Scientists announce a breakthrough in determining life's origin on Earth—and maybe Mars

[Frank Robert]

Scientists announce a breakthrough | Psyc.org

"Scientists at the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution announced today that ribonucleic acid (RNA), an analog of DNA that was likely the first genetic material for life, spontaneously forms on basalt lava glass. Such glass was abundant on Earth 4.35 billion years ago. Similar basalts of this antiquity survive on Mars today.

...Led by Elisa Biondi, the study shows that long RNA molecules, 100-200 nucleotides in length, form when nucleoside triphosphates do nothing more than percolate through basaltic glass."

"Basaltic glass was everywhere on Earth at the time," remarked Stephen Mojzsis, an Earth scientist who also participated in the study. "For several hundred million years after the Moon formed, frequent impacts coupled with abundant volcanism on the young planet formed molten basaltic lava, the source of the basalt glass. Impacts also evaporated water to give dry land, providing aquifers where RNA could have formed."

"The beauty of this model is its simplicity. It can be tested by highschoolers in chemistry class," said Jan Špacek, who was not involved in this study but who develops instrument to detect alien genetic polymers on Mars. "Mix the ingredients, wait for a few days and detect the RNA.

...Thus, this work completes a path that creates RNA from small organic molecules that were almost certainly present on the early Earth. A single geological model moves from one and two carbon molecules to give RNA molecules long enough to support Darwinian evolution."

“By understanding the fundamental complexity of life, in the laboratory, we can start to estimate the chances of life on other planets and determine the likelihood that planets such as Mars either had or still have the potential to harbor life.”​

 

[Aussie Pete]

Scientists announce a breakthrough | Psyc.org

"Scientists at the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution announced today that ribonucleic acid (RNA), an analog of DNA that was likely the first genetic material for life, spontaneously forms on basalt lava glass. Such glass was abundant on Earth 4.35 billion years ago. Similar basalts of this antiquity survive on Mars today.

...Led by Elisa Biondi, the study shows that long RNA molecules, 100-200 nucleotides in length, form when nucleoside triphosphates do nothing more than percolate through basaltic glass."

"Basaltic glass was everywhere on Earth at the time," remarked Stephen Mojzsis, an Earth scientist who also participated in the study. "For several hundred million years after the Moon formed, frequent impacts coupled with abundant volcanism on the young planet formed molten basaltic lava, the source of the basalt glass. Impacts also evaporated water to give dry land, providing aquifers where RNA could have formed."

"The beauty of this model is its simplicity. It can be tested by highschoolers in chemistry class," said Jan Špacek, who was not involved in this study but who develops instrument to detect alien genetic polymers on Mars. "Mix the ingredients, wait for a few days and detect the RNA.

...Thus, this work completes a path that creates RNA from small organic molecules that were almost certainly present on the early Earth. A single geological model moves from one and two carbon molecules to give RNA molecules long enough to support Darwinian evolution."

“By understanding the fundamental complexity of life, in the laboratory, we can start to estimate the chances of life on other planets and determine the likelihood that planets such as Mars either had or still have the potential to harbor life.”​

More pathetic wishful thinking. You can put every amino acid, protein, carbohydrate, lipid and such into a liquid and it still won't produce life. There is no mechanism by which the various components will self assemble into even the simplest living organism. Science can't even define what life is, let alone produce it in a lab.

 

[Frank Robert]

More pathetic wishful thinking.

Excellent demostratin of projection

You can put every amino acid, protein, carbohydrate, lipid and such into a liquid and it still won't produce life. There is no mechanism by which the various components will self assemble into even the simplest living organism. Science can't even define what life is, let alone produce it in a lab.

You know what your opinion is worth, don't you?

 

[Aussie Pete]

Excellent demostratin of projection
You know what your opinion is worth, don't you?

70 years of failed experimentation rather proves my point, I would have thought.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Excellent demostratin of projection
You know what your opinion is worth, don't you?

I have to agree with him... the belief that life came from dead matter without intelligence intervening is a leap of faith far beyond believing an intelligent being created life. If one truly logically believes evolution is a never ending process one must believe man can continue to evolve to one day be able to use dead matter to create life and thus by admission will believe in intelligence design (creationism).

 

[Frank Robert]

70 years of failed experimentation rather proves my point, I would have thought.

The age of a hypothesis does not disqualify its value. The Intelligent Design hypothesis has its routes William Paley's watchmaker analogy from the early 1800s. The present study is on the RNA world hypotheses which has not been falsified the current 2021 study provides supporting evidence for the hypothesis.

If you have a alternative hypothesis or theory with supporting scientific evidence as an alternative lets discuss it.

 

[Frank Robert]

I have to agree with him... the belief that life came from dead matter without intelligence intervening is a leap of faith

The RNA world is a hypothesis.There are alternate theories and hypotheses but only natural ones can be investigated using the scientific method which does not take into consideration what scientists believe.

If one truly logically believes evolution is a never ending process one must believe man can continue to evolve to one day be able to use dead matter to create life and thus by admission will believe in intelligence design (creationism).

That is a mangled concept of evolution.

Theistic evolutionists believe that God created life through natural laws and letting them do the grunt work of evolution. Most hs and colleges students taking an intro course in evolution use a text book coauthored by Dr. Ken Miller who is a devote Christian.

 

[Sophrosyne]

The RNA world is a hypothesis.There are alternate theories and hypotheses but only natural ones can be investigated using the scientific method which does not take into consideration what scientists believe.

It matters not about RNA, you still have to assemble a cell with all working parts and have DNA in it for it to stay alive. It is like saying I found a threaded bolt so there must be a fully functional automobile engine buried below it with a gas tank and a battery properly attached to it.

That is a mangled concept of evolution.

Theistic evolutionists believe that God created life through natural laws and letting them do the grunt work of evolution. Most hs and colleges students taking an intro course in evolution use a text book coauthored by Dr. Ken Miller who is a devote Christian.

Theistic evolutionists don't need the existence of RNA or something similar to it in nature so discussing it is meaningless unless they want to make a step to totally atheism and say that dead matter randomly using parts of RNA assembled itself without God existing and we are here a trillion eons later somehow.

 

[Mountainmike]

Excellent demostratin of projection
You know what your opinion is worth, don't you?

Same as yours….

My opinions worth a bit more since other half is a director of a biotech lab that fiddles with RNA, DNA etc.

I don’t know if you have noticed but 6.61 is the product of intelligent design.
Bravo the designers.


The polymerase ribozyme hypothesis is not new it’s old.
I’ve been following the progress for 50 years , have you?
It’s another interesting idea, this one better than last one.
But these molecules and RNA world not at all simple molecules.

So that’s why some postulate a world before RNA world called XNA world…. Or not. Have you heard of it?

Isn’t it fascinating how all of the titles are overhyped
“determining life's origin on Earth—and maybe Mars” .
There’s no evidence it did originate on earth. Indeed the similarity of genomes and metabolism in all living things here , and the lack of ongoing abiogenetic process makes it highly unlikely.

and by way of comparison.

Meanwhile there is actual forensic evidence by numerous pathologists of human cells appearing on a statue that bled in continuous footage with no internal pathways. Slides. Scans . Dna analysis…

The above article is one more maybe of a possible piece in a so far very empty jigsaw.

I’ll be only too happy if a pathway is demonstrated. Happy to believe it happened. But only when there’s evidence it did. It’s not even close as yet.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It matters not about RNA, you still have to assemble a cell with all working parts and have DNA in it for it to stay alive. It is like saying I found a threaded bolt so there must be a fully functional automobile engine buried below it with a gas tank and a battery properly attached to it.

DNA is not required, RNA will do just fine. RNA is a perfectly functional molecule for cellular genetics. DNA is better than RNA, so the replacement of RNA genetics with DNA genetics is perfectly understandable in the evolution from RNA-based protocells to the DNA-based last universal common ancestor.

 

[Sophrosyne]

DNA is not required, RNA will do just fine. RNA is a perfectly functional molecule for cellular genetics. DNA is better than RNA, so the replacement of RNA genetics with DNA genetics is perfectly understandable in the evolution from RNA-based protocells to the DNA-based last universal common ancestor.

Well that just makes things more difficult if it is even possible at all for cells to procreate along with somehow this junk RNA stuff making all the cells structures that allow it to continue to live in the first place.

 

[AV1611VET]

Scientists announce a breakthrough in determining life's origin on Earth.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well that just makes things more difficult if it is even possible at all for cells to procreate along with somehow this junk RNA stuff making all the cells structures that allow it to continue to live in the first place.

What?

I didn't say anything about "junk".

I was speaking of cells that used RNA for genetic transmission rather than DNA. DNA is more robust, but RNA does actually work as a genetic medium.

 

[Frank Robert]

Same as yours….

My opinions worth a bit more since other half is a director of a biotech lab that fiddles with RNA, DNA etc.

I don’t know if you have noticed but 6.61 is the product of intelligent design.
Bravo the designers.


The polymerase ribozyme hypothesis is not new it’s old.
I’ve been following the progress for 50 years , have you?
It’s another interesting idea, this one better than last one.
But these molecules and RNA world not at all simple molecules.

So that’s why some postulate a world before RNA world called XNA world…. Or not. Have you heard of it?

Isn’t it fascinating how all of the titles are overhyped
“determining life's origin on Earth—and maybe Mars” .
There’s no evidence it did originate on earth. Indeed the similarity of genomes and metabolism in all living things here , and the lack of ongoing abiogenetic process makes it highly unlikely.

and by way of comparison.

Meanwhile there is actual forensic evidence by numerous pathologists of human cells appearing on a statue that bled in continuous footage with no internal pathways. Slides. Scans . Dna analysis…

The above article is one more maybe of a possible piece in a so far very empty jigsaw.

I’ll be only too happy if a pathway is demonstrated. Happy to believe it happened. But only when there’s evidence it did. It’s not even close as yet.

I have a hard time believing you are a scientist. Scientists I know, and I know many, have open and objective minds. When they disagree they examine the data and if they are able to they reproduce the studies. Creationists deny science they don't like then bang the drums and make loud noises but fail to produce anything that has scientific value.

 

[Frank Robert]

It matters not about RNA, you still have to assemble a cell with all working parts and have DNA in it for it to stay alive. It is like saying I found a threaded bolt so there must be a fully functional automobile engine buried below it with a gas tank and a battery properly attached to it.

When you bake a cake you need a recipe and follow the recipe one step at a time The first step in building the recipe is discovering the right ingredients.

Theistic evolutionists don't need the existence of RNA or something similar to it in nature so discussing it is meaningless unless they want to make a step to totally atheism and say that dead matter randomly using parts of RNA assembled itself without God existing and we are here a trillion eons later somehow.

Theistic evolutionists examine God's natural laws to recreate the recipe for abiogenesis and delight in their God's work. In genesis God rested on the 7th day after his work was done.

 

[Mountainmike]

I have a hard time believing you are a scientist. Scientists I know, and I know many, have open and objective minds. When they disagree they examine the data and if they are able to they reproduce the studies. Creationists deny science they don't like then bang the drums and make loud noises but fail to produce anything that has scientific value.

There you go with stereotypes again.
I don’t “deny science” it’s a useful tool in its proper place.
It earned me a decent living thanks.

So Right boot. Wrong foot.

You have no objective mind. I presented pathology data , that has repeated , suggesting creation or so the pathologists said. You stated “ fail to provide” so clearly you discount senior pathologists if you don’t like their answer.

There is plenty more evidence that the accepted scientific model does not account for life.

Which trumps evidence for abiogenesis - you cannot reproduce it, it doesn’t repeat you do not know when , where or how it happened. You have no structure for the first living cell or process to it or from it.

Just possible pieces of a mostly empty jigsaw. It’s speculation / belief.

Since RNA world is also extremely complicated , life didn’t get there in one step I suggested you look at XNA world. Did you?

My mind is open and objective , I’m open to seeing evidence or proof of abiogenesis, I’m equally open to evidence of creation. Atheists cannot be objective. They decided the answer before study the evidence.

What you mean is , you don’t like my conclusions on evidence or beliefs.
And you discount evidence you don’t like! How scientific is that?

 

[Mountainmike]

When you bake a cake you need a recipe and follow the recipe one step at a time The first step in building the recipe is discovering the right ingredients.

Theistic evolutionists examine God's natural laws to recreate the recipe for abiogenesis and delight in their God's work. In genesis God rested on the 7th day after his work was done.

There is no recipe.

 

[Frank Robert]

There is no recipe.

Thanks for letting us know that you do not understand analogies.

 

[Frank Robert]

Thanks for the laugh.

My mind is open and objective , I’m open to seeing evidence or proof of abiogenesis, I’m equally open to evidence of creation. Atheists cannot be objective. They decided the answer before study the evidence.

Excellent demonstration of projection.

What you mean is , you don’t like my conclusions on evidence or beliefs.
And you discount evidence you don’t like! How scientific is that?

You are entitled to your religious conclusions. However, if you want to convince others that there is evidence for ID/IC then you need to provide the evidence.

I do not know if there was a creator deity nor I have not been taught that the bible must be taken liberally. My religious background regarding creation are routed in a Catholic worldview that God created the laws of nature.

 

[Mountainmike]

Thanks for letting us know that you do not understand analogies.

I understand it perfectly.

A recipe Implies a process from raw materials to product.

In the case of life, small molecules are the supposed raw materials, the present minimum complexity cell is the product.

Almost none of that process is conjectured , and none of it is known for sure, and it’s a process that is supposed to just happen and work without a chef. As I pointed out the announcement of ribozyme 6.61 is overhyped because that was clearly a product of a chef, so is arguably discountable, although it is clearly interesting.

I’m not as anti abiogenesis as you think.
I remain to be persuaded.
I’ve studied it for 50 years on and off.
But there is far more hype than evidence.

On EM , the actual evidence looks good.
Go on - challenge your preconceptions - read cardiologist Serafinis book on EM, then judge the evidence . The only part that might go over your head is Maternal DNA haplogroups - but that serves to prove the depth of the science. Not so easily discountable.

You do get the idea that a practising and fairly well known non religious pathologist Robert Lawrence who studied the evidence , stated it is “compelling evidence of creation” on behalf of tesorieros book.
By what scientific right do you contest such a statement?