How RNA Got Started: Scientists Look for the Origins of Life

Reader Comments
Back to article

Life IS INDEED An RNA World
Genomes Are RNAs'-Made Patterns-Manuals
"Repeats protect DNA"
http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/57135/
"More On Evolution In The Still RNA World"
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/260/122.page#4818
Fitting together the pieces of the "still an RNA world" puzzle ?
- Rational probability and possibility that the initial, independent pre-biometabolism direct sunlight-fueled genes (life) were RNAs, who evolved their DNA-images as operational patterns-manuals libraries, and celled and genomed them. They most probably synthesized (and nucleusized) their DNAs manual libraries as their functional organs, to serve as their environmentally stabler than RNA, than themselves, works memory cores.
- Rational possibility that ALL RNAs represent the original archae-genes that since their (life) genesis have been and still are the primary actors, assessors, messengers, operators of all life processes.
- Rational possibility that the RNAs are the environmental feedback communicators to, and modifiers of, the genomes, that the RNAs are the effectors of the desirable biased genes expressions modifications, of enhanced energy constraining for survival.
Dov Henis
(Comments From The 22nd Century)
28Dec09 Implications Of E=Total[m(1 + D)]
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/184.page#4587
Cosmic Evolution Simplified
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/240/122.page#4427

Dov Henis 11:11AM February 09, 2010

On The Origin Of Origins
Dark Matter-Energy And “Higgs”?
Energy-Mass Superposition
The Fractal Oneness Of The Universe
All Earth Life Creates and Maintains Genes
A. On Energy, Mass, Gravity, Galaxies Clusters AND Life, A Commonsensible Recapitulation
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/184.page#2125
The universe is the archetype of quantum within classical physics, which is the fractal oneness of the universe.
Astronomically there are two physics. A classical physics behaviour of and between galactic clusters, and a quantum physics behaviour WITHIN the galactic clusters.
The onset of big-bang's inflation, the cataclysmic resolution of the Original Superposition, started gravity, with formation - BY DISPERSION - of galactic clusters that behave as classical Newtonian bodies and continuously reconvert their original pre-inflation masses back to energy, thus fueling the galactic clusters expansion, and with endless quantum-within-classical intertwined evolutions WITHIN the clusters in attempt to delay-resist this reconversion.
B. Updated Life's Manifest May 2009
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=14988&st=480&#entry412704
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/140/122.page#2321
All Earth life creates and maintains Genes. Genes, genomes, cellular organisms - All create and maintain genes.
For Nature, Earth's biosphere is one of the many ways of temporarily constraining an amount of ENERGY within a galaxy within a galactic cluster, for thus avoiding, as long as possible, spending this particularly constrained amount as part of the fuel that maintains the clusters expansion.
Genes are THE Earth's organisms and ALL other organisms are their temporary take-offs.
For Nature genes are genes are genes. None are more or less important than the others. Genes and their take-offs, all Earth organisms, are temporary energy packages and the more of them there are the more enhanced is the biosphere, Earth's life, Earth's temporary storage of constrained energy. This is the origin, the archetype, of selected modes of survival.
The early genes came into being by solar energy and lived a very long period solely on solar energy. Metabolic energy, the indirect exploitation of solar energy, evolved at a much later phase in the evolution of Earth's biosphere.
However, essentially it is indeed so. All Earth life, all organisms, create and maintain the genes. Genes, genomes, cellular organisms - all create and maintain genes.
Dov Henis
(Comments from 22nd century)

Dov Henis 2:34PM July 12, 2009

Imagine all the "time" that came before us (and the "Big Bang"
for that matter) and all the "time" that will come hereafter.
We are all occupying the same nanosecond of existance and therefor share the same birth date and date of death of everyone
and everything that ever shared our existance. Atributing life to coincidences might seem improbable given that even the most rudimentary of life forms are so complex that the slightest error in their biology would be catastrophic to the organism's existance. However, in the infinite time available, is it logical to think common chance is accurate enough to get everthing so right and so perfect? Perhaps. Or is it more probable that there was an Intelligent hand that wrought this perfection and all the infinitely fine balances between the physical and biological relationships that we find all around us? Your turn now!

GW Bramhall of NY 2:22PM May 29, 2009

mr roisman needs to research his science a little more. we are the only planet in the solar system with plate tectonics. that is one of the reasons we are the only planet with life. see the goldilocks phenomenum. moreover, instead of declaring more credence in the words of the bible (and thus giving it more credibility than any and all of the other holy books of the world, for no good reason other than it is the faith you were brought up in), please supply the scientific proof that the creation myths of the bible, or all other aspects therein, are true.
why believe the miracles of the bible, which are typically naturally impossible, yet not believe all other miracles from all other religions? this is cherry picking of the highest order. apply the same rigours to your own belief that you apply to all others that you do not believe, otherwise you ar ehypocritical.

johnny pearce 12:56PM May 18, 2009

So we can't believe in RNA, or peer-reviewed scientific testing, but a talking snake in a magical garden can encourage feed two dust-made people to eat an apple?
And this happened what, 6,000 years ago?
You may be made from dust, but my body consists of DNA, RNA, and lots of science-approved molecular hardware.

Too Old for Fairy Tales of LA 1:03PM May 17, 2009

Fine but what is not addressed is the question, what contributes to the reduction of traits not conducive to the evolutionary development of a given life form. What is it that makes this a selective process? Inaddition, not to long ago scientist earnestly believed that random chance was thge sole proponent, for evolutionary progress. In A Guided Tour of the Living Cell. Christian de Duve, declares,"Chance, and chance alone, did it all, from the primeval soup to man,”. This simple statement ecapsulates the bulwork for evolutionary thinking in the not too distant past. Now evolutionists are scrambling to rephrase their theology.

William Alexander of NY 9:22AM May 17, 2009

Creation isn't taught in science class because it is not science; it is Christian creation mythology. Science is criticized for not having an obvious explanation for the origin of life. It would be nice if the universe provided cut & dried answers to all the questions we have about it. It would be nice if Creationists could give us a clear explanation for the existence of the creator. If they could, maybe we could call it "science." See the difference? When science encounters a gap in knowledge it tries to bridge it with explanations based on empirical evidence and logic. This can involve both observation and experimentation in order to test theories (proposed explanations for observed phenomena). If insufficient empirical evidence is available (and the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, go to www.talkorigins.org for answers to virtually all Creationist "arguments." There's way too much to include in this post.) science does not just give up and fill the void with whatever imagined "answer" gives the scientist psychological satisfaction. It tolerates the uncertainty until further data or a better falsifiable theory is available. It doesn't choose to stop seeking answers to tough questions by saying "the creator did it." Creationists accuse scientists of picking their data and fudging their explanations. At least science keeps looking for verifiable, intellectually honest explanations!
And to put just one old Creationist line to rest: Life did not arise by "random chance." The universe is not random; it works according to physical laws. If it were entirely random it would be a chaos. The process of evolution is not random chance. It is the accumulation of traits conducive to the survival of the evolving organism or system and the reduction of those that aren't. The products of this seemingly simple process can be surprisingly complex.

KB6 of AR 9:10PM May 16, 2009

Which is to prove how life could come into existence by chance and without any intelligent interference. They may be able to show RNA might have been formed, but they will not be able to say with certainty that this was how it actually occured. It amazes me how hypotheses like this can be taught in the classroom, but Creation is not tolerated.

Dryfire of IL 4:44PM May 16, 2009

I think the last paragraph says it all. "Once those RNA molecules are formed, they would have had to string together to make multiple letters of the code..." No process describing how this would take place is mentioned, but it is mentioned that this pair of RNA molecules could just start producing proteins, and ofcourse we all know how easy it is to produce proteins, RIGHT? From this we would get all 'the components that make up a cell'. I think we all can agree that a cell is an extremely complex device. It really is like an amazing machine. Can a machine really design and then build itself. what is the probability that a pair of RNA molecules could produce the complicated componet organnelles required for a cells existence.
In a letter to “Chemical & Engineering News,” Edward A. Boudreaux, Associate Professor of Chemistry at the University of New Orleans, had this to say. “It is particularly pertinent to point out that the eminent theoretical physicist, Eugene P. Wigner, . . . gave an elegant and rigorous proof from group theory, that the probability for spontaneous existence of a self-reproducing unit of any kind is zero.”

William Alexandr of NY 1:39PM May 16, 2009

Everyone forgets that life arose from a cauldron fantastically immense in size and of nearly infinite complexity. Life just had to arise. As for God, let's hope he thought of heaven as a necessity.

Angel Jimenez of NJ 3:59PM May 15, 2009