The origin of life

  • Thread starter Thread starter Black_Rose
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Black_Rose

Guest
The origin of life personally interests me and I am pursuing it as an intellectual leisure interest. This attempts to understand a fundamental existential question: the chemical origin of the existence of all life.

My interest is independent of any theological/religious attachment and is entirely secular since I do not affirmatively believe in divine intervention in life’s origins although I am receptive to the possibility. Furthermore, even if God did create life, promulgating a supernatural origin of life would not be an effective argument supporting the existence of a benevolent personal god for the reasons I argued here.

I highly recommend individuals who have the combination of the requisite general intelligence, knowledge of chemistry and biology, and free time required to understand the literature on this topic to pursue it. Of course, one should not expect to find concrete, confident answers to this intriguing question as origin of life has been plagued, in general, with uncertainty, ambiguity, and speculation. Inquiry into the origin of life is scientific since the topic can be explored empirically by analyzing and interpreting data from experiments that attempt to recapitulate the environment and chemistry of the early Earth.

One hypothesis, the RNA world generally acceptable but still controversial, postulates early biochemistry being dominated by ribonucleic acid where it assumes the roles of catalyst (before the advent of translation) and genetic polymer. Synthesizing the RNA monomers, nucleotides with the ribose and sugar backbone with a purine and pyrimidine nucleobase, has been a notoriously difficult endeavor for prebiotic chemists. The recent work of chemist John Sutherland, however, has provided some optimism that the pathways for producing nucleotides would be discovered. Recently, Sutherland and his colleagues published a purported prebiotic synthesis of pyrimidine ribonucleotides in Nature, which was considered extraordinarily difficult due to the challenge of linking pyrimidine bases to ribose. No plausible route to the purine nucleotides has been discovered yet. Robert Shapiro, a well-known critic of the RNA world hypothesis, doubts the relevance of Sutherland’s work on the origin of life, citing how one of the reagents, cyanoacetylene, would not be abundant on the early Earth.

What are your perspectives and views on the origin of life?

Some reading:

Fairly Light:
Robert Shapiro: A Simpler Origin of Life
Nicolas Wade: Chemists Show How RNA Can Be the Starting Point for Life
NYU chemist Robert Shapiro decries RNA-first possibility
Jack Szostak: Systems chemistry on early Earth

Journal Articles (technical and accessible through the links):

Leslie Orgel (2004): Prebiotic Chemistry and the Origin of the RNA World
Leslie Orgel (2008): The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth
Gerald Joyce (2002): Antiquity of RNA-based Evolution
Robert Shapiro (2006): Small Molecule Interactions were Central to the Origin of Life

Robert Shapiro (1999): Prebiotic cytosine synthesis: A critical analysis and implications for the origin of life
John Sutherland (2010): Ribonucleotides
Matthew Powner, J. Sutherland et al.(2009): Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in
prebiotically plausible conditions
 
I eagerly await the production of animate matter from inanimate matter; but I do not wait with held breath.

👍
 
One simple question is at the root of all this:

How did purposeless molecules become a purposeful being?
 
I eagerly await the production of animate matter from inanimate matter; but I do not wait with held breath.

👍
This was actually demonstrated in the 1950s, in the Miller and Urey Experiment. The generally accepted hypothesis is that lightning strikes on the early earth synthesized the building blocks of life which increasingly organized to include lipid membranes and ribozymes (which replicate).

Let it be clear though: this is no way contradicts Catholic teaching. God is immanent in His creation; the lightning strikes obey His commands (through secondary causes): “He made darkness the cover about him; his canopy, heavy thunderheads. Before him scudded his clouds, hail and lightning too. The Lord thundered from heaven; the Most High made his voice resound.” (Ps 18:12-14). And what did God say? “Let the earth bring forth all kinds of living creatures” (Gen 1:24).

Furthermore, Aquinas believed that life came forth from inanimate matter and even other forms of life in evolutionary succession. From the Summa Theologica, on the work of the sixth day: “Since the generation of one thing is the corruption of another, it was not incompatible with the first formation of things, that from the corruption of the less perfect the more perfect should be generated. Hence animals generated from the corruption of inanimate things, or of plants, may have been generated then [the sixth day]. But those generated from corruption of animals could not have been produced then otherwise than potentially.” (Thomas Aquinas, STh I, q. 72, a. 1).

He even discusses mutant creatures produced from corrupted seed dying out and going extinct: “The same thing is true of those substances which Empedocles said were produced at the beginning of the world, such as the ‘ox-progeny’, i.e., half ox and half man. For if such things were not able to arrive at some end and final state of nature so that they would be preserved in existence, this was not because nature did not intend this [a final state], but because they were not capable of being preserved. For they were not generated according to nature, but by the corruption of some natural principle, as it now also happens that some monstrous offspring are generated because of the corruption of seed.” (Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Physics, Book 2, Lecture 14, Section 262)

Also note that Aquinas, following the tradition of Augustine, considered the days of creation to represent indefinite epochs as God continues to govern the world: “My Father is at work until now, so I am at work” (Jn 5:17).

Hope this helps,

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com
 
Science “has” discovered GOD. And this discovery is moving heretofore atheistic scientists to confess to the undeniable existance of a “First Cause” which 99% of the world calls, “GOD”.

This discovery of GOD rests in two independent studies, i.e. The Big Bang and DNA.

The Big Bang is now recognized as “the creation moment” when all matter came into existance. Nothing exists, then the Big Bang, and matter is everywhere. How? From What?

Secondly, DNA. So complex and complicated and shared between living and vegtable that it is beyond the wildest calculation of probability of being an accident.

This History Chanel (suprisingly) recently had a show wherein it provided 1950-60 era video of a Profess ( forgot his name ) claiming the atheistic point of view of science in several discussions or presentation. And then today, the same scientist, now 80’s, watching himself in the video and countering what he said with the new evidence and the inability to explain the Big Bang and DNA without an intelligent First Cause.
 
I eagerly await the production of animate matter from inanimate matter; but I do not wait with held breath.
Water is inanimate. Drink some water. That water you drink is incorporated into your living body so it becomes animate matter. Take some iron tablets. The iron in those tablets is inanimate. That iron becomes incorporated into your body so it is now animate.

There is nothing special about the chemicals in a living organism. They are just chemicals.

rossum
 
How did purposeless molecules become a purposeful being?
Define “purpose” in terms of an extremely simple single cell with even less complexity than a modern bacterium and far less complexity than a human zygote.

Can a single celled human zygote be said to have “purpose”? It certainly does things, such as grow and divide, but those things are surely automatic rather than driven by purpose.

rossum
 
I eagerly await the production of animate matter from inanimate matter; but I do not wait with held breath.

👍
I think Ventner’s crew recently made DNA from scratch, then inserted in in a cell to create a new life form. That doesn’t count as a complete production from an inanimate source since it was put into an animate cell. But it’s an important step closer.
 
I think Ventner’s crew recently made DNA from scratch, then inserted in in a cell to create a new life form. That doesn’t count as a complete production from an inanimate source since it was put into an animate cell. But it’s an important step closer.
Yep, it is one step closer, but not there yet
There is a big difference between synthesizing the building blocks of life and producing animate matter…
Well put
 
Define “purpose” in terms of an extremely simple single cell with even less complexity than a modern bacterium and far less complexity than a human zygote.

Can a single celled human zygote be said to have “purpose”? It certainly does things, such as grow and divide, but those things are surely automatic rather than driven by purpose.

rossum
Complexity is irrelevant to whether an organism is purposeful or not. Even a relatively simple single cell has an urge to survive whereas even an extremely complex molecular compound makes no effort to continue in existence.

books.google.co.uk/books?id=UNE8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=the+directiveness+of+living+organisms&source=bl&ots=XwvV3v8RIk&sig=QsX4Pa3wE2Lr4rvnF95pYcf26Yo&hl=en&ei=NQMUTJvPKKT60wT2r-yBCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCkQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=the%20directiveness%20of%20living%20organisms&f=false
 
This was actually demonstrated in the 1950s, in the Miller and Urey Experiment. The generally accepted hypothesis is that lightning strikes on the early earth synthesized the building blocks of life which increasingly organized to include lipid membranes and ribozymes (which replicate).

Let it be clear though: this is no way contradicts Catholic teaching. God is immanent in His creation; the lightning strikes obey His commands (through secondary causes): “He made darkness the cover about him; his canopy, heavy thunderheads. Before him scudded his clouds, hail and lightning too. The Lord thundered from heaven; the Most High made his voice resound.” (Ps 18:12-14). And what did God say? “Let the earth bring forth all kinds of living creatures” (Gen 1:24).

Furthermore, Aquinas believed that life came forth from inanimate matter and even other forms of life in evolutionary succession. From the Summa Theologica, on the work of the sixth day: “Since the generation of one thing is the corruption of another, it was not incompatible with the first formation of things, that from the corruption of the less perfect the more perfect should be generated. Hence animals generated from the corruption of inanimate things, or of plants, may have been generated then [the sixth day]. But those generated from corruption of animals could not have been produced then otherwise than potentially.” (Thomas Aquinas, STh I, q. 72, a. 1).

He even discusses mutant creatures produced from corrupted seed dying out and going extinct: “The same thing is true of those substances which Empedocles said were produced at the beginning of the world, such as the ‘ox-progeny’, i.e., half ox and half man. For if such things were not able to arrive at some end and final state of nature so that they would be preserved in existence, this was not because nature did not intend this [a final state], but because they were not capable of being preserved. For they were not generated according to nature, but by the corruption of some natural principle, as it now also happens that some monstrous offspring are generated because of the corruption of seed.” (Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Physics, Book 2, Lecture 14, Section 262)

Also note that Aquinas, following the tradition of Augustine, considered the days of creation to represent indefinite epochs as God continues to govern the world: “My Father is at work until now, so I am at work” (Jn 5:17).

Hope this helps,

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com
So, why can’t scientists produce life from inanimate chemicals in the lab today?

God bless,
Ed
 
What are your perspectives and views on the origin of life?
I’m by no means able to judge whether some robust hypothesis is more promising than another, but I’ve always been most intrigued, personally, by protobionts, which, if memory serves, are self-organizing cell-like bodies which are able to catalyze reactions if they are exposed to modern proteins.
 
Venter’s team did not make DNA from scratch. Please don’t guess. Read the original material. What they did was extract, modify and transfer genetic material into another cell that began to use that genetic material. Nothing was created from scratch.

sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/328/5981/958.pdf

God bless,
Ed
I’d love to read the original material. Do you have a link?

Was the genome they transferred animate? Guess it’s getting closer and closer…
 
I’d love to read the original material. Do you have a link?

Was the genome they transferred animate? Guess it’s getting closer and closer…
If you read the article I posted a link to, they are not much further along than genetic knockout experiments where the following occurs:

The organism is still alive - write that down.

The organism died - write that down.

Did you read the article? You know how viruses reproduce? They attach themselves to a cell, inject their RNA., and the cell begins producing copies of the virus.

Animate? Define animate.

God bless,
Ed
 
Complexity is irrelevant to whether an organism is purposeful or not. Even a relatively simple single cell has an urge to survive whereas even an extremely complex molecular compound makes no effort to continue in existence.

books.google.co.uk/books?id=UNE8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=the+directiveness+of+living+organisms&source=bl&ots=XwvV3v8RIk&sig=QsX4Pa3wE2Lr4rvnF95pYcf26Yo&hl=en&ei=NQMUTJvPKKT60wT2r-yBCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCkQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=the%20directiveness%20of%20living%20organisms&f=false
I question whether a single cell, which has neither a brain nor any nervous tissue, can have a “purpose”. Pretty much everything is automatic.

If simple survival is a ‘purpose’ then the Spiegelman Monster has the same purpose and that is just a chemical.

rossum
 
Venter’s team did not make DNA from scratch. Please don’t guess. Read the original material. What they did was extract, modify and transfer genetic material into another cell that began to use that genetic material. Nothing was created from scratch.

sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/328/5981/958.pdf
Venter’s team did make the DNA from scratch – the article you quote refers to it as "synthetic DNA – and then inserted it into a bacterium of a different species that had had its own DNA removed. The point was that the bacterium then reacted as if it was of the species that Venter had copied, along with the pretty blue colour from extra DNA the team had inserted as a marker. You can see the blue colouring in the photo in the article you link to.

The entire synthetic DNA sequence was built from basic chemicals.

rossum
 
I’d love to read the original material. Do you have a link?

Was the genome they transferred animate? Guess it’s getting closer and closer…
The full article is at sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/science.1190719v1.pdf

The genome was a synthetic copy of an existing genome, with modifications. The modifications were so it could be distinguished from the original. It had some of the experimenters’ names added in and also coding for a blue dye so the change could be recognised visually.

We have been able to make short strands of DNA, a few hundred to a thousand base pairs, for some time now. What Venter’s team did was to make a strand over a million base pairs long. That is significant progress.

rossum
 
From scratch? They rebuilt some DNA. There was no scratch.

“We needed to improve methods for extracting intact chromosomes from yeast.”

God bless,
Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top