Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At SciTech Daily: Scientists Solve an Origin of Life Mystery

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Seawater might have supplied the phosphorus required for emerging life.

Researchers from the Universities of Cambridge and Cape Town may have found a solution to the mystery of how phosphorus came to be an essential component of life on Earth by recreating prehistoric seawater containing the element in a laboratory.

Their findings, which were published in the journal Nature Communications, suggest that seawater may be the missing source of phosphate, suggesting that it could have been present in sufficient quantities to support life without the need for particular environmental conditions.

Phosphate is a crucial component of DNA and RNA, which are the building blocks of life, although it is one of the least common elements in the universe relative to its biological significance. Phosphate is also relatively inaccessible in its mineral form – it can be difficult to dissolve in water so that life can utilize it.

Scientists have long suspected that phosphorus became part of biology early on, but they have only recently begun to recognize the role of phosphate in directing the synthesis of molecules required by life on Earth, “Experiments show it makes amazing things happen – chemists can synthesize crucial biomolecules if there is a lot of phosphate in solution,” said Tosca, Professor of Mineralogy & Petrology at Cambridge’s Department of Earth Sciences.

However, there has been debate over the precise circumstances required to create phosphate. According to some research, phosphate should actually be even less accessible to life when iron is plentiful. However, this is disputed since the early Earth’s atmosphere was oxygen-poor and iron would have been widespread.

They used geochemical modeling to simulate the early Earth’s conditions in order to understand how life came to rely on phosphate and the kind of environment that this element would have evolved in.

The article goes on in this vein, but one wonders if it got written just for the sake of the overstated title.

For example, “chemists can synthesize crucial biomolecules…” – but how much intelligent intervention is required by the trained chemists to reach their desired goal?

Also, “the early Earth’s atmosphere was oxygen-poor and iron would have been widespread.” – Does this make any sense at all?

Again, why do intelligent scientists fall into the assumption that finding a chemical ingredient in the environment that is necessary for life equates with the ability of natural processes to form all the biomolecules necessary for life, and without guidance to arrange these into coordinated functionality in a microscopic locality so that the outcome is a living cell? So many steps in this imagined process are mediated against by the known laws of physics, that to suggest it happened naturally is to depart from scientific credibility.

Full article at SciTech Daily.

Comments
Hmmm. Apparently not. -QQuerius
November 3, 2022
November
11
Nov
3
03
2022
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT
Maybe JVL will respond to you about mRNA after he's back from trick-or-treating tonight. (grin) -QQuerius
October 31, 2022
October
10
Oct
31
31
2022
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus @142, I wonder why JVL hasn't responded to your challenge regarding mRNA? -QQuerius
October 28, 2022
October
10
Oct
28
28
2022
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT
JVL, are you unaware, still, of how mRNA is used in protein synthesis, the presence of codes, start, extend, halt, the onward use of AA chains? KF PS, to cut off lines of fruitless distractive rhetoric, here is Lehninger:
"The information in DNA is encoded in its linear (one-dimensional) sequence of deoxyribonucleotide subunits . . . . A linear sequence of deoxyribonucleotides in DNA codes (through an intermediary, RNA) for the production of a protein with a corresponding linear sequence of amino acids . . . Although the final shape of the folded protein is dictated by its amino acid sequence, the folding of many proteins is aided by “molecular chaperones” . . . The precise three-dimensional structure, or native conformation, of the protein is crucial to its function." [Principles of Biochemistry, 8th Edn, 2021, pp 194 – 5. Now authored by Nelson, Cox et al, Lehninger having passed on in 1986. Attempts to rhetorically pretend on claimed superior knowledge of Biochemistry, that D/RNA does not contain coded information expressing algorithms using string data structures, collapse. We now have to address the implications of language, goal directed stepwise processes and underlying sophisticated polymer chemistry and molecular nanotech in the heart of cellular metabolism and replication.]
See https://uncommondescent.com/darwinist-debaterhetorical-tactics/protein-synthesis-what-frequent-objector-af-cannot-acknowledge/kairosfocus
October 25, 2022
October
10
Oct
25
25
2022
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT
It should also be mentioned that to solve the Origin of Life problem, one also needs to account for some early type of repair mechanism, which needs to be highly conserved or the organism is toast. -QQuerius
October 25, 2022
October
10
Oct
25
25
2022
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT
Martin_r @138, Thank you for the link to Dr. Tour's video on ribose. He's brilliant! JVL @139,
Because you’re not even trying to figure out what kind of being did the design!
Wrong again. ID takes no position on the source of the design. For all we know, there might have been no designer, BUT ID advocates for treating poorly understood biological structures as if there were an intelligent designer. The result, as I've frequently noted, avoids premature judgments based on ignorance such as "Junk DNA" and "Vestigial" organs.
Well gosh, are you too lazy to look things up? You want me to do some work because you don’t understand common physics terms?
Sorry, I thought you already knew. UV radiation from the sun is lower frequency than the most common type (i.e. gamma) of background radiation from decay of radon gas from the ground, from other natural radioactive elements, and cosmic radiation. Everything on earth is continually being "cooked" by background radiation. Temperature and humidity also can have significant effects on breaking bonds in biomolecules. In the US, the EPA estimates our exposure as 620 mRem per year. Reducing this by 30% for non-natural sources and a bit more for the concentration of Radon in homes, I come up with about 400 mRem or 0.4 Rem/year. The LD 50/30 (Lethal Dose 50% in 30 days) for humans is about 400-450 Rem. Thus, the exposure of biomolecules supposedly a million years old would be about 400,000 Rem total or 1,000 times as much as would typically kill someone. The degradation rate of biomolecules would be expressed in terms of half life. A commonly-accepted figure for the half life of DNA is about 520 years, accounting for cumulative background radiation, temperature, and the presence of water. So, after a million years in the ground only about 0.05% of biomolecules should remain intact--virtually nothing. -QQuerius
October 24, 2022
October
10
Oct
24
24
2022
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT
Querius: So why did you raise the issue about Intelligent Design taking no position on the identity of the source of the design? Because you're not even trying to figure out what kind of being did the design! Yes, archaeologists rarely expect to pinpoint a particular person but they are VERY interested in the culture and time and etc regarding the creation of the design! So how is UV radiation, which creates free radicals and breaks polymer bonds in plastic fundamentally different than background radiation, which creates free radicals and breaks bonds in biomolecules? Well gosh, are you too lazy to look things up? You want me to do some work because you don't understand common physics terms? From Wikipedia: Background radiation originates from a variety of sources, both natural and artificial. These include both cosmic radiation and environmental radioactivity from naturally occurring radioactive materials (such as radon and radium), as well as man-made medical X-rays, fallout from nuclear weapons testing and nuclear accidents. So NOT ultraviolet! I told you I'd have a think about it. But it's hardly on my priority list.JVL
October 24, 2022
October
10
Oct
24
24
2022
03:37 AM
3
03
37
AM
PDT
Hey people... stop fighting... Have some fun with Dr. James Tour: "You don't have ribose!" https://youtu.be/v36_v4hsB-Y?t=4306martin_r
October 24, 2022
October
10
Oct
24
24
2022
01:52 AM
1
01
52
AM
PDT
JVL @133,
No one means ‘who’ as an individual!! That is such a silly thing to say! No one expects a name and address!! Too funny.
Yes, exactly. So why did you raise the issue about Intelligent Design taking no position on the identity of the source of the design? Just as one can study the Antikythera mechanism without knowing the source of the design, one can study it regardless. The same holds true for studying structures in biology that seem designed but without knowing anything about the designer. ID still uses the scientific method.
It breaks down the bonds in the plastic I think, why don’t you look it up and see. Anyway, UV is NOT referred to as background radiation.
I already know. So how is UV radiation, which creates free radicals and breaks polymer bonds in plastic fundamentally different than background radiation, which creates free radicals and breaks bonds in biomolecules?
Querius: Now can you please provide examples of, let’s say, three things in biology that were originally thought to have a purpose but instead turned out to be without any function instead? JVL: Not really my field . . . but I’ll have a think. Most biological structures did have some point at one time or another ’cause they ‘cost’ a lot to manufacture.
No, I’m not asking you whether structures that don’t seem to have a function once did. I’m asking you whether you can name three things in biology that were once thought to have a purpose, but on further study, turned out to have no function after all. Does this make the question any clearer? -QQuerius
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT
Alan Fox @132, Yes, I'm familiar with all that, but you haven't answered my question:
And how are you able to distinguish between “non-functional DNA” and “DNA with unknown function”?
-QQuerius
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus: in the known functional DNA there is complex, coded, algorithmic information used in protein synthesis. Please give a specific example of this 'algorithmic information'.JVL
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT
AF, in the known functional DNA there is complex, coded, algorithmic information used in protein synthesis. KFkairosfocus
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT
Querius: But you don’t know WHO the designer was. That was your criticism of Intelligent Design, that it takes no position on WHO the designer was. My point is that one can still study a design without knowing who the designer was. No one means 'who' as an individual!! That is such a silly thing to say! No one expects a name and address!! Too funny. And why does UV radiation degrade plastic? It breaks down the bonds in the plastic I think, why don't you look it up and see. Anyway, UV is NOT referred to as background radiation. AND changing environmental pressure AND an isolated community AND enough of the same novel mutation to become fixed in a population. I left those out, too. But how much impact does selection advantage confer? Cumulative selection is part of the deal! If it were are just random you'd get nothing. This is all very, very clearly explained in many popular books discussing the issues. a) Junk DNA or b) DNA with Unknown Function I think they were both funded. And it was mainstream science that started discovering function where none was seen before. I did ask for specifics and you're just giving me suppositions. a) Vestigial organs or b) Organs with Unknown Function a) Living fossils or b) Species that Defy Evolution or Extinction Again, I think all those issues were studied and researched. Please, don't just fling assumptions, provide real cases and real data. An assumption of junk, an assumption of no function (vestige), or an assumption of no cause does not encourage investigation, study, and scientific research. This slows down science. References please. Now can you please provide examples of, let’s say, three things in biology that were originally thought to have a purpose but instead turned out to be without any function instead? Not really my field . . . but I'll have a think. Most biological structures did have some point at one time or another 'cause they 'cost' a lot to manufacture.JVL
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
And how are you able to distinguish between “non-functional DNA” and “DNA with unknown function”?
Repeating myself for the lurkers! There is DNA known to be functional, essential to the host organism. There is DNA known to be extraneous, not essential to the host organism. There is DNA that appears on current knowledge not to have an identifiable benefit for the host organism. DNA in the latter provisional category may be reassigned to known functional or known non-functional in the light of future investigation. Science is provisional.Alan Fox
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
Alan Fox @130,
Non-functional DNA, Querius. Non-functional DNA is DNA for which no function beneficial to the host organism can yet be found or where the non-functionality can be established (for example retrotransposons etc).
And how are you able to distinguish between "non-functional DNA" and "DNA with unknown function"? -QQuerius
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
* “Junk” DNA (now renamed to “non-coding DNA”)
Yup, he's at it again. Querius, this is disappointing. And you call ID critics trolls. Non-functional DNA, Querius. Non-functional DNA is DNA for which no function beneficial to the host organism can yet be found or where the non-functionality can be established (for example retrotransposons etc).Alan Fox
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
JVL @102, 122, 127,
Querius: For example, the Antikythera mechanism has still been studied as if it were intelligently designed even though it’s not possible to determine the intelligent designer, right? JVL: It was a human being who lived at roughly a given time who had access to the tools and materials available at that time. It’s not that big of a deal you know.
But you don't know WHO the designer was. That was your criticism of Intelligent Design, that it takes no position on WHO the designer was. My point is that one can still study a design without knowing who the designer was.
That’s because of UV dude.
And why does UV radiation degrade plastic?
AND cumulative selection. You conveniently forget to include that often.
AND changing environmental pressure AND an isolated community AND enough of the same novel mutation to become fixed in a population. I left those out, too. But how much impact does selection advantage confer? J.B.S. Haldane and others have come up with some interesting figures.
How has any of those ‘labels’ slowed down science? Please give particular examples with evidence.
Can I use both sides of the paper, teacher? ;-) Okay. Scientific research is usually funded by grants. Would it be easier to get grant money to study: a) Junk DNA or b) DNA with Unknown Function a) Vestigial organs or b) Organs with Unknown Function a) Living fossils or b) Species that Defy Evolution or Extinction An assumption of junk, an assumption of no function (vestige), or an assumption of no cause does not encourage investigation, study, and scientific research. This slows down science. Now can you please provide examples of, let's say, three things in biology that were originally thought to have a purpose but instead turned out to be without any function instead? -QQuerius
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
AND cumulative selection. You conveniently forget to include that often.
I've noticed that, too. Too often to be a memory lapse.Alan Fox
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
Querius: It presupposes that biological organisms and structures were the result of undirected, random chance. AND cumulative selection. You conveniently forget to include that often. This has resulted slowing down science by creating in labels such as How has any of those 'labels' slowed down science? Please give particular examples with evidence.JVL
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
Sir Giles @114,
A first year marketing student would understand the rationale.
Indeed. And if the brand, Spontaneous Generation(tm), is losing to Biogenesis(tm) due to the work of Louis Pasteur and his predecessors, the marketing wizards create a new brand, Evolution(tm). You create appealing copy and promote band new recipe based on von Helmont's famous one to generate mice: dirty rags, some grains of wheat, and about two weeks. The new recipe requires a dirty earth, some organic molecules from a can of Campbell's Organic Primordial Soup, hot rocks, ice, sunlight, rain and splashing water, lots of lightning, and 100-200 million years. You claim that this "musta," "coulda," or "mighta" happened. But this is supposed to be science, not marketing. Science is supposed to subject hypotheses to experimental, observational, and logical scrutiny. And the proof in this pudding is how well future discoveries are predicted and how fast science advances as a result. Unfortunately, Darwinism/Evolution hasn't done very well. It presupposes that biological organisms and structures were the result of undirected, random chance. This has resulted slowing down science by creating in labels such as * "Junk" DNA (now renamed to "non-coding DNA") * "Vestigial" organs (over 100 at one time, including the thyroid) * "Living fossils" (that magically resisted evolutionary change for millions of years) And so on. -QQuerius
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT
Anyway, you’re free to believe biomolecules can survive millions of years.
Yet I'm not altogether convinced about some claims. A lot depends on conditions. A lot depends on interpretation of evidence. Contamination is a huge issue. What I am convinced about is the geology.Alan Fox
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT
And, by the way, DNA and RNA are considered biomolecules.
For goodness’s sake, Querius. DNA and RNA molecules are all biomolecules. All biomolecules are not DNA and RNA. You'll be arguing about junk vs non-coding DNA next.Alan Fox
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT
Alan Fox @113, Nice try, but no. I did not confuse DNA with biomolecules, I simply gave DNA as one example of the biomolecules found. If you refer to the list you will see that several papers found DNA specifically among the organic molecules (e.g. 72, 113, etc.). I clearly confused you by including both DNA half-life (very short, not expected to exceed 10ky total lifetime) and organic molecules in general (e.g. amino acids, proteins, sugars, not expected to exceed 1my), but the confusion is not on my side. I would refer you, for example, to Dr. Mary Schweitzer's full body of work, both her extensive research on verifying and validating all sorts of ">100myo original organic molecules", as well as her equally extensive research on attempting to explain how that is possible (spoiler alert: it isn't). Anyway, you're free to believe biomolecules can survive millions of years. Just be aware that that is a faith position, not a scientific one, and that those of us who have a grasp on the thermodynamic degradation of organic chemistry aren't the ones who are "confus[ed]" or in "error". Go argue with evolutionists like Dr. Schweitzer if you don't like it, not me.drc466
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
Querius: Background radiation doesn’t care what it hits. What happens to plastic if you leave it out in the sunlight for 10-20 years? It falls apart. Why? That's because of UV dude.JVL
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
Alan Fox @112, The link from Drc466 is useful indeed and is apparently maintained! Background radiation doesn’t care what it hits. What happens to plastic if you leave it out in the sunlight for 10-20 years? It falls apart. Why? And, by the way, DNA and RNA are considered biomolecules. https://www.britannica.com/science/biomolecule Reminds me of someone at work who loved buttered popcorn. They would put in a microwave and at first a delicious aroma would fill the floors of the building. Then, the fragrance would become increasingly stern, followed by the odor of dried popcorn on fire. By the time my colleague would remember, the popcorn was pretty much reduced to ash. That’s what also happens with long exposure to background radiation on biomolecules. The rate of disintegration can be tested in the lab. I believe that one can simulate millions of years of background radiation in a shorter amount of time as long as the temperature of the material can be kept low. -QQuerius
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT
Drc466 @109, Very nicely articulated! Continuing with your car analogy, how about this experiment: 1. Take apart a car completely. 2. Put it back together again. 3. Start the engine. It seems to me that the equivalent would fail in a cell because every component depends on the other components being in place. Back to the analogy . . . 2. Put it back together again in 10 minutes. Hmmm. That’s not possible. 2. Put it together from random parts of everything that’s ever been made in 10 minutes without any plans. Try it repeatedly for 100-200 million years. Oh, shoot. Not enough time. Okay, So how about a really simple car that barely works? Build up functionality from there. But a requirement is that this car has to build itself and it has to find its own oil and gasoline and electricity. And, off course, a cell isn’t a car. A cell is incredibly more complex. -QQuerius
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT
Relatd: And since He is God, He creates matter from nothing. How does that work exactly. It would take a lot of energy or something. Where would the energy come from? And what happens to the air and particles that were already in the space where the matter popped into existence? If it's just quickly displaced wouldn't you get something like a sonic boom everything some plant or animal just appeared? The fact that Jesus existed, cleansed the lepers, gave sight to the blind and even raised the dead is either lost on you or you prefer not to bring it up. I don't consider any of those things scientific fact. I am familiar with the stories of course. If you choose to believe them to be fact then I would say that is a matter of faith, which is fine by me.JVL
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT
JVL at 117, The answer is plain but you refuse to see it or pretend not to. God is the designer. And since He is God, He creates matter from nothing. The universe from nothing. The fact that Jesus existed, cleansed the lepers, gave sight to the blind and even raised the dead is either lost on you or you prefer not to bring it up.relatd
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT
Relatd: “In short, make no reference to god, and make every effort to discourage any attempt to examine the nature of the designer and how the designs were realized.” I have said over and over and over again that ID proponents should do more work and research regarding the nature of the designer and how the designs were implemented. But no one picks up the baton. So your criticism is misplaced. Perhaps you should criticise your fellows for not even attempting to do any research.JVL
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT
SG at 114, You have no idea what you're talking about or you're a liar. Part of what I do for a living involves marketing and market research. Your CRAP attempt to present legitimate research as "marketing" is CRAP. Scientific Creationism has yielded results. Intelligent Design has yielded results. Your attempt to cloud the issue fails. HERE IS THE PROBLEM: Living things only look designed, they are not actually designed. Living things are actually designed, which points to a designer. Who the designer is cannot be answered using the scientific method, which makes it necessary to go into proper philosophical study and theology. "In short, make no reference to god, and make every effort to discourage any attempt to examine the nature of the designer and how the designs were realized." A LIE. Here is the answer. • 'The Church “proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.” • “Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.” • "Quoting our late Holy Father John Paul II: “The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality, which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its creator.” "Christoph Cardinal Schönborn is archbishop of Vienna and general editor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church."relatd
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply