Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 91 (8839 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-22-2018 4:03 AM
255 online now:
AZPaul3, caffeine, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (4 members, 251 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Calvin
Post Volume:
Total: 832,230 Year: 7,053/29,783 Month: 1,277/1,708 Week: 168/474 Day: 2/63 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
234Next
Author Topic:   Self-sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1634 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 1 of 52 (547754)
02-22-2010 9:52 AM


I found a fascinating (if shallow) article on "evolution in RNA chemicals" from various places I read RSS feeds from - in short, scientists have observed evolutionary traits in non-living chemicals.

quote:

The abstract is from http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/.../life-evolution-a-test-tube

An RNA enzyme that catalyzes the RNA-templated joining of RNA was converted to a format whereby two enzymes catalyze each other's synthesis from a total of four oligonucleotide substrates. These cross-replicating RNA enzymes undergo self-sustained exponential amplification in the absence of proteins or other biological materials. Amplification occurs with a doubling time of about 1 hour and can be continued indefinitely. Populations of various cross-replicating enzymes were constructed and allowed to compete for a common pool of substrates, during which recombinant replicators arose and grew to dominate the population. These replicating RNA enzymes can serve as an experimental model of a genetic system. Many such model systems could be constructed, allowing different selective outcomes to be related to the underlying properties of the genetic system.


so, in short, they had these RNA molecules (which replicate imperfectly, such that random mutation would take place) compete for food (the substrate in the testtube) - those which were "more fit" would become more numerous by "eating" more of the substrate. When the substrate was exhausted, samples were taken and the experiment started again with a new substrate.

From the beginning until the end, the RNA molecules "evolved" through "natural selection" as natural mutations and the pressure to "survive" did pretty much exactly the same as has been theorized by Darwin and many others.

It's not quite abiogenesis and it's definitely not life, but it is showing something that looks a lot like it and is taken as pretty good proof of how it works as well as giving us a glimpse of how things could have been before chemistry became life.

This topic then is two-fold, as I'd like to know what everyone thinks of this article (and the actual paper!) from http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/.../life-evolution-a-test-tube AND what they think of the very first comment:

quote:
Hype+Buzz Words != Science

Hmmm... sounds fascinating, but reading between the lines, its not really clear what these scientists observed or accomplished beyond a specific type of chemical reaction.

What was the mechanism that allowed these molecules to grow in complexity? What "problems" are they solving? What is meant by complexity? These words are so incredibly ambiguous and overloaded that without very clear definitions and specifics, I remain skeptical.
Submitted by Visitor on 21 February 2010 - 12:18pm.


because I think the very first comment is a religious nut. Why? Several reasons:

1) the first sentence makes out that the experiment didn't do anything (denial)
2) it talks about "a mechanism" for the chemicals to "grow in complexity" (sounds like "designer" to me)
3) it brings in the word "complexity", and then acts as if it's actually brought in by the article, and because it's "not defined" can be used to further denigrate the work
4) it calls the words "complexity" and "problems" as "ambiguous" and "overloaded" when these words weren't in the original article, yet still attempts to make it stick
5) it's quite obvious the reader didn't actually read the article because the commenter doesn't understand what happened (because point #4 is irrelevant)

All these add up to textbooks ignorant/conniving creationists (now, not all creationists are like this, but some most certainly are).

Am I wrong? why?

Edited by greyseal, : the extra abstract was added in explaining what was done, how and why.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Topic title changed from pretty worthless "To catch a creationist..." to "Self-sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme", which is the title of the paper cited in message 4.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 02-22-2010 11:17 AM greyseal has not yet responded
 Message 5 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 02-25-2010 7:20 PM greyseal has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12551
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 2 of 52 (547760)
02-22-2010 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by greyseal
02-22-2010 9:52 AM


Could you add a paragraph of summary of how the article describes this evolution-in--test-tube working? Post a note or send me a PM when you're done and I'll take another look.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by greyseal, posted 02-22-2010 9:52 AM greyseal has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12551
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 3 of 52 (548097)
02-25-2010 1:54 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the To catch a creationist... thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7425
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 4 of 52 (548100)
02-25-2010 3:05 PM


For those interested, you can read the peer reviewed paper (author's manuscript) here:

Link


  
AnswersInGenitals
Member
Posts: 491
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 5 of 52 (548142)
02-25-2010 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by greyseal
02-22-2010 9:52 AM


It has recently been discovered that Prions, which are proteins, can also evolve without the intercession of nucleic acid intermediaries. See, for example, Darwinian Evolution of Prions in Cell Culture.

It is becoming evident that the Darwinian evolutionary process (random variation followed by selection to some criterion) is a very general one and is not restricted to biological species evolution. It has long been known to be an important component, and perhaps the most important component, of technological evolution. It is also an important part of intelligent design, as any engineer who has participated in "brainstorming" sessions can attest. In fact, subconscious brainstorming might well be the basis of all (human) intelligent design.

I'm sorry that I don't have an answer to your specific question about creationists connivances. I really don't give a dying duck what ignoramuses think. Science marches on and reveals all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by greyseal, posted 02-22-2010 9:52 AM greyseal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by greyseal, posted 02-26-2010 2:01 AM AnswersInGenitals has not yet responded
 Message 7 by dcarraher, posted 05-11-2010 2:28 PM AnswersInGenitals has not yet responded

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1634 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 6 of 52 (548180)
02-26-2010 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by AnswersInGenitals
02-25-2010 7:20 PM


so IDiots ignore this too?
It is becoming evident that the Darwinian evolutionary process (random variation followed by selection to some criterion) is a very general one and is not restricted to biological species evolution.

I think that's fascinating! For years I'd been hearing "you don't know X so you must be wrong" from creationists, and all along it's been "now we know this" and "now we know that" and it seems people opposed to this viewpoint (and opposed to the very examination of the facts) will wholesale ignore this research.

I think that first comment is a great giveaway of the mindset. Reading between the lines, the comment was "it's still not abiogenesis, so you're still wrong".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 02-25-2010 7:20 PM AnswersInGenitals has not yet responded

    
dcarraher
Junior Member (Idle past 2840 days)
Posts: 13
From: Cols, OH
Joined: 06-05-2009


(1)
Message 7 of 52 (559776)
05-11-2010 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by AnswersInGenitals
02-25-2010 7:20 PM


...find a creationist as ignorant as an evolutionist
I hate to interrupt all the self-congratulatory back-slapping and name-calling (igno