Here’s how the first proteins might have assembled, sparking life

[essentialsaltes]

Researchers say they’ve now come up with a plausible route by which RNA and amino acids could have paired up to assemble small proteins called peptides, without the help of complex enzymes or the ribosome. The work, published today in Nature, offers a glimpse of how RNA might have helped form the first simple proteins, an event that could have set the stage for evolution.

“This is the first step to allowing life’s information molecules to encode peptides,” says Matthew Powner, a chemist at University College London (UCL) who led the study. Thomas Carell, a chemist at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, says the study “gives wonderful insights” into “one of the big riddles in prebiotic chemistry.”

 

[Zaha Torte]

Researchers say they’ve now come up with a plausible route by which RNA and amino acids could have paired up to assemble small proteins called peptides, without the help of complex enzymes or the ribosome. The work, published today in Nature, offers a glimpse of how RNA might have helped form the first simple proteins, an event that could have set the stage for evolution.

“This is the first step to allowing life’s information molecules to encode peptides,” says Matthew Powner, a chemist at University College London (UCL) who led the study. Thomas Carell, a chemist at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, says the study “gives wonderful insights” into “one of the big riddles in prebiotic chemistry.”

They are claiming that they are only able to "set the stage" now?

Haven't they been teaching evolution for many decades?

 

[AV1611VET]

They are claiming that they are only able to "set the stage" now?

Yup -- and we're the actors.

 

[Tinker Grey]

They are claiming that they are only able to "set the stage" now?

Haven't they been teaching evolution for many decades?

This is not about evolution. It's about abiogenesis.

 

[Zaha Torte]

This is not about evolution. It's about abiogenesis.

What I quoted from the article and my comment were about evolution.

They have been teaching evolution for many decades - but they have not "set the stage" for it until now.

 

[Tinker Grey]

What I quoted from the article and my comment were about evolution.

They have been teaching evolution for many decades - but they have not "set the stage" for it until now.

Because evolution is what happens in populations regardless of how life started.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because evolution is what happens in populations regardless of how life started.

But that's the thing about evolution.

It blames abiogenesis for how life got started.

 

[essentialsaltes]

But that's the thing about evolution.

It blames abiogenesis for how life got started.

Evolution doesn't need to blame anything. It's its own subject. Abiogenesis is another one.

The word 'abiogenesis' is just a simple recognition of how time flows.

There was a time before there was life on earth. And now there is life on earth.

The later time is a sequel to the former time. The former time gave rise to the later time.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But that's the thing about evolution.

It blames abiogenesis for how life got started.

In addition to what other folks above have said, where abiogenesis may (or may not) rub up against Christian Theology, it's not a deal breaker, AV.

Why? For two reasons:

1) Mainstream science, with Methodological Naturalism, doesn't posit that we can use science to know or not know about Divine action.

2) Thomistic Philosophy (i.e. scholastic philosophy based on principles from Thomas Aquinas), permit another lens of interpretation that prevents the instantaneous and complete dismissal of the possibility of Divine action in Creation, as per what Astrophysicist Astrochemist and Astronomer, Karen Oberg, shares below:

[This one goes out to all my fellow spiritual sistas and bros who think I "dismiss" all sources—Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant.]​

How Did Life on Earth Begin? A Contemporary Scientist Explains (Aquinas 101) - The Thomistic Institute​

 

[AV1611VET]

How Did Life on Earth Begin? A Contemporary Scientist Explains (Aquinas 101) - The Thomistic Institute

Did you catch the reference to creatio ex nihilo in that video?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Did you catch the reference to creatio ex nihilo in that video?

Yes. That's not an issue I've had any problem with, one way or another. Did you catch that a while back?

 

[Hvizsgyak]

These videos will help one understand that there are other things needed to create a cell other than just the simple proteins (peptides). Yes, this may be a small breakthrough (but I doubt it) but there are some real "mount everests" that need to be overcome also to create that first cell.

 

[Ophiolite]

These videos will help one understand that there are other things needed to create a cell other than just the simple proteins (peptides). Yes, this may be a small breakthrough (but I doubt it) but there are some real "mount everests" that need to be overcome also to create that first cell.

I've placed the key words in your post in bold. My question: you do know that Mount Everest was climbed over seventy years ago, the total number of successful summit attempts is over 11,000, with age ranges from 13 to 80?

Noting that something is difficult is not the equivalent of demonstrating it is impossible, which you appear to imply. Complex problems require patient, small steps. You sound like a person denying anyone can run a marathon because the stride length of humans is only a few feet.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What I quoted from the article and my comment were about evolution.

It doesn't. The text you quoted was clearly about learning more about the process of life forming from non-life, not of life evolving.

They have been teaching evolution for many decades - but they have not "set the stage" for it until now.

"Set the stage" for evolution (the process of lifeforms changing with time) to start because there was then life to evolve.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Because evolution is what happens in populations regardless of how life started.

It did not say "set the stage for life" - but "set the stage for evolution".

Evolution has always relied on the miracles life just being here and there being leaps of time to account for change.

It takes a lot of faith to believe in evolution.

 

[Zaha Torte]

It doesn't. The text you quoted was clearly about learning more about the process of life forming from non-life, not of life evolving.

"Set the stage" for evolution (the process of lifeforms changing with time) to start because there was then life to evolve.

Evolution is the claim that living organisms are transformed into different forms or species through accumulated changes over time.

It said "set the stage for evolution" - not life.

 

[tampasteve]

Evolution doesn't need to blame anything. It's its own subject. Abiogenesis is another one.

Yes and no. You can have evolution without abiogenesis, but you can't really have abiogenesis without evolution as it is the immediate next step. One would not study or try to argue abiogenesis without also arguing for evolution as they have to go hand in hand if you are starting at abiogenesis, but one can argue evolution without arguing for abiogenesis.

 

[essentialsaltes]

you can't really have abiogenesis without evolution as it is the immediate next step.

I don't see why not. If some sort of life developed that was not based on a 'genetic code', there might be no way to 'mutate'.

One would not study or try to argue abiogenesis without also arguing for evolution

No, as I said before, it's really just a function of there being a point in time with no life, and then a later point in time where there was life. Abiogenesis is the study of that transition.

It's not motivated by evolution, but just by the raw fact that life exists.

 

[public hermit]

Researchers say they’ve now come up with a plausible route by which RNA and amino acids could have paired up to assemble small proteins called peptides, without the help of complex enzymes or the ribosome. The work, published today in Nature, offers a glimpse of how RNA might have helped form the first simple proteins, an event that could have set the stage for evolution.

“This is the first step to allowing life’s information molecules to encode peptides,” says Matthew Powner, a chemist at University College London (UCL) who led the study. Thomas Carell, a chemist at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, says the study “gives wonderful insights” into “one of the big riddles in prebiotic chemistry.”

I think this is exciting! That's all I have to say about this plausible route (I'm not smart enough on the science to say anything else about it). In regard to the current discussion, there doesn't seem to be a necessary relationship between abiogenesis and evolution. Living matter could have arisen out of non-living matter and then proceeded in a very different fashion. Evolution just happens to be the process of living matter. That works both ways, but I can't really imagine a situation where living matter does not arise out of non-living matter. I say that partly because (inductively) all living matter becomes non-living matter, and the best inference is that living matter arises out of non-living matter, as well.

 

[River Jordan]

Evolution is the claim that living organisms are transformed into different forms or species through accumulated changes over time.

We've observed, documented, and studied evolution happening for decades, which reveals the fundamental mistake you keep repeating. Whether the first life on earth came to be by chemistry, was created by God, or was placed by aliens, the evolution of new forms and species will remain an observed fact of reality.