it is further found that the chemical can think, you likely found God (created life and thinks).

My biochemicals, with considerable help from my bioelectricity, do all my thinking, such as it is ─ so if we find a god to ask, and [he] has something different, I'll be very interested in [his] explanation.

 

[blü 2]

Could have doesn’t matter, because you could say that about anything and it really doesn’t mean it would have. Different thing would be, if they could demonstrate how life begins from nonliving items on its own.

You're not interested to know how life arose on earth over 3.5 bn years ago? You have no curiosity about how every one of your ancestors, across that enormous period of time, survived long enough to reproduce and so evolve, which is the only reason you're here and human?

Well, that's completely a matter for you, I guess.

 

[blü 2]

If you didn't get an answer from them that they would give up being YECs, then that suggests that it isn't a problem for them if science can create life from non-life in the lab. Just saying.

A fair point, but the question arises from their original and adamantine insistence that it was impossible for life to come into being without divine intervention ─ indeed, they required it for each "kind" (a word that blurs genus and species) and deliberately cultivated ignorance of evolution, how it worked and how we know.

 

[blü 2]

Also, RNA can function as a protein. Which brought up the RNA world hypothesis in the first place as it doesn't require a synchronized evolution of DNA and proteins.

That make sense, if RNA is intrinsic to proto-proteins. Thanks.

 

[wellwisher]

Science Today reports:

In a study published in the chemistry journal Angewandte Chemie, [chemists at Scripps Research] demonstrated that a simple compound called diamidophosphate (DAP), which was plausibly present on Earth before life arose, could have chemically knitted together tiny DNA building blocks called deoxynucleosides into strands of primordial DNA.​

Why does that matter? >More here<.

The first problem is, the researchers will not be able to prove DAP existed billion years ago. It would be like me saying unicorns created life. Others would expected me to show fossils evidence at the very least. This idea may be a synthetic pathway, that could have applications in medicine. But for life formation, it needs proof of DAP from a billion year ago, or it is a synthetic pathway than may do the say thing, artificially.

Life on earth formed in water. Water was the environment, at the nano-scale, for the natural selection of chemicals leading to life. This selection process in a water based environment is why nothing in a cell will work in other solvents. Everything was picked to be tuned to water.

The analogy is a polar bear that evolved in the cold Arctic, His body systems are suited to the cold, since this is how it needs to be, to be optimized in the Arctic. He cannot be placed at the equator, and still be expected to function properly. Like the cold helping to select the physiology of the polar bear; thick fur, water chose which chemicals best coordinated with the water. It is not coincidental that the DNA is the most hydrated molecule in the cell. This was chosen by the water, due to being so close to water as to minimize the potential. DNA was not a random event or selection.

A better model for abiogenesis would begin with water, since that was there from day one and never changes cover time. Water is a bookend for potential. The best way to form life is to make use of the simple principles observed in a system of water and oil. Oil and water do not mix. Pure water is very stable due to hydrogen bonding. If we add oil the oil disrupts the stability of hydrogen bonding in water and adds surface tension. To lower the potential the oil is expelled to another phase.

The organic of life, being carbon compounds, cause water to gain potential to various degrees. This is similar to the water-oil analogy. Even ethanol, which is soluble in water, creates potential in water because of organic atoms. There is this lingering potential relative to pure waster. Pure water is already at lowest potential being a terminal product of combustion in oxygen. Water does not change even with lingering potential. The entire push is on the carbon compounds to lower the water-oil potential. RNA and DNA are two molecules that creates the least disturbance and potential in water. There is some potential, but only enough to assist in synthesis, but not enough to change the entire molecule.

The internal water environment within life, drives evolution from the inside, by creating a stable chemical bookend, to fight the lingering oil-water potential created by almost all organics in water. The organic need to change with evolution heading toward minimal water potential. Multicellular uses the same DNA for all cells yet each cell has a unique expression. These are all ways to lower the potential of the original mother cell; spread her out.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Of course there is a natural way that RNA and DNA come to happen. This doesn't disprove intelligence nor does it address the phenomenon of consciousness and intelligent life. Find it all that way and my spirituality remains unaffected. It only addresses supernatural means of creation, no big deal.

It's still in the realm of could be possible as well.

There's more to life than chemicals.

For it to be possible, all you have to do is effectively point out the supernatural component. Poof out of thin air arguments tend to be a bit wanting.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course there is a natural way that RNA and DNA come to happen. This doesn't disprove intelligence nor does it address the phenomenon of consciousness and intelligent life. Find it all that way and my spirituality remains unaffected. It only addresses supernatural means of creation, no big deal.

It's still in the realm of could be possible as well.

There's more to life than chemicals.

That does not appear to be the case. We can see increasing intelligence in various species of animals. Apes are one of the most intelligent groups of animals and humans are merely the most intelligent apes. There is no evidence that I know of that shows that our intelligence is terribly higher than that of other apes. More intelligent? Yes. Unattainably higher? Not even close.

 

[Polymath257]

Of course there is a natural way that RNA and DNA come to happen. This doesn't disprove intelligence nor does it address the phenomenon of consciousness and intelligent life. Find it all that way and my spirituality remains unaffected. It only addresses supernatural means of creation, no big deal.

It's still in the realm of could be possible as well.

There's more to life than chemicals.

But life is, at base, a complex collection of chemical reactions that maintain internal stability and are able to reproduce.

 

[osgart]

But life is, at base, a complex collection of chemical reactions that maintain internal stability and are able to reproduce.

That's life as observed from the outside looking in. It says nothing about inner experience, and what presents itself from within.