Scientific advances in abiogenesis

[shunyadragon]

Well. I have said what had to be. No one has demonstrated that RNA is first life or spark of life. I would declare "A key chemical component of living systems synthesised in laboratory".

Hyperbole such as "Life's First Spark re-created in laboratory" is not scientific, IMO, since we actually do not know what life is. If we knew we would have recreated life itself. I will stop here. Thanks for your response and for patience.

Picking over the title is a problem when ignoring the full context of the article and the research involved. The process was developing a natural environment with naturally occuring chemicals, and not synthesising by artificial means. Scientists have already done that long ago for RNA, and even custom build RNA and DNA.

See: Long RNA Oligo Synthesis, Synthetic RNA company - Bio-Synthesis

Your religious agenda and reading comprehension in science remains a problem.

 

[Salvador]

Wormholes are one way around the space/time continuum. Tequila is another.

Creating a gravitational wormhole for rapid interstellar space travel would require huge amounts of gravitational energy - something Earth bound scientists presently don't know how to do. However, physicists have created a tiny magnetic wormhole used to connect 2 regions of space in order for a magnetic field to travel 'invisibly' between them.

Reference: Jordi Prat-Camps, Carles Navau, Alvaro Sanchez. A Magnetic Wormhole. Scientific Reports, 2015; 5: 12488 DOI: 10.1038/srep12488

 

[Subduction Zone]

Creating a gravitational wormhole for rapid interstellar space travel would require huge amounts of gravitational energy - something Earth bound scientists presently don't know how to do. However, physicists have created a tiny magnetic wormhole used to connect 2 regions of space in order for a magnetic field to travel 'invisibly' between them.

Reference: Jordi Prat-Camps, Carles Navau, Alvaro Sanchez. A Magnetic Wormhole. Scientific Reports, 2015; 5: 12488 DOI: 10.1038/srep12488

If you read the post there is more than one way to skin a cat.

 

[Salvador]

If you read the post there is more than one way to skin a cat.

So then, a drink of tequila is in order.

 

[exchemist]

Because sentience is here and now. If I claim I have created first sparks of life in laboratory, it will imply that sentience will be the inevitable product. And that has absurd implications that can be discussed separately. Sufficient to say that a mechanically created sentience is already determined and cannot have freedom to assess truth value of propositions.

I will point your attention to a post of mine that clarifies my position.

Scientific advances in abiogenesis



That is a different subject, although not unlinked. We can discuss it separately. I can only say that life is not a property of life-forms. We do not know what life is.

This is not a logical argument. What entitles you to assume that sentience is the inevitable result of primitive life such as bacteria? It has on the one occasion that we can study, i.e. here on Earth, but we cannot extrapolate from this one instance a generalisation that all life on other planets will develop in the same way.

Secondly, you are I think falling into the common trap of treating sentience, intelligence, consciousness etc as entities in their own right, distinct from biochemistry. On the contrary, they can perfectly well be - and are - thought of as emergent phenomena. Emergence - Wikipedia

Just as chemistry is an emergent phenomenon from physics and biology is emergent from chemistry, so sentience and consciousness are emergent properties of some biological systems.

Did you learn the kinetic theory of matter, or any statistical thermodynamics? If you did, you will appreciate that you cannot usefully speak of an individual molecule being in the gas or liquid state, or exerting a pressure, or having a temperature.These are bulk properties of large collections of molecules, resulting from their collective behaviour in relation to one another. We don't think every molecule has to have its own little bit of temperature or pressure, or "liquidness", in order for bulk matter to have these properties.

So it is not useful to consider sentience or consciousness as some magic extra property of the building blocks of of life. All such notions do is get in the way of scientific study of the subject. There is every reason to suppose that these phenomena can emerge naturally from the interaction of sufficiently complex biological systems.

 

[exchemist]

Peace Peace Peace.

What is the meaning of an announcement like "LIFE'S FIRST SPARK RE-CREATED IN THE LABORATORY"? Please refer to OP.

As a working geochemist, I applaud the work of chemists who have synthesised component chemicals of living systems in laboratory. But to claim as above is not scientific, IMO. RNA is an important component of living systems. But to claim it is life's first spark is a hyperbole, IMO. This kind of claim is not strictly scientific. It is popular journalism.



Well. In this I have a different view. Sufficient to say that we do not know what life actually is. If we knew we would be able to recreate it.

Wrong. We know what many things are that we cannot recreate. Black holes? Galaxies? Volcanoes?

By the way, I notice you keep mentioning your chemistry credentials. I assume however you do not have a degree in chemistry or a chemical science, correct?

 

[atanu]

Wrong. We know what many things are that we cannot recreate. Black holes? Galaxies? Volcanoes?

We can create black holes and volcanoes. Even a lab scale universe, sans conscious beings, can be made. It is possible. The problem is of scale only but that can be overcome because the mechanisms are known.

OTOH, we do not even understand the life and consciousness. Forget about creating.

By the way, I notice you keep mentioning your chemistry credentials. I assume however you do not have a degree in chemistry or a chemical science, correct?

This is very insulting and cheap. But it is always expected of some people. I said in an earlier post that the usual rsponse to critical questions to philosophical materialists are anger, sarcasm, or ridicule. Should I, for your confirmation, post here my Masters degree in chemistry, PGDM in Human Resources and Microsoft Certified Professional certificates? I can do this much for your pleasure. And, btw, I am not ex chemist. I am currently working, managing a geoscience laboratory.

 

[shunyadragon]

We can create black holes and volcanoes. Even a lab scale universe, sans conscious beings, can be made. It is possible. The problem is of scale only but that can be overcome because the mechanisms are known.

OTOH, we do not even understand the life and consciousness. Forget about creating.



This is very insulting and cheap. But it is always expected of some people. I said in an earlier post that the usual rsponse to critical questions to philosophical materialists are anger, sarcasm, or ridicule. Should I, for your confirmation, post here my Masters degree in chemistry, PGDM in Human Resources and Microsoft Certified Professional certificates? I can do this much for your pleasure. And, btw, I am not ex chemist. I am currently working, managing a geoscience laboratory.

Your posts do not reflect your educational back ground. You post more from a philosophical/theological perspective on consciousness and sentience, which is not the subject of the thread..

I asked you questions concerning the abiogenesis scientific reference on the chemical evolution of inorganic phosphates to organic phosphates, and you failed to answer the questions. I posted another later research paper on the same subject and you have not responded. There is good reason that your education is being questioned.

Again . . . the research project that resulted in natural production of RNA did not resulted synthetic RNA. Synthetic RNA is commonly produced commercially.

 

[wellwisher]

Actually no, the hypothesis of abiogenesis simply deals with the evolution of non-life chemicals to the earliest known simple life forms, and has no direct relation with the evolution of consciousness, which is intimately involved with the later evolution of the brain and nervous system.

Terrible science logic to justify a religious agenda, and actually no relationship to the science of abiogenesis. The mythology of randomness is in the Theistic Creationist perspective that any form of randomness plays a role in whether abiogenesis and evolution takes place,

Abiogenesis deals with the steps of the evolution of non-life chemistry,nucleotides (amino acids), to RNA and than DNA and simple reproducable microbe life form. Evolution takes over from there, and as the foundation of the evolution of primative brains and nervous systems , and than the evolution of the mind and consciousness in complex brains and the resulting brains, and the mind and consciousness.

Let;s deal with first things first.

 

[shunyadragon]

Creating a gravitational wormhole for rapid interstellar space travel would require huge amounts of gravitational energy - something Earth bound scientists presently don't know how to do. However, physicists have created a tiny magnetic wormhole used to connect 2 regions of space in order for a magnetic field to travel 'invisibly' between them.

Reference: Jordi Prat-Camps, Carles Navau, Alvaro Sanchez. A Magnetic Wormhole. Scientific Reports, 2015; 5: 12488 DOI: 10.1038/srep12488

A good theme for "D" science fiction movie.

 

[wellwisher]

Actually no, the hypothesis of abiogenesis simply deals with the evolution of non-life chemicals to the earliest known simple life forms, and has no direct relation with the evolution of consciousness, which is intimately involved with the later evolution of the brain and nervous system.



Terrible science logic to justify a religious agenda, and actually no relationship to the science of abiogenesis. The mythology of randomness is in the Theistic Creationist perspective that any form of randomness plays a role in whether abiogenesis and evolution takes place,



Abiogenesis deals with the steps of the evolution of non-life chemistry,nucleotides (amino acids), to RNA and than DNA and simple reproducable microbe life form. Evolution takes over from there, and as the foundation of the evolution of primative brains and nervous systems , and than the evolution of the mind and consciousness in complex brains and the resulting brains, and the mind and consciousness.

Let;s deal with first things first.

What I am saying is, any good theory of abiogenesis, needs to make provisions for consciousness down the line, since consciousness eventually appears from this initial beginning. If you build the foundation of a house, you need to take into account the roof that will someday also be built. The foundation needs to be strong enough to support more than itself. If you decide to add another story to the house that was not in the original plan, you will need to rework the foundation, which is harder to do later.

In science, abiogenesis is treated like something distinct from evolution, instead of part one of the same continuing process. I look at these two aspects, abiogenesis and evolution, as part of the same thing. To do so, you need to get rid of the god of random approach that has infiltrated evolution. Darwin never assumed random. That was added later. Natural selection implies a logical choice based on optimization. Abiogenesis is a natural selection process at the nanoscale. Instead of life, it is natural selection among chemicals. Amino acids have been discovered all over the universe because these are easy to form; selective advantage.

In abiogenesis, we start with simple chemicals believed to be available on earth at the expected time. These chemicals are reacted in logical ways, in the lab, not in random ways. They have to match our best estimate of starting conditions. That is not random. The Miller experiments used a simulation of lightening; electric spark, conjunction with a reflux between boiling and condensing water, to simulate hot springs and thunderstorms. They did not just place a bunch of beakers in a lab and then do a dance to the gods of random so the Gods can make a change like a lottery jackpot. It was done logically and consistently with known conditions and known chemical reactions. Natural chemical selection had to choose.

Water was there from the beginning and is still critical to life at all levels. Experiments have been done where simple living cells are dehydrated. The result is all life processes end when the water is removed. Organic alone is not enough for life. If we add water to rehydrate the cells, life reappears. One conclusion is water is essential to the state called life. It is also essential to the activity of all the chemical constituents that make up the cells. Water is the continuity from abiogenesis to consciousness and beyond. Water is the straw that stirs the drink.

Other experiments were done where cells were dehydrated so all life processes stop. They then added a wide range of other solvents to see what happens. The result was nothing worked properly and there was no sign of life.

The conclusion is, all the key organic materials in modern cells are tuned to water. They evolved in an aqueous environment, with natural selection at the nanoscale, driven by the potentials of water. Water was analogous to a very specific geographical environment used to evolve animals. The environment dictates what will work and what will not work; connected to natural selection.

Water is a stable liquid at room temperature. It created a consistent environment, for billions of years, so evolution at the nanoscale, had to walk down a narrow path toward life. Macro environments, like a prairie, change with time, but the water environment is timeless. If you know the properties of water you know what needs to happen to be selected in that environment.

 

[Polymath257]

What I am saying is, any good theory of abiogenesis, needs to make provisions for consciousness down the line, since consciousness eventually appears from this initial beginning. If you build the foundation of a house, you need to take into account the roof that will someday also be built. The foundation needs to be strong enough to support more than itself. If you decide to add another story to the house that was not in the original plan, you will need to rework the foundation, which is harder to do later.

I disagree here. Consciousness is a *much* later phenomenon that appeared under very different conditions. It seems completely irrelevant to abiogenesis.

It seems to me to be equivalent to saying we need to take dinosaurs into consideration when investigating abiogenesis. That just doesn't seem reasonable to me.

 

[Polymath257]

That is a different subject, although not unlinked. We can discuss it separately. I can only say that life is not a property of life-forms. We do not know what life is.

I'm trying to make sense out of this and failing. Life-forms (like bacteria) are, by definition, alive. They have the property of life.

And yes, we know that life is a complex collection of interconnected chemical reactions that can maintain homeostasis, grow, and reproduce.

 

[shunyadragon]

The natural chemical evolution of inorganic phosphates to organic phosphates that are functional in life is a critical aspect of abiogenesis. I already posted a more recent reference than the following. I post both, because it is a good example of the progressive research of science builds on previous research to falsify this chemical evolution. The natural development of RNA, and organic phosphates are two of the most important achievements in the science of abiogenesis, which is the reason I started with these aspects of the research.

The first reference was excellent in explaining in relatively layman terms, and references the scientific publications, and the importance of this research can be found here:

Scientists Just Found a Vital Missing Link in The Origins of Life on Earth

The following is the earlier research paper:

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19720031104

Author and Affiliation:
Ponnamperuma, C. (NASA Ames Research Center, Exobiology Div., Moffett Field)
Chang, S. (NASA Ames Research Center, Exobiology Div., Moffett Field, Calif., United States)

Abstract: The hypohydrous thermal reaction between inorganic phosphates and nucleoside was investigated. The products of the reactions have been identified, and an attempt has been made to determine the mechanism. It was found that orthophosphates can be readily converted into condensed phosphates which are effective phosphorylating agents. Thermal polymerization of inorganic orthophosphates at moderate temperature as a general source of polyphosphates might have provided efficient phosphorylation and condensing agents for primordial syntheses.

Publication Date: Jan 01, 1971
Document ID:
19720031104
(Acquired Dec 04, 1995)
Accession Number: 72A14770
Subject Category: CHEMISTRY
Document Type: Conference Proceedings
Publication Information: SEE A72-14751 04-04
Publisher Information: Netherlands
Meeting Information: 3rd Chemical evolution and the origin of life; Third International Conference; April 19-25, 1970; Pont-a-Mousson; France

 

[exchemist]

We can create black holes and volcanoes. Even a lab scale universe, sans conscious beings, can be made. It is possible. The problem is of scale only but that can be overcome because the mechanisms are known.

OTOH, we do not even understand the life and consciousness. Forget about creating.



This is very insulting and cheap. But it is always expected of some people. I said in an earlier post that the usual rsponse to critical questions to philosophical materialists are anger, sarcasm, or ridicule. Should I, for your confirmation, post here my Masters degree in chemistry, PGDM in Human Resources and Microsoft Certified Professional certificates? I can do this much for your pleasure. And, btw, I am not ex chemist. I am currently working, managing a geoscience laboratory.

I am surprised, I must say. I asked because your posts do not seem to show much grounding in scientific thinking. I can only imagine you are motivated by a religious agenda and have decided to set your training aside. (I realise you may be offended by my presumption you were not a physical science graduate, but this is the internet and I was once strung along by someone who claimed to be a working scientist but who eventually turned out to be the person who cleaned the equipment in a lab somewhere. )

Can you please provide some support to your statement that we can create black holes and volcanoes? I find this a remarkable claim.

But regardless of the rights and wrongs of those two examples, the general point is it is a silly creationist myth to maintain that for a science theory to be sound one has to be able to replicate the phenomenon artificially in the laboratory. I am really quite shocked that somebody with a hard science degree could make a mistake like this, especially since as a geochemist you are presumably used to making observations in the field and not in a lab.

 

[wellwisher]

I disagree here. Consciousness is a *much* later phenomenon that appeared under very different conditions. It seems completely irrelevant to abiogenesis.

It seems to me to be equivalent to saying we need to take dinosaurs into consideration when investigating abiogenesis. That just doesn't seem reasonable to me.

You are assuming random things can happen out of any connected context. This is not how construction works. The foundation has to be strong enough or you cannot build the next level.

The way thinking works now is, if you can so somehow get to a simple replicator, you can pass the torch and all is fine. That is like building the foundation of a house without looking at the blue prints. You can hand it off but it may not work out too well. You need outlook further ahead to make sure this foundation can carry the future load without depending on the gods of random to bail you out.

The natural chemical evolution of inorganic phosphates to organic phosphates that are functional in life is a critical aspect of abiogenesis. I already posted a more recent reference than the following. I post both, because it is a good example of the progressive research of science builds on previous research to falsify this chemical evolution. The natural development of RNA, and organic phosphates are two of the most important achievements in the science of abiogenesis, which is the reason I started with these aspects of the research.

The first reference was excellent in explaining in relatively layman terms, and references the scientific publications, and the importance of this research can be found here:

Scientists Just Found a Vital Missing Link in The Origins of Life on Earth

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19720031104

Author and Affiliation:
Ponnamperuma, C. (NASA Ames Research Center, Exobiology Div., Moffett Field)
Chang, S. (NASA Ames Research Center, Exobiology Div., Moffett Field, Calif., United States)

Abstract: The hypohydrous thermal reaction between inorganic phosphates and nucleoside was investigated. The products of the reactions have been identified, and an attempt has been made to determine the mechanism. It was found that orthophosphates can be readily converted into condensed phosphates which are effective phosphorylating agents. Thermal polymerization of inorganic orthophosphates at moderate temperature as a general source of polyphosphates might have provided efficient phosphorylation and condensing agents for primordial syntheses.

Publication Date: Jan 01, 1971
Document ID:
19720031104
(Acquired Dec 04, 1995)
Accession Number: 72A14770
Subject Category: CHEMISTRY
Document Type: Conference Proceedings
Publication Information: SEE A72-14751 04-04
Publisher Information: Netherlands
Meeting Information: 3rd Chemical evolution and the origin of life; Third International Conference; April 19-25, 1970; Pont-a-Mousson; France

RNA and DNA are the most hydrated organic materials in the cell. This was the goal from day one. DNA and RNA are selected because they minimize the potential with water, so they become almost one thing. This allows the DNA to participate in the information transfer that can occur in water.

hydrogen-bonding carries information about solutes and surfaces over significant distances in liquid water. The effect is synergistic, directive and extensive. Thus in the diagram below, strong hydrogen-bonding in molecule 1, caused by solutes or surfaces, will be transmitted to molecules 2 and 3, then to 5 and 6 and then as combined power to 8.

The effect is reinforced by additional polarization effects and the resonant intermolecular transfer of O-H vibrational energy, mediated by dipole-dipole interactions and the hydrogen bonds [142]. Reorientation of one molecule induces corresponding motions in the neighbors.

Thus solute molecules can 'sense' (for example, affect each other's solubility) each other at distances of several nanometers and surfaces may have effects extending to tens of nanometers. This long-range correlation of molecular orientation has been confirmed using hyper-Rayleigh light scattering [152], classical density functional theory [2762] and excess entropy calculations [2763].

 

[shunyadragon]

What I am saying is, any good theory of abiogenesis, needs to make provisions for consciousness down the line, since consciousness eventually appears from this initial beginning. If you build the foundation of a house, you need to take into account the roof that will someday also be built. The foundation needs to be strong enough to support more than itself. If you decide to add another story to the house that was not in the original plan, you will need to rework the foundation, which is harder to do later.

I will have to assert absolutely no as to the bold above. The evolution of the brain and nervous system and the emergence of consciousness is NOT a necessary consequence of abiogenesis, and not the the subject of the thread. Even though it is not a necessary consequence of abiogenesis it is a natural emergence of the consequence in the evolution of the brain and nervous to be addressed in a separate thread. It is not harder to do later.

In science, abiogenesis is treated like something distinct from evolution, instead of part one of the same continuing process. I look at these two aspects, abiogenesis and evolution, as part of the same thing. To do so, you need to get rid of the god of random approach that has infiltrated evolution. Darwin never assumed random. That was added later. Natural selection implies a logical choice based on optimization. Abiogenesis is a natural selection process at the nanoscale. Instead of life, it is natural selection among chemicals. Amino acids have been discovered all over the universe because these are easy to form; selective advantage.

Yes, abiogenesis and evolution are a continuum process, but nonetheless abiogenesis is distinct in that it specifically deals with the chemical evolution of inorganic chemicals to the organic chemicals that may be considered the end product of primitive life,

In abiogenesis, we start with simple chemicals believed to be available on earth at the expected time. These chemicals are reacted in logical ways, in the lab, not in random ways. They have to match our best estimate of starting conditions. That is not random. The Miller experiments used a simulation of lightening; electric spark, conjunction with a reflux between boiling and condensing water, to simulate hot springs and thunderstorms. They did not just place a bunch of beakers in a lab and then do a dance to the gods of random so the Gods can make a change like a lottery jackpot. It was done logically and consistently with known conditions and known chemical reactions. Natural chemical selection had to choose.

The research conducted in the lab uses natural environments and natural chemicals as in nature, and subject to the same fractal (NOT random(?) nature of the outcome of cause and effect relationships. Randomness has no causative influence on the outcome of these cause and effect events. Natural Laws determine the outcome of ALL cause and effect outcomes in nature whether in a lab or at an ocean sea vent. As usual among many layman this is terrible use of the concept of randomness (?) what ever that is.

Added hint: In the early history of the earth there were millions of square miles of natural environments suitable for abiogenesis such as the regions containing ocean sea vents.

 

[shunyadragon]

You are assuming random things can happen out of any connected context. This is not how construction works. The foundation has to be strong enough or you cannot build the next level.

The way thinking works now is, if you can so somehow get to a simple replicator, you can pass the torch and all is fine. That is like building the foundation of a house without looking at the blue prints. You can hand it off but it may not work out too well. You need outlook further ahead to make sure this foundation can carry the future load without depending on the gods of random to bail you out.

Again and again . . . A terrible use of the concept of randomness as causative factor in the course of events that take place in nature.

 

[Polymath257]

You are assuming random things can happen out of any connected context. This is not how construction works. The foundation has to be strong enough or you cannot build the next level.

No, that is definitely NOT what I am saying. But I am saying that the context for the development of consciousness is much later and very different than that for abiogenesis. Again, we don't need to model abiogenesis with the idea that reptiles will eventually evolve.

The way thinking works now is, if you can so somehow get to a simple replicator, you can pass the torch and all is fine. That is like building the foundation of a house without looking at the blue prints. You can hand it off but it may not work out too well. You need outlook further ahead to make sure this foundation can carry the future load without depending on the gods of random to bail you out.

The foundation for consciousness is a much more complex situation than that for abiogenesis and there is no reason to suspect that ordinary evolutionary biology is insufficient for it.

There is, of course, a further issue of definitions: are bacteria 'conscious'? They certainly have a great deal of information processing ability, but I am not at all convinced the word is reasonable to use for them. maybe we need a 'scale of consciousness' as opposed to an 'on/off' model for it to make progress.

In any case, the issue of consciousness is a much later topic than that for the beginnings of life.

 

[exchemist]

You are assuming random things can happen out of any connected context. This is not how construction works. The foundation has to be strong enough or you cannot build the next level.

The way thinking works now is, if you can so somehow get to a simple replicator, you can pass the torch and all is fine. That is like building the foundation of a house without looking at the blue prints. You can hand it off but it may not work out too well. You need outlook further ahead to make sure this foundation can carry the future load without depending on the gods of random to bail you out.



RNA and DNA are the most hydrated organic materials in the cell. This was the goal from day one. DNA and RNA are selected because they minimize the potential with water, so they become almost one thing. This allows the DNA to participate in the information transfer that can occur in water.

BINGO! I predicted this in post 46.

Entropy next? Feels like we are getting close, with the "gods of random" and all that.