Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Once upon a time, before DNA or RNA, there was TNA … if it ever existed in life forms

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From “Simpler Times: Did an Earlier Genetic Molecule Predate DNA and RNA?” (ScienceDaily, Jan. 9, 2012), we learn,

According to Chaput, one interesting contender for the role of early genetic carrier is a molecule known as TNA, whose arrival on the primordial scene may have predated its more familiar kin. A nucleic acid similar in form to both DNA and RNA, TNA differs in the sugar component of its structure, using threose rather than deoxyribose (as in DNA) or ribose (as in RNA) to compose its backbone.

In an article released online January 9 in the journal Nature Chemistry, Chaput and his group describe the Darwinian evolution of functional TNA molecules from a large pool of random sequences. This is the first case where such methods have been applied to molecules other than DNA and RNA, or very close structural analogues thereof. Chaput says “the most important finding to come from this work is that TNA can fold into complex shapes that can bind to a desired target with high affinity and specificity.” This feature suggests that in the future it may be possible to evolve TNA enzymes with functions required to sustain early life forms.

… research has now shown that a single strand of TNA can indeed bind with both DNA and RNA by Watson-Crick base pairing — a fact of critical importance if TNA truly existed as a transitional molecule capable of sharing information with more familiar nucleic acids that would eventually come to dominate life.

In “Before DNA, before RNA: Life in the hodge-podge world”(New Scientist, 08 January 2012), Michael Marshall notes

That doesn’t mean TNA was the original genetic material, though. Chaput thinks it probably wasn’t, if only because the chemistry of early Earth was so messy that TNA would not have arisen on its own. Rather, many different kinds of genetic material probably formed in a genetic hodge-podge. “The most likely scenario is that nature sampled lots of different things,” says Chaput.

Hmmm. What is “nature” that it should be doing any sampling?

Also,

… there are problems with the hodge-podge world hypothesis. For one thing, there is no trace of TNA or its cousins in modern organisms. For another, although TNA looks simpler than RNA, we can’t be sure it was easier to make some 4 billion years ago because no one has actually made it in the conditions that existed on Earth before life began, says John Sutherland of the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, UK.

TNA has also not been found in life forms today, which is why the media release reads “ if TNA truly existed as a transitional molecule capable of sharing information with more familiar nucleic acids that would eventually come to dominate life.” You be the judge.

Comments
Another chicken and egg argument?Petrushka
January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT
Aternatively, you can show that informational control is not required for the complex systems under question, or that information transfer does not require representations and protocols.
So, there will be no counter-examples offered here today, nor will the lack of such mean anything whatsoever to your conclusions.Upright BiPed
January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT
elizabeth: "And, as a result, the theory had to be modified" so the theory can accept anything? "I don’t see why not. Why not?" because if you want to make a new protein you will need huge amount of amino acid sequence. if you want a protein that can bind 2 substrate, you will need minimum 2 binding site, so one binding site will be useless.mk
January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT
No, I'm not (right now) arguing that they can. I'm simply querying mn's apparent comment that an intelligent designer couldn't. If it's a prediction, anyway. But I may have misunderstood his/her post. That's why I asked.Elizabeth Liddle
January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
Please explain why an intelligent designer could not assemble such a thing “step by step”? Have you become an ID proponent Dr Liddle? Such systems cannot be assembled 'step-by-[unguided] step'.Upright BiPed
January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT
By definiton, such systems are beyond “step by step” configuration.
Please explain why an intelligent designer could not assemble such a thing "step by step"? Or are you simply saying that the intermediate steps will be non-viable? That it has to be assembled at the work bench, as it were? In which case, how does it reproduce?Elizabeth Liddle
January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
Aternatively, you can show that informational control is not required for the complex systems under question, or that information transfer does not require representations and protocols.Upright BiPed
January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT
Because a "very complex system" (on massive observation) requires the constraint of recorded informational input. Recorded information requires abstract representations and transfer protocols; two material objects that must be coordinated even though they do not interact, and each must both be present in order for information transfer to take place. By definiton, such systems are beyond "step by step" configuration.Upright BiPed
January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
Yes, indeed, that's an excellent example. And, as a result, the theory had to be modified (though not Darwin's part, interestingly). Hence HGT.
the intellgegent design also has a positive prediction: a very complex system the cant be bild in a step by step mechaisem
I don't see why not. Why not?Elizabeth Liddle
January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT
elizabeth we can also fund a fail predication of the evolution theory. like a genes that can be found in a far species. the intellgegent design also has a positive prediction: a very complex system the cant be bild in a step by step mechaisemmk
January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
It is very strange taht every time you say your position makes predictions and you are called on it that you never produce any predictions!
Weirdly, when we point to Tiktaalik (a stunningly successful prediction) you say it doesn't count because, I dunno, they didn't really predict it or something. But take any empirical paper in evolutionary biology that reports a positive finding. That will represent a prediction that was successful. Because that's what a positive finding is.Elizabeth Liddle
January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT
If you can't tell a relationship from descent from a relationship from design, what is the utility of the design hypothesis? The designer has not been observed, nor has an instance of design been observed, so it would seem to be an unnecessary hypothesis. I find it interesting that the more an ID advocate knows about molecular biology (see Behe) the more likely to accept common descent.Petrushka
January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT
What does descent mean among microbes that exchange DNA? What multicelled organism are not related by descent? Name some.Petrushka
January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
I predict that casinos will continue to be profitable, for the same reason that GAs work, and for the same reason evolution works. Evolution creates things that never before existed. Their characteristics are not predictable. If you could predict the consequences of sequence changes, design would be possible. Try it. Show me that design is possible without evolution.Petrushka
January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT
Related how? By design or descent? How can we tell?Joe
January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT
Then tell us about these alleged predictions.Joe
January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT
It is very strange taht every time you say your position makes predictions and you are called on it that you never produce any predictions! As for not rejecting Darwinism- obvoulsy it doesn't say anything to reject...Joe
January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT
What evidence is there that some branches of life are unrelated?Petrushka
January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT
It would be news to casinos and professional poker players that stochastic processes don't lead to useful predictions.Petrushka
January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT
Predictions? Please- predictions borne from stochastic processes is a fool’s errand
Well, no. You can certainly build predictive stochastic models. I've just built one myself, as it happens! And that's how weather-forecasting is done. Glad to hear you don't reject Darwinism. It certainly is not the only explanation for the data. Are we done?Elizabeth Liddle
January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT
Well the evolution we observe does not support universal common descent. So that would be one issue...Joe
January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
I'm not sure what that even means. There isn't any known historical remnent of first life, so all we can do is explore the chemistry to see what's possible. We will never know the actual history. But we do have quite a bit of historical evidence for the history of plants and animals, plus we have genomes, so we can consider reconstructing common ancestors. Plus we can observe evolution in the laboratory. We can study how it works. So your question looks. To me Like asking whether the engineering of buildings can be tied to the invention of grass huts. There's a theoretical link, but the actual history is lost.Petrushka
January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT
Elizabeth, We wouldn't say the hypothsis is untestable if you or someone else could tell us how to objectively test it. Predictions? Please- predictions borne from stochastic processes is a fool's errand. Oh and is isn't that we reject Darwinism and NDE, but we reject the claim that they are the only explanations.Joe
January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT
There seems to be a general view on this forum that if we can't actually go back and look, a hypothesis is untestable. Or, if we can't account for a specific phenomena, then a theory is untestable. Which isn't how hypothesis testing works at all, as Genomicus shows in his thread on front-loading. What you do is you predict what you should observe if your hypothesis is true, and, if possible, what differential predictions are made by two alternative hypotheses. Support for a hypothesis derived from a theory does not tell you that your theory is correct, but it does provide support for it. Lack of support for a hypothesis derived from a theory tells you that you need to adjust your theory. It doesn't mean you need to throw out the whole thing, though. "Darwinists" are often at fault for not making this clear. We do not, have, and will never have, a complete theory of how life as we observe it came to be. But we do have huge support for a number of theoretical principles, and (IMO) no good reason to suppose that we cannot extrapolate from those principles to events for which we have scant, or no, data. But it is perfectly true that we do not know how certain features of living things evolved (and thus, whether they did), nor how life itself got started (and thus, whether it came about through physics and chemistry or by some other means). But nor can we infer that Darwinian evolution and physics+chemistry are NOT the answer, and that is really where "Darwinists" depart from IDists. Not in rejecting ID, but in rejecting ID as the only reasonable default.Elizabeth Liddle
January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT
Don't know about the fact part, but it's a testable hypothesis.. what other testable hypothesis is there?Petrushka
January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT
Above all this is the unassailable fact that our knowledge of the chemical make-up of the earth's surface during the pre-biotic era is conjecture based on assumptions that are for the most part untestable. Every scenario about the advent of life on earth begins with the assumption--usually unstated--that unguided abiogenesis is a fact, and goes on to assume--again, without stating that this assumption has been made--that the conditions necessary for unguided abiogenesis are not merely possible, but actually did prevail. It would be no different if a prosecuting attorney argued that there is no need to show the defendant was at the scene of the murder, because we already know that he did it.EvilSnack
January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT
the minimum to start with is a self replicate molecule. but to do that we need a polymerase protein like rna replicase. its a very complex protein that can make a copy of a dna\rna strand. also it need to replicate a big number of nucleotides. somthing like couple of hundred.mk
January 21, 2012
January
01
Jan
21
21
2012
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
So does that mean we can we now incorporate the Origin of Life question within the modern evolutionary synthesis?Stu7
January 21, 2012
January
01
Jan
21
21
2012
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
In the current study, Chaput and his group use an approach known as molecular evolution to explore TNA's potential as a genetic biomolecule. Such work draws on the startling realization that fundamental Darwinian properties -- self-replication, mutation and selection -- can operate on non-living chemicals.
Petrushka
January 21, 2012
January
01
Jan
21
21
2012
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply