Origin of Life

by cofty 405 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Ruby456
    Dawkins gene hypothesis for the origin of life has the most evidence at the moment - Ruby

    Dawkins has no such hypothesis. The origin of genetic material is part of the process that occurred in hydrothermal vents.cofty

    thats Lane's hypothesis - Dawkins' is different


    there are at least 7 theories in all re the orign of life - the hydrothermal vents is one of them although I think that 4 are strong


  • Vidqun

    Here's a second theoretical option:

    “The RNA world hypothesis is extremely unlikely,” said Charles W. Carter Jr. “It would take forever.” Moreover, there’s no proof that such ribozymes even existed billions of years ago. To buttress the RNA World hypothesis, scientists use 21st century technology to create ribozymes that serve as catalysts. “But most of those synthetic ribozymes,” Carter said, “bear little resemblance to anything anyone has ever isolated from a living system… The collaboration between RNA and peptides was likely necessary for the spontaneous emergence of complexity,” Carter added. “In our view, it was a peptide-RNA world, not an RNA-only world.”

    Our genetic code is translated by two super-families of modern-day enzymes. Carter’s research team created and superimposed digital three-dimensional versions of the two super-families to see how their structures aligned. Carter found that all the enzymes have virtually identical cores that can be extracted to produce “molecular fossils” he calls Urzymes — Ur meaning earliest or original. The other parts, he said, are variations that were introduced later, as evolution unfolded. These two Urzymes are as close as scientists have gotten to the actual ancient enzymes that would have populated the Earth billions of years ago. “To think that these two Urzymes might have launched protein synthesis before there was life on Earth is totally electrifying,” Carter said. “I can’t imagine a much more exciting result to be working on, if one is interested in the origin of life.” The study leaves open the question of exactly how those primitive systems managed to replicate themselves — something neither the RNA World hypothesis nor the Peptide-RNA World theory can yet explain. Carter, though, is extending his research to include polymerases — enzymes that actually assemble the RNA molecule. Finding an Urzyme that serves that purpose would help answer that question.

    Publication: Li L, Francklyn C, Carter CW Jr., “Aminoacylating Urzymes Challenge the RNA World Hypothesis,” 2013, The Journal of Biological Chemistry, 288, 26864; doi:10.1074/jbc.M113.496125

    To visualize the problem, in your hydrothermal alkaline vents we should start off with something like this, perhaps in a more simplified form (something like the RNA of viruses, perhaps?):

    According to Carter, the Ur-enzymes "launched protein synthesis before there was life on Earth." So, proteins were manufactured before cells saw the light of day. However, absolutely necessary for protein synthesis to succeed are the group II introns to edit and splice. Again we have the chicken or egg problem, for the cell or organism ribosome, with group II intron, to manufacture "just the right protein the organism requires at any given time." So, here a protein factory would have to start producing proteins before the factory has been built. This magical process has to spontaneously perpetuate and improve over the millenia until we end with something like this, the working of which is explained by the following article:

    A major function of RNA is copying all genetic information and making it readable by the cellular protein factories, the ribosomes. But RNA needs to be edited, and an early step in the editing process is splicing. Splicing consists of breaking apart the RNA and recombining its pieces in ways that produce just the right protein the organism requires at any given time. In many organisms this vital cut-and-paste action is sometimes self-catalyzed by intrinsic RNA components called group II introns. In more complex organisms, including humans, the process is performed by a similar yet more sophisticated machinery, the spliceosome, which has evolved from and works like the group II introns. “Splicing is a very basic phase of gene expression,” said Pyle, who is also an investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. “Whenever splicing gets messed up, you’ll find a disease that results. Until now we haven’t really understood the splicing reaction chemically.” The researchers said RNA may perform more functions than previously thought. “RNA is revealing its ability to utilize metals in the environment to do its chemical transformations,” Pyle said. “RNA can do complex chemistry, just like a protein can.”

    The article is titled “Visualizing group II intron catalysis through the stages of splicing.”

  • cofty

    Copy-paste is so boring.

  • Vidqun

    Cofty, for ordinary folk like us, it's good to visualize what is being said. It's a good teaching aid. Amino acid > peptide > enzyme > protein > (RNA > protein: self-replicating). According to Carter: “In this “Peptide-RNA World” scenario, RNA would have contained the instructions for life while peptides would have accelerated key chemical reactions to carry out those instructions.” So there we have the recipe for LUCA, now just to prove it in real life. Their findings are illustrated as follows:

    Schematic diagram of likely peptide participation with RNA in the origin and evolution of codon-directed protein synthesis. Credit: American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology et al. J. Biol. Chem. 2013;288:26864.

  • Vidqun

    The article on Carter's experiments ends by saying: “The study leaves open the question of exactly how those primitive systems managed to replicate themselves — something neither the RNA World hypothesis nor the Peptide-RNA World theory can yet explain. Carter, though, is extending his research to include polymerases — enzymes that actually assemble the RNA molecule. Finding an Urzyme that serves that purpose would help answer that question.”

    I believe it’s an exercise in futility. The distance from amino acid to RNA molecule is huge, even insurmountable. Those enzymes never existed freely in nature. Even if they did, how would they replicate and organize themselves in order to kick-start life? How would primitive life forms then transform into complicated life forms? This is science fiction at its best.

  • prologos
    “molecular fossils” he calls Urzymes — Ur meaning earliest or original.

    whenever I r[h]ea[r]d "UR" I perk up my ears. like Uhr=" time piece" showing 4.5 billion years ago.

  • Viviane
    so this conundrum addresses which one we find the most convincing for the origin of life whether or not it has the most evidence viv, while theists find placing God at the beginning the most convincing and there is no real convincing evidence from science as yet to say they are wrong.

    There's no evidence that the start of life wasn't a celestial monkey fling poop against a wall of unicorn souls, either. Every explanation for every phenomena ever investigated has turned out to be a naturalist cause, so, you know, there's always that.

    I know you want a scientific evidence to this question.
    You maybe not be aware of that but you're blindy following a philosophical system called Positivism.

    It's obvious you don't actually know what posotivism actually is, but regardless, asking what something is, a think you make the claim for, isn't posotivism. It's no different than asking what carrot cake is or what qualities Thor has.

    Positivism says that the only valid knowledge is science.

    That absolutely NOT what posotivism is.

    The soul can't be a problem to science because science is the quest for material properties and the soul is immaterial. But we can find material interactions with the soul.

    If we can find interactions with it (observation), you've just done science. You're undermining your own argument.

    Positivism is the base of modern Atheism too. When someone says he's an atheist because there's no scientific evidence for God, for example.

    You now demonstrate you don't know what atheism is either.

    The problem of soul have a lot of debate in philosophy and one of the definitions of the soul is it doesn't have any parts but it's responsible for high mental functionalities.
    The soul have functions without organs.

    Those are scientific statements. You previously claimed this wasn't the realm of science. It seems now that you don't know what philosophy or science are, either.

    Cofty I'm not trying to offend you. I admire your love for science and I think you're very intelligent. I'm just trying to exchange some philosophical knowledge with you.

    So far all you've done is show us that you literally don't know what any of the things you are talking about are.

    Well, my job is done in this topic.

    Was your job to show us that you don't know what you're talking about? If so, well done!

    Cofty you still are using science methods to things that don't belongs to science. I told that is exactly what a positivist does. From now on you know you is a positivist. And positivism is more than wrong and false, is evil.

    Apart from being wrong about what posotivism is, you attempted to use science to explain what a soul is. So, now it seems you declared yourself evil.

  • Satan

    > "The thread is based on the assumption that scientific discoveries will tend to support an atheistic view of reality and asks how theists well respond when confronted with the new proof." Said Slimboyfat...

    Nothing wrong with that "assumption" it's more of an extrapolation or estimation in what the result will be according to pattern we see here, as far as we have gone from explaining and discovering the functions of simple stuff like gravity, flight, matter composition to the development of life and astronomy, it's all consistent with the lack of belief in god/gods as we haven't found any intervention of any celestial supreme which was believed to cause all and more mentioned above in my comment.

  • slimboyfat
    I asked a JW at a Witness cart yesterday if he thought scientists would ever be able to create life. He gave the same answer as the brochure. Which I thought was interesting because I don't know if it's the answer I would have given as a JW. He said it's possible scientists could be able to create life at some point, but that this would only go to show that life comes from life, and intelligent life (the scientist) is required in order to make life. He said scientists might be able to make simple life at some stage but he doubted they would ever be able to make creatures as complex as humans. Which I thought was interesting because I think many conceive of the leap between non-life and life is not as great as the leap to consciousness.
  • cofty

    So that only proves that JWs no longer understand their own basic doctrines.

    Life from rocks in a lab is not "life from life". Life from a sperm or egg or cloning a living cell is "life from life".

    They - like you - are confusing the argument from complexity with the theological one.

Share this