News Origin Of Life

Sell your stock in volcanic vents

Spread the love

From ScienceDaily:

The crucibles that bore out building blocks of life may have been, in many cases, not fiery cataclysms, but modest puddles. Researchers working with that hypothesis have achieved a significant advancement toward understanding the evolutionary mystery of how components of RNA and DNA formed from chemicals present on early Earth before life existed. In surprisingly simple reactions they have produced good candidates for their precursors that even spontaneously joined up to look like RNA. Paper. (public access) – Brian J. Cafferty, David M. Fialho, Jaheda Khanam, Ramanarayanan Krishnamurthy, Nicholas V. Hud. Spontaneous formation and base pairing of plausible prebiotic nucleotides in water. Nature Communications, 2016; 7: 11328 DOI: 10.1038/NCOMMS11328 More.

The wheels come off later, one suspects. Otherwise, why isn’t life erupting in puddles all around us?

What we know and don’t, know about the origin of life

Follow UD News at Twitter!

4 Replies to “Sell your stock in volcanic vents

  1. 1
    EDTA says:

    Couldda swore it was a warm little pond…how is that different from a modest puddle?

  2. 2
    Dionisio says:

    Sell your stock in volcanic vents

    Are you recommending to sell on low? Who’s gonna buy that now? 🙂

    BTW, better watch out, better not cry, money is coming to town:

    “The research from the NSF/NASA Center for Chemical Evolution, headquartered at the Georgia Institute of Technology, is generously funded through a grant from the National Science Foundation and NASA. The recent results were published on April 25, 2016 in Nature Communications.”

    Someone sang that money can’t buy me love, but it definitely can make people write anything that pleases the ‘generous’ givers.

    IOWs, gotta do what gotta do… produce desired results or else… the reindeers will fly somewhere else 🙁

    However, why go through all that trouble?

    I’d give them all the components ready to use and a complete toolkit set so they have more time to resolve the real issues presented by gpuccio here:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-603942

    And in following comments he and Origenes posted in that thread.

    Only one folk has dared to argue -though poorly- with gpuccio and Origenes.

    Where are the other debaters when they are needed? Where did they go?

    🙂

  3. 3
    Dionisio says:

    #2 addendum

    Late last year my wife bought online a nice wall-mounted cabinet with folded desk. The included instructions indicated that it takes 45 minutes for two persons to complete the work. Logically I thought it should take twice that long (1.5 hr) for one person to do it, but my wife graciously said it was no urgent, hence it’d be fine if it took me 2 hrs. Well, it took me a whole day to review the instructions and figure out how to proceed, three days to assemble, a couple of days to mount it on the wall. And still there was a half centimeter error at the end, but it’s unnoticeable. This experience added to similar precious situations made me humbly appreciate the importance of having well written instructions that lead to the right goal in a given amount of time. In this case the mounting instructions were incomplete or at least inaccurate, what I use as a cheap excuse for the error I found at the end of the work. 🙂
    Anyway, my always forgiving wife and children praised me for getting it done so fast. 🙂
    The functional wall mounted desk with shelves has resolved an inconvenient space issue we had and has helped me to get more work done lately. It was worth the time and effort.

    On a more important subject, the functional complexity we observe in the information-processing biological systems renders the B787/A350 design and production incomparably much simpler. Actually, their category difference in the order of magnitude is a valid reason to refrain from mentioning them in the same text. However, sometimes for lack of comparable examples, someone might refer to advanced technological systems just for illustration purpose.

    For anyone interested in reading the comments by gpuccio and Origenes in

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-603942

    here are their post #s following the summary pointed to by the above link:

    31-34,43,44,47,53,57,68,70,71,76,77,81-85,87,90,95,97,99,100,101

    Approximately 25% of that discussion thread.

  4. 4
    Dionisio says:

    #3 correction:

    “…graciously said it was no urgent,…”
    Should read ‘was not’ instead of ‘was no’

    “This experience added to similar precious situations…”

    It should be “previous” instead of “precious”.

Leave a Reply