RNA world & the origin of life

[Matt Dillon]

You would not be able to survive in the environment of the early earth since there was little oxygen in the atmosphere and a lot of carbon dioxide.

Oh! And they can tell that to be absolute fact from rocks, amirite?

 

[Cypress]

That doesn't prove life only rose once. It could mean life always takes the same path when it starts or it could mean all other forms of life were quickly extinguished by the evolutionary dominance of one form.

Comparative anatomy, cladistic analysis,and genetics show that DNA based life is tied by a similar genetic strand way back into the remote past, at least to the Cambrian.

The fact we have been attempting, and failing to synthesize life, or even DNA molecules, from inert chemicals under controlled laboratory conditions for 70 years, suggests that it's not that easy for cellular life to get kick started.

The consensus in the scientific community is that all species alive today and in the past are tied together to a common genetic legacy.

 

[Cypress]

If I had to guess, I would say it might take very specific environmental factors, almost a perfect storm of events, for inert chemicals to get kick-started into self-organizing complex cellular life.

But the facts show that once it gets kick started, life is tenacious, and some genetic material is going to survive the most extreme mass extinction events to fuel future speciation.

 

[evince]

Oh! And they can tell that to be absolute fact from rocks, amirite?

https://socratic.org/questions/what-can-rocks-tell-us-about-earth-s-history


Explanation:
Rocks tell us a great deal about the Earth's history. Igneous rocks tell of past volcanic episodes and can also be used to age-date certain periods in the past. Sedimentary rocks often record past depositional environments (e.g deep ocean, shallow shelf, fluvial) and usually contain the most fossils from past ages. Metamorphic rocks tells us about plate tectonic movements and how the continents were shoved together and pulled apart. Meteorites from space are among the oldest rocks in the solar system and tells us the age and formation of the early Earth.



Glad to see you asking questions


Do some reading about it


It’s fascinating


And can make your decision making based in fact instead of propaganda

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2021.628137/full

Thanks, saving this for afternoon reading time.

I wonder if our RW friends will reject RNA therapies as so many of them have rejected RNA vaccines?

 

[Cypress]

Thanks, saving this for afternoon reading time.

I wonder if our RW friends will reject RNA therapies as so many of them have rejected RNA vaccines?

I don't think it's the RNA that has Trumpf's fan boys wringing their hands.

It's the nanotechnology Deep State puts in the vaccines to track your movements.

 

[evince]

They actually think it changes their DNA


Edumacation is bad for the Republican Party leaders ability to control their base

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Comparative anatomy, cladistic analysis,and genetics show that DNA based life is tied by a similar genetic strand way back into the remote past, at least to the Cambrian.

The fact we have been attempting, and failing to synthesize life, or even DNA molecules, from inert chemicals under controlled laboratory conditions for 70 years, suggests that it's not that easy for cellular life to get kick started.

The consensus in the scientific community is that all species alive today and in the past are tied together to a common genetic legacy.

A common genetic legacy doesn't necessarily mean it was the only one. It just means it was the only one to survive. Don't attempt to read more into the facts than should actually be concluded.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Oh! And they can tell that to be absolute fact from rocks, amirite?

A little light reading -
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...ethal-properties-air-4-billion-years-ago.html

If you want to have some heavier reading:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2116101119
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32228301/

 

[Cypress]

A common genetic legacy doesn't necessarily mean it was the only one. It just means it was the only one to survive. Don't attempt to read more into the facts than should actually be concluded.

The consensus is that all species who ever lived trace their genetic legacy back to the first prokaryotes of the remote past.

If anyone wants to hypothesize that completely separate and independent lines of life emerged on Earth repeatedly through geologic history, they need to provide convincing evidence for it. Because that discovery would earn them a Nobel prize, and would be one of the most stunning scientific discoveries of the century.

All life on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism that lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago, a new study seems to confirm. The study supports the widely held "universal common ancestor" theory first proposed by Charles Darwin more than 150 years ago

.https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...life on Earth evolved,more than 150 years ago.

 

[Into the Night]

We are cracking the case


I can’t wait until we reach a point that people believe science again

Not science. Religion is not science.

 

[Into the Night]

Agree. Life and non-life are not a metaphysical reality. Artificial Intelligence does not need the biological mechanism. A new stage in the evolution of the universe.

Can't define 'life', eh?

 

[Into the Night]

Life only arose once, sometime before 3.5 billion years ago. Every species that has ever existed has the DNA which is a genetic legacy of those first single celled prokaryotes in the remote past.

But to me, what is extraordinary is the persistence and tenacity of life. Even through many mass extinction events, some genetic material survived to fuel the speciation of new species of plants and animals.

How do you know all this took place? You are speculating.

 

[Into the Night]

You're cracking your headshells, eggheads and wanna-be eggheads.


"Researchers may have taken the first step toward solving this mystery. They’ve shown that RNA molecules can grow short proteins called peptides all by themselves—no ribosome required. What’s more, this chemistry works under conditions likely present on early Earth.


How are they recreating these "conditions likely present on early Earth"? How do they know what those conditions were, even?

They are attempting to describe their religion as 'science' once again.

 

[Into the Night]

I should have said "some think," not "they think." It's a side theory. According to it, life arose multiple times, but there is no record whatsoever of the earlier times because it was extinguished by massive meteor storms that slammed the early earth, and it never made it past the most simplistic self-replicating form, so there are no fossils or evidence of it.

I think that could be possible, and if that is what happened, it changes the idea that life forming is some rare, chance occurrence. It's basically an inevitability given certain conditions.

But either way, agreed - everything alive today has a single ancestor.

How do you know?

 

[Into the Night]

The geochemistry

No such thing. Buzzword fallacy.

and isotopes of ancient rocks

How do you know a rock is ancient?

give us clues to atmospheric conditions on the early earth.

Isotopes don't describe atmospheric conditions.

Having a reasonable idea of what those conditions were, scientists can recreate those environments under laboratory conditions.

So they're making shit up. Gotit.

 

[Cypress]

How do you know all this took place? You are speculating.

We have the physical evidence --> fossils of prokaryotes in 3.5 billion year old rock.

 

[Into the Night]

How far off would those evironments be from present day earth?

He doesn't know, obviously.

 

[Into the Night]

self replicating RNA has been known for a while but the mechanisms are not
Loks like the peptides (short chain amino acids) might play apart but it's beyond my comprehension

His too.

 

[Into the Night]

Don't know,

Obviously. You don't have a time machine.

but there is always a range of uncertainty in scientific investigations,

Science is not an investigation. Science is not statistical mathematics.

and the professional scientist

Science is not a profession.

will always identify, and if possible, quantify the uncertainty.

That is not possible.

One thing we know with certainty, the atmosphere of the early Earth was virtually oxygen-free

You don't know. You are speculating.

and the first prokaryotes evolved in the absence of atmospheric free oxygen.

You don't know that either. You are speculating.

Science isn't religion. Neither is math religion.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It is not mathematics. It is not guessing. There is no theory of science about past unobserved events. They are not falsifiable.