Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 116 (8752 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-28-2017 10:26 AM
117 online now:
Coyote, Davidjay, nwr, RAZD, Tangle (5 members, 112 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DeliverUsFromEvolution
Post Volume:
Total: 809,156 Year: 13,762/21,208 Month: 3,244/3,605 Week: 30/556 Day: 30/54 Hour: 4/14

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
234567Next
Author Topic:   Could RNA start life?
dayalanand roy
Junior Member (Idle past 998 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 11-27-2012


Message 1 of 105 (682597)
12-04-2012 12:50 AM


Dear Honorable members of the forum

As we know, still majority of evolutionists believe in an RNA world hypothesis. However, I have a problem in imbibing this theory. Nucleic acids are the information storage system of life. When there was no life, why did nature invent a storage system to store the information about sometning (Life) which was still not existent, and hence there was no information to store. Can we suppose the invention of a floppy disk, a CD or a pen drive before the invention of computer? Can we suppose the invention of bank before the invention of money? Similarly, when there was no lfe, there was no information about it, and hence no question to store it, and hence no question to invent an storage system to store it.

regards to all
Dayalanand

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add blank lines.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 12-04-2012 1:44 AM dayalanand roy has responded
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 12-04-2012 2:09 AM dayalanand roy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 5 by nwr, posted 12-04-2012 7:10 AM dayalanand roy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 6 by jar, posted 12-04-2012 9:07 AM dayalanand roy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 8 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-04-2012 10:14 AM dayalanand roy has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Taq, posted 12-04-2012 1:10 PM dayalanand roy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 16 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-04-2012 5:14 PM dayalanand roy has responded
 Message 19 by Dr Jack, posted 12-05-2012 6:59 AM dayalanand roy has responded
 Message 22 by ringo, posted 12-05-2012 1:27 PM dayalanand roy has responded
 Message 39 by Saiyan, posted 12-11-2012 5:03 PM dayalanand roy has responded
 Message 46 by PlanManStan, posted 12-14-2013 10:41 PM dayalanand roy has not yet responded
 Message 63 by Taq, posted 04-18-2014 12:37 PM dayalanand roy has not yet responded
 Message 102 by djufo, posted 10-02-2014 8:31 PM dayalanand roy has not yet responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3784
Joined: 09-26-2002
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 2 of 105 (682599)
12-04-2012 1:33 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Could RNA start life? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12688
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 3 of 105 (682600)
12-04-2012 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by dayalanand roy
12-04-2012 12:50 AM


In the RNA world, the RNA is NOT "an information storage system". It's the life itself.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by dayalanand roy, posted 12-04-2012 12:50 AM dayalanand roy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by dayalanand roy, posted 12-08-2012 9:00 AM PaulK has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18478
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 4 of 105 (682605)
12-04-2012 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by dayalanand roy
12-04-2012 12:50 AM


abiogenesis
Hi dayalanand roy, welcome to the fray.

As we know, still majority of evolutionists believe in an RNA world hypothesis. ...

Wrong.

Many accept that the RNA hypothesis may be true, many are skeptical of it being true and are waiting for more information.

... However, I have a problem in imbibing this theory. ...

That would appear to be a personal problem, not a scientific one. Whether or not you accept the theory of gravity has no effect at all on the behavior of gravity.

... Nucleic acids are the information storage system of life. ...

Sorry but this is wrong thinking again, they are just imperfect replications of what has survived.

... When there was no life, why did nature invent a storage system to store the information about sometning (Life) which was still not existent, and hence there was no information to store. ...

Curiously, this should tell you that your premise regarding information storage is false, rather than this being a problem for the development of life.

... Can we suppose the invention of a floppy disk, a CD or a pen drive before the invention of computer? Can we suppose the invention of bank before the invention of money? ...

Again, this is poor thinking: none of these things reproduce.

... Similarly, when there was no lfe, there was no information about it, and hence no question to store it, and hence no question to invent an storage system to store it.

And yet, once replicating molecules developed, they could proceed to follow the precepts of evolution: random mutation causing differences, and natural selection allowing the ones better able to survive and reproduce, to become more dominant.

Enjoy.

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by dayalanand roy, posted 12-04-2012 12:50 AM dayalanand roy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by dayalanand roy, posted 12-08-2012 9:14 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 62 by Ed67, posted 04-18-2014 9:57 AM RAZD has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5524
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 6.1


Message 5 of 105 (682615)
12-04-2012 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by dayalanand roy
12-04-2012 12:50 AM


As we know, still majority of evolutionists believe in an RNA world hypothesis.

I don't know that. I suspect it is false. The majority are probably those who admit that there is something unknown, yet to be explained.

As far as I know, there are several schools of thought about the origin of life. The two main ones seem to be "RNA first" and "metabolism first".

Personally, I am not committed to either, but I think "metabolism first" the more likely of the two.


Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by dayalanand roy, posted 12-04-2012 12:50 AM dayalanand roy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 12-04-2012 9:27 AM nwr has responded
 Message 36 by dayalanand roy, posted 12-08-2012 9:37 AM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28840
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(2)
Message 6 of 105 (682635)
12-04-2012 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by dayalanand roy
12-04-2012 12:50 AM


When it comes to biological life there have been no inventions. Nature invented nothing. Stuff happened. Some stuff worked and some stuff did not work.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by dayalanand roy, posted 12-04-2012 12:50 AM dayalanand roy has acknowledged this reply

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 105 (682637)
12-04-2012 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by nwr
12-04-2012 7:10 AM


Personally, I am not committed to either, but I think "metabolism first" the more likely of the two.

I'm not sure I follow. Could you expand on this?

How do you see metabolism happening without catalysis? How do you see catalysis happening without either enzymes or autocatalytic nucleic acids? How do you see there being enzymes before nucleic acids? If autocatalytic nucleic acids predate enzymes, isn't that "RNA first"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by nwr, posted 12-04-2012 7:10 AM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by nwr, posted 12-04-2012 10:28 AM crashfrog has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11352
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


(5)
Message 8 of 105 (682646)
12-04-2012 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by dayalanand roy
12-04-2012 12:50 AM


When there was no life, why did nature invent a storage system to store the information about sometning (Life) which was still not existent, and hence there was no information to store.

Chemistry. Given the right conditions, molecules just spontaneously react on their own. Its all according to physical laws. Biology is just complex chemistry and chemistry is just complex physics. There's no inventing or thought process, shit just happens.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by dayalanand roy, posted 12-04-2012 12:50 AM dayalanand roy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 12-04-2012 3:27 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5524
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 6.1


Message 9 of 105 (682648)
12-04-2012 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by crashfrog
12-04-2012 9:27 AM


nwr writes:
Personally, I am not committed to either, but I think "metabolism first" the more likely of the two.
crashfrog writes:
I'm not sure I follow. Could you expand on this?

How do you see metabolism happening without catalysis?


You are reading too much into what I said.

Metabolism is a matter of chemical reactions releasing potential energy of chemical structure, and making that available as kinetic energy (producing motions). Spontaneously occurring chemical reactions do some of that.


Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 12-04-2012 9:27 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 12-04-2012 3:21 PM nwr has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6461
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


(4)
Message 10 of 105 (682670)
12-04-2012 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by dayalanand roy
12-04-2012 12:50 AM


Nucleic acids are the information storage system of life. When there was no life, why did nature invent a storage system to store the information about sometning (Life) which was still not existent, and hence there was no information to store.

In the same way that Nature is able to give a body of water the information it needs to form puddles that perfectly form themselves to match the shape of the depression in the ground.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by dayalanand roy, posted 12-04-2012 12:50 AM dayalanand roy has acknowledged this reply

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 105 (682683)
12-04-2012 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by nwr
12-04-2012 10:28 AM


Metabolism is a matter of chemical reactions releasing potential energy of chemical structure, and making that available as kinetic energy (producing motions). Spontaneously occurring chemical reactions do some of that.

Well, yes, but how does a putative proto-organism exploit any of that without some degree of catalysis?

For my own part, I can't imagine how you could have non-catalytic chemical life. But my BS is in biochemistry, so I'm already sort of primed to define life in terms of its ability to create a volume where chemical reactions are controlled to the organism's benefit. It's certainly the case that chemistry predates RNA, but in the context of "starting life" (you know, up there in the thread title) it's just not yet clear to me what you think.

Metabolism is a matter of living things using enzymes to catalyze chemical reactions to exploit the change in free energy. Obviously there are many spontaneous reactions that involve a favorable free energy change, as well. But unless an organism exploits the reaction it's not a form of metabolism, and unless the organism is participating in the reaction some way, the energy can't be exploited. So I still don't understand your position. But it's interesting, I'm not trying to draw you into an argument, I'm trying to draw you into being more clear. I'd love for you to expand on your thoughts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by nwr, posted 12-04-2012 10:28 AM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by nwr, posted 12-04-2012 3:55 PM crashfrog has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 105 (682684)
12-04-2012 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by New Cat's Eye
12-04-2012 10:14 AM


Given the right conditions, molecules just spontaneously react on their own. Its all according to physical laws. Biology is just complex chemistry and chemistry is just complex physics. There's no inventing or thought process, shit just happens.

Sure. But, it's not an unreasonable question to ask if we subtract the notion of "purpose" and wonder - what is the selective advantage of evolving storage of enzymes as nucleic acids if enzymes haven't yet evolved? At the Bio 101 level, there's a chicken and egg problem here - organisms require proteins for catalysis, proteins can only evolve when represented by DNA (chemical changes to your proteins themselves aren't heritable), but DNA can't have evolved without proteins.

The answer is the world of auto-catalytic RNA, where organisms are using and storing RNA sequences that can mutate and be inherited and exchanged, but also can be used for chemical catalysis. It's pretty good, we've discovered that cells still use RNA as both an information storage molecule and a catalytic molecule, and I've never heard a convincing alternative for how life could evolve from simple chemistry to the Central Dogma.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-04-2012 10:14 AM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5524
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 6.1


(1)
Message 13 of 105 (682686)
12-04-2012 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by crashfrog
12-04-2012 3:21 PM


crashfrog writes:
Well, yes, but how does a putative proto-organism exploit any of that without some degree of catalysis?

Perhaps you missed the "I am not committed to either" part of Message 5. I am not making any claim that all of the problems have been solved.

crashfrog writes:
Metabolism is a matter of living things using enzymes to catalyze chemical reactions to exploit the change in free energy.

Well, okay. If you are committed to life magically popping into existence, then we will have to agree to disagree.

I take the view that life was preceded by some earlier systems which had some but not all of what we would today consider life. That allows a possible path for life to evolve out of spontaneously occurring chemistry. If you are going to insist that terms such as "metabolism" are not to be used outside of what we today consider to be life, then you are a priori excluding such a possibility of predecessors.


Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 12-04-2012 3:21 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by crashfrog, posted 12-04-2012 4:01 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply
 Message 37 by dayalanand roy, posted 12-08-2012 11:33 AM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 105 (682687)
12-04-2012 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by nwr
12-04-2012 3:55 PM


Perhaps you missed the "I am not committed to either" part of Message 5.

I didn't miss it, but you were pretty clear that you're leaning towards a position that I'm telling you, doesn't make any sense to me. Even if you were leaning away from it we'd still be talking about it because I don't see how it can even be one of the choices.

If you are committed to life magically popping into existence, then we will have to agree to disagree.

I'm not committed to life "magically popping into existence", and now I wonder where you got that I was. Again, I'm simply trying to arrive at clarity about your views. How do you have metabolism without catalysis, and how do you have biological catalysis without either enzymes or ribozymes? You insist that I'm overthinking it somehow, but these all seem like stupidly obvious questions to me. I'm wondering maybe if you didn't underthink it.

That allows a possible path for life to evolve out of spontaneously occurring chemistry.

Life certainly evolved out of spontaneously occurring chemistry, but it wouldn't be life until the chemistry was controlled and not spontaneous. Right?

Maybe I'm just not making myself clear yet. Let's try some more questions. Start with the first living thing (in your view.) Now, trace back one step to its immediate predecessor which by definition is not life, so let's call it the "last proto-life." What kind of chemistry does the last proto-life do, and how does it do it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by nwr, posted 12-04-2012 3:55 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 12-04-2012 4:48 PM crashfrog has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18478
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 15 of 105 (682688)
12-04-2012 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by crashfrog
12-04-2012 4:01 PM


abiogenesis - last stages?
Hi crashfrog & nwr

... Now, trace back one step to its immediate predecessor which by definition is not life, so let's call it the "last proto-life." What kind of chemistry does the last proto-life do, and how does it do it?

Both replication and metabolism -- replication needs raw materials being consumed to make the next (imperfect) copy. This would likely be enclosed in a lipid shell, so we have a ways to go before getting back to the "first" system\aspect of life.

Life certainly evolved out of spontaneously occurring chemistry, but it wouldn't be life until the chemistry was controlled and not spontaneous. Right?

Why? There could be whole slews of different chemical systems, and what we call life could come from one and then dominate\consume all others.

Edited by RAZD, : added


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by crashfrog, posted 12-04-2012 4:01 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 12-04-2012 6:00 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 18 by Dr Jack, posted 12-05-2012 6:47 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
1
234567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017