Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

RNA Worlds

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I know this is old news by now (I was teaching an ID-intensive last week at Southern Evangelical Seminary, so I’m only now getting caught up), but the following paragraphs in ScienceNews struck me:

RNA molecules are formed from three components: a sugar, a base and a phosphate group. In past research, chemists developed each of the components and then tried to put them together to make the complete molecule. “But the components are quite stable, and so they wouldn’t stick together,” Sutherland says. “After 40 years of trying, we decided there had to be a better way of doing this reaction.”

The team took a different approach, starting with a common precursor molecule that had a bit of the sugar and the base. “Basically, we took half a base, added that to half a sugar, added the other piece of base, and so on,” Sutherland says. “The key turned out to be the order that the ingredients are added and the way you put them together — like making a soufflé.”

Another difference is that Sutherland and his team added the phosphate to the mix earlier than in past experiments. Having the phosphate around so early helped the later stages of the reaction happen more quickly and efficiently, the scientists say.

The starting materials and the conditions of the reaction are consistent with models of the geochemistry of an early Earth, the team says.

“But while this is a step forward, it’s not the whole picture,” Ferris points out. “It’s not as simple as putting compounds in a beaker and mixing it up. It’s a series of steps. You still have to stop and purify and then do the next step, and that probably didn’t happen in the ancient world.”

SOURCE: click here

Excuse me? Doing the chemical reactions in precise sequence and purifying the products at each step hardly seems like recreating realistic prebiotic conditions. In fact, it almost sounds like, dare I say it, intelligent design.

Comments
herb, That mockery was spot-on. The non-telic position just loves to spew nonsense as if it supports their position. Dr Axe exposes their nonsense for what it is. So in reality it is the paper that Dr Axe mocks that makes a mockery out of science.Joseph
May 23, 2009
May
05
May
23
23
2009
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT
CJYman,
Morale must be amazing over at the biologic institute. Imagine being able to just perform research on intelligence and its effects without arbitrarily imposed politics restricting your scientific investigation.
So true. I envy those scientists who are privileged to get in on the ground floor of the coming paradigm shift in biology. Unfortunately, it looks like someone has vandalized their website. The most recent article posted (Biologic Institute Announces First Self-Replicating Motor Vehicle — April 1st, 2009 by Douglas Axe) looks like a pathetic attempt at mockery by Darwinists. Does anyone here have a contact at the BI who can fix the damage?herb
May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT
Morale must be amazing over at the biologic institute. Imagine being able to just perform research on intelligence and its effects without arbitrarily imposed politics restricting your scientific investigation.CJYman
May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT
derwood writes:
I’ve seen the Biologic Institute. I had to chuckle when I noticed that they had padded their publication list after apparently being embarrassed that it was empty for so long.
Just imagine what the morale must be like at that place. It actually makes me feel sorry for them.beelzebub
May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT
derwood, You are confused. What I posted: Scientists should be working to find out if living organisms are reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity. Would be to support YOUR position. And by attempting to do so will lay bare the claim. Ya see all you have is a colorful narrative void of scientific data. But it sounds sciency so it passes because most people don't know the difference. So I have been eagerly awaiting anything that would support the non-telic position. What have you got?Joseph
May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT
derwood: I eagerly await the publication of some research that actually presents positive evidence for ID....
So what would you count as "positive evidence for ID"?Bilboe
May 21, 2009
May
05
May
21
21
2009
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT
I've seen the Biologic Institute. I had to chuckle when I noticed that they had padded their publication list after apparently being embarrassed that it was empty for so long. I eagerly await the publication of some research that actually presents positive evidence for ID, rather than weak attempts to claim that 'evolution can't do this' by settig up strawman scenarios. I suspect that if ever there comes a day when 'life' is indeed created in a lab, ID advocates will declare victory since the the experiment was designed.derwood
May 21, 2009
May
05
May
21
21
2009
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT
Derwood, Please see Biologic Institute. ID Research I'm not aware if ID scientist are doing specific RNA world type research. They certainly have people on their staff who understand it. But I do think this current research shows limits on how life arose that agree with ID. If not for intelligent intervention, this research "sidestep" does not work.DATCG
May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT
This is great research. I love it. But the interpretations are wrong in my opinion. "Doing the chemical reactions in precise sequence and purifying the products at each step hardly seems like recreating realistic prebiotic conditions. Agreed. It is not "realistic". They are bypassing steps and creating specific molecules of half bases. Otherwise the process is unstable or never gets off the ground. The "precursors" from the start are not stable unless in a very strict controlled environment. "In fact, it almost sounds like, dare I say it, intelligent design." I agree. They are selecting specific combined molecules that do not normally appear in nature and adding phosphate as a buffer during a step by step process. Then allowing UV rays to kill off the other myriad combinations that normally take place in nature. Is UV isolated? If so, then how does this fit with "plausible prebiotic conditions". If in fact they are using all of the Sun's light spectrum, then they can claim a more "plausible" condition. But then, is the entire light spectrum used from the beginning? Controlling when such conditions exist is intelligent intervention. If not for UV, then sludge is created. All those chemical reactions take place which they do not want to happen in their experiement. Is this "plausible?" They are guiding "relatively pure" molecules they created step by step with a goal in mind to an end outcome. This is intelligent intervention step by step. They are discovering steps of intelligent creation, which is more correctly stated as Intelligent Design. They are controlling variables from temperature, UV rays, to chemical starters, and catalyst that in pure form would not be stable long enough to form. As stated, "A new way of looking at the synthesis of RNA sidesteps a thorny problem in the field." Jack W. Szostak Key words: Synthesis, Sidestep, Thorny, Problem. They're learning how to make a stable environment for what seems to be an irreducibly complex prodecure bypassing a "thorny problem". A procedure that must proceed by specific organized steps. Doing so, they "sidestep" real problems along the way. It is good research however that illumines the limits in which life can form naturally without intervention by intelligence. It cannot without intelligence. Again, by human - intelligence - intervention and specific environmental controls it can. Here is a quote from first paragraph... "Here we show that activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides can be formed in a short sequence that bypasses free ribose and the nucleobases, and instead proceeds through arabinose amino-oxazoline and anhydronucleoside intermediates. The starting materials for the synthesis—cyanamide, cyanoacetylene, glycolaldehyde, glyceraldehyde and inorganic phosphate—are plausible prebiotic feedstock molecules12, 13, 14, 15, and the conditions of the synthesis are consistent with potential early-Earth geochemical models. Although inorganic phosphate is only incorporated into the nucleotides at a late stage of the sequence, its presence from the start is essential as it controls three reactions in the earlier stages by acting as a general acid/base catalyst, a nucleophilic catalyst, a pH buffer and a chemical buffer. For prebiotic reaction sequences, our results highlight the importance of working with mixed chemical systems in which reactants for a particular reaction step can also control other steps." I was going to bold critical areas above, but leave it to commenters to see or point out specific areas of intervention and unnatural steps admitted to above for starting this experiment. See how carefully each step is planned in relatively pure form and then ask what is "plausible" about this entire process if not for human - intelligent - intervention? Quotes taken from Nature: Origins Experiment Sidestepping Thorny Problems indicate Intelligence is Required That could be the headline.DATCG
May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT
Joseph: Scientists should be working to find out if living organisms are reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity. Perhaps ID scientists may want to take up this line of research, as it seems more in line with their testign of their own hypotheses. They do that, don't they? Or do they just try to disprove evolution? Why? Because of what happens once they realize that it is not. So, you've already done such research. What were the results and where were they published?derwood
May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
Good grief, don’t these evos have any standards? Apparently not. Clearly, you have a good grasp at what scientific standards should look like. Could you, perhaps, present some of your original scientific research such that it can be judged by your as yet undisclosed standards? A researcher trying this in an ID lab would be shown the door immediately. Are there any ID labs? And if so, where is their research?derwood
May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
Scot.David --
Doing the chemical reactions in precise sequence and purifying the products at each step hardly seems like recreating realistic prebiotic conditions.”
To me, this means that Dr. Dembski was hinting that the experimenters used less than optimal lab technique; therefore esentially manufacturing data to prove a point. How do you read it? Literally. It is a pointed observation that maybe the experiment might not perfectly duplicate how things might have occurred in pre-biotic Earth. That doesn't demean either the work or scientific achievement. There is no criticism of the research, no hint of bad science and there is no claim to falsehood.tribune7
May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT
This is good stuff- as I have said before. Scientists should be working to find out if living organisms are reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity. Why? Because of what happens once they realize that it is not.Joseph
May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT
Scot.David: You are being ridiculous. The only way you even knew that they were using what you call "manufactured data and inadequate procedure" is because they reported exactly what they did. If they didn't report what they did, or lied about how they did it, that would be "manufactured data and inadequate procedure".tragic mishap
May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT
Scot.David: purifying products is not purifying data. There is nothing wrong with the data or the procedure. It is just not a realistic procedure and the data is far from conclusive to prove abiogenesis. So there is nothing wrong with using that data to make requirement for a designer more reasonable.critiacrof
May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
tribune7: I apologize for my miss-post! I tried to use the block quotes and erased my quote, which totally changes the point I was trying to make. I was trying to highlight: "hardly seems like recreating realistic prebiotic conditions." To me, this means that Dr. Dembski was hinting that the experimenters used less than optimal lab technique; therefore esentially manufacturing data to prove a point. How do you read it?Scot.David
May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT
tribune 7 - Doing the chemical reactions in precise sequence and purifying the products at each step You read this differently?Scot.David
May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT
Scot.DavidDid you just accuse scientists using manufactured data and inadequate procedure as being indicative of Intelligent Design? Am I misunderstanding your point? I missed where he said scientists used manufactured data and inadequate procedure, or is that how you are describing it?tribune7
May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT
Good grief, don't these evos have any standards? A researcher trying this in an ID lab would be shown the door immediately.herb
May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT
All they demonstrated was that an intelligent agent engineered a possible, intelligence-guided step for early life.uoflcard
May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT
Excuse me Dr. Dembski? Did you just accuse scientists using manufactured data and inadequate procedure as being indicative of Intelligent Design? Am I misunderstanding your point?Scot.David
May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT
It seems as if they admitted that at the end of that excerpt. But that begs the question: What's the point of the experiment? "Hey, look what we made! (by the way, there's no way it happened like that naturally)" I'm actually surprised they admitted it probably didn't happen that way in the ancient world. I was expecting another reference to "deep time" or the anthropic principle. "You see, there were thousands, or even millions, of these little pools (call it the 'soupverse') bubbling over millions of years. At some point, it is a statistical guarantee that at least one of them performed these steps (including periodic purification) in the correct order." ...Hey, why not? "Science" has already accepted the fact that there are ~10^500 universes [even though we haven't observed 10^500 - 1 of them] with a multitude of physical constant properties (even though we've only measured one set of them), leading to the inevitability of a fine-tuned universe. I would call it a much smaller leap to believe in the soupverse theory rather than the multiverse. At least we know it's physically possible to have multiple pools (of anything), while we so far have only confirmed the existence of one universeuoflcard
May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply