New evidence of how life began

[publiusr]

Here is a bit more on the topic:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/N...taneous_appearance_of_primordial_DNA_999.html

"The new research demonstrates that the spontaneous self-assembly of DNA fragments just a few nanometers in length into ordered liquid crystal phases has the ability to drive the formation of chemical bonds that connect together short DNA chains to form long ones, without the aid of biological mechanisms."

That's the sound of an RPG hitting Ken Ham in the head and detonating.

 

[Dryson]

Iron is also a necessary element for life to exist on a planet as well. With Mars being one giant iron rust ball could we recreate the building blocks of life on one of planets with moons that have water on them? If all that is needed are chemicals discussed in article as well as a good healthy dose of UV light then the building blocks of life should be able to be created anywhere where the life should adapt due to self assembling DNA.

 

[Hatshepsut]

...the building blocks of life should be able to be created anywhere where the life should adapt due to self assembling DNA.

I don't claim much knowledge here, but I don't think DNA or most other large molecules found in cells self-assemble except perhaps under special laboratory conditions contrived by chemists. RNA World, the DNA Liquid Crystal, and other abiogenesis experiments to date all require such special conditions: controlled temperature and pH and reagents and so on. They're not done "outdoors" the way it had to happen in real life. This is important because the outdoors is loaded with heavy metal ions that poison the reactions.

Even if a DNA strand does result, we're not there yet. The whole cell acts together as a machine. We celebrate DNA because it stores the hereditary information, but without the rest of the cell DNA is helpless. As for the supposedly robust and independent RNA, only a few RNA sequences actually catalyze their own synthesis, and again, only in a test tube environment. And the autocatalytic RNAs don't do anything else; they don't catalyze fatty acid polymerization for instance.

Which makes abiogenesis a mystery. A bacterium can't form from a soup of its constituent chemicals. It's too complex. Louis Pasteur demonstrated it with his broth filled swan-necked flasks when he was refuting the spontaneous generation the early 19th century had believed in. If Biblical creationists were smart they'd be all over this instead of apes or dinosaurs. I'm not a creationist. Still it seems clear a number of intermediate steps lie between the chemicals and the first cell, and that these steps remain completely unknown.

The research is fascinating. However, they'll have to show that whatever mechanism they propose can work outdoors in uncontrolled conditions with unreliable supplies of the ingredients.

 

[Dryson]

There are those who believe that life here began out there.

from Time:

http://time.com/3753366/life-began-earth-evidence/

There’s New Evidence About How Life on Earth Began

Some support for the primordial ooze theory

How did life on Earth start? Did it emerge from the primordial ooze as is popularly believed, or did it land here from a comet or some other celestial body?

A new study in the journal Nature Chemistry provides strong evidence that the ingredients necessary to concoct the first life forms did indeed exist on earth. The scientists say that they used hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen cyanide and ultraviolet light—three basic elements that were available pre-life as we know it—to create the building blocks of compounds that eventually led to the genetic material that all life on earth holds in common, DNA.

The process also likely got some extraterrestrial help. They speculate that meteorites might have reacted with nitrogen in the atmosphere to create hydrogen cyanide, and that in water, that chemical could have interacted with both hydrogen sulfide and the sun’s UV light.

[video in article]

If life began from primordial ooze then that would tell me that when the Big Bang occurred and interacted with other particles in space that each planet and sun came into being in the location that they are in now.

Basically how a match struck and then held a few inches from a piece of tissue paper would see the tissue paper ignited without the flame even touching the tissue paper.

That might be believable for some but I would have to say that the primordial ooze is rather a secretion of what of what the planet didn't need much the same as how a pimple forms on the skin because of dirt and oil particles trapped under the surface.

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

 

[Metryq]

He's probably using voice recognition software and talks in his sleep.

 

[RoJoHen]

If life began from primordial ooze then that would tell me that when the Big Bang occurred and interacted with other particles in space that each planet and sun came into being in the location that they are in now.

Why would it tell you that? How are the two things even remotely related?

 

[Metryq]

If life began from primordial ooze then that would tell me that when the Big Bang occurred and interacted with other particles in space that each planet and sun came into being in the location that they are in now.

Why would it tell you that? How are the two things even remotely related?

They're not related. He's just ramblin'. Apostrophe, O'Ramblin.

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1anBub9qg-8[/yt]​

 

[Dryson]

Another question is at what stage of the expanding Universe would the first component of life actually start to form? Life grows in stages so too would the actual seed of life follow the same pattern of how the human seed grows from embryo to full sized adult.