Lifes First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory

A fundamental but elusive step in the early evolution of life on Earth has been replicated in a laboratory.

Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made. Until now, they couldnt explain how these ingredients might have formed.

Its like molecular choreography, where the molecules choreograph their own behavior, said organic chemist John Sutherland of the University of Manchester, co-author of a study in Nature Wednesday.

RNA is now found in living cells, where it carries information between genes and protein-manufacturing cellular components. Scientists think RNA existed early in Earths history, providing a necessary intermediate platform between pre-biotic chemicals and DNA, its double-stranded, more-stable descendant.

from Wired Science
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Wired
• Science
• News
• for
• Your
• Neurons
• Lifes
• First
• Spark
• Re-Created
• in
• the
• Laboratory
• abiogenesis
• primordial
• ooze

[kurtu5]

great news. More classical... less large blocks of text. Slightly faster pace. And a picture or two and your in cdk007 land.

[deadman1144]

i would of done more editing but i wonted to be the first to get it up on youtube

[circusOFprecision]

@laflugantabastardo

Life is an internal environment with respect to the local exterior environment. I said flipped inside out to illustrate how this may have occurred. Never mind that. I'm just trying to figure out if the RNA they produced was functional or not, that's all. Everything I've read says absolutely not. According to the theory it has to evolve to that point via selection, of which RNA molecules are most sufficient at gaining new base pairs.

[laflugantabastardo]

@circusOFprecision

It actually looks to me like they didn't just use controlled processes, but that they played around with the environment - add a little bit of this, what will happen. What do you mean by "flipping the environment inside out"?

[circusOFprecision]

@laflugantabastardo

The whole point of this is how do we interpret what we see? I'm not opposed to chemical evolution. I just find it extremely unconvincing. It seems to me like biological activity is in tune with patterns, but ultimately set in rhythm by the input and output of the machinery. But how did the environment get flipped inside out to make an organism?

[circusOFprecision]

@laflugantabastardo

When you say self assemble, what exactly are you claiming? Are you saying that they could then take the RNA and plug it in to make it work? To perform biological functions? If so, what's causing it. Self assembly as in meaningful genetic code? Or self assembly as in chemically bonding in no apparent order? Those are the only two options I can think of. If it's the first, then what best explains it? And what it the mechanism?

[circusOFprecision]

A biological functional result is a gene expression system, not a randomly sequenced RNA nucleotide recreated in a controlled experiment. Think about it. That information is what drives everything, not the molecules themselves. It's the sequence of the molecules. Plank in your eye? You keep dodging this. What about a membrane? Because it isn't the RNA. It's a system. RNA within itself is not meaningful. ITS THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE BASES AS THE DANCE OF A LINGUISTIC EXPRESSION

[circusOFprecision]

@laflugantabastardo

Ok, your reason is right there at the edge but you still don't quite grasp what I am asserting. Step 1. Turn RNA into a functionally sequenced RNA. That was not accomplished. What was accomplished is that they were able to chemically produce the nucleotides. They used another controlled process to link them together at random. Did they self assemble into something you can plug into biology. Then you have to start thinking about all the other molecules, continued...

[laflugantabastardo]

@circusOFprecision

Isn't that just a matter of finding the right combination sequence of chemicals?

I mean, chemistry may not equal biological information, but biological information would sure equal chemistry in this context.

[circusOFprecision]

The problem is the sequencing of base pairs to match the code for a biological function. Where does the information come from? We can make RNA "naturally" all day long. But we can't get RNA in a sequence that can convey genetic information, not without first recognizing the sequence in a living thing and understanding how it codes for a particular protein. Huge problem, chemistry doesn't equal information, not biological information anyways.

[circusOFprecision]

@laflugantabastardo

RNA molecules may build up in nature, and we may have demonstrated how this is possible through simulating a prebiotic environment. It is chemistry and physics, mostly. But the difference between what nature produces "accidentally", or what we try to recreate, and what exists in living thing is the sequence of the base pairs. RNA are sequence specific molecules. Sure they can mutate, but without first have a specific sequence, there is no information to mutate.

[laflugantabastardo]

@circusOFprecision

Since this is all merely chemistry, I don't think I understand what you mean, especially since you said that "bases" (assuming you mean base pairs) have nothing to do with chemistry. I'm a bit lost as to what you're claiming or asking.