Origins of life: New model may explain emergence of self-replication on early Earth

July 28, 2015
A schematic drawing of template-assisted ligation, shown in this model to give rise to autocatalytic systems. Credit: Maslov and Tkachenko

When life on Earth began nearly 4 billion years ago, long before humans, dinosaurs or even the earliest single-celled forms of life roamed, it may have started as a hiccup rather than a roar: small, simple molecular building blocks known as "monomers" coming together into longer "polymer" chains and falling apart in the warm pools of primordial ooze over and over again.

Then, somewhere along the line, these growing developed the ability to make copies of themselves. Competition between these molecules would allow the ones most efficient at making copies of themselves to do so faster or with greater abundance, a trait that would be shared by the copies they made. These rapid replicators would fill the soup faster than the other polymers, allowing the information they encoded to be passed on from one generation to another and, eventually, giving rise to what we think of today as .

Or so the story goes. But with no fossil record to check from those early days, it's a narrative that still has some chapters missing. One question in particular remains problematic: what enabled the leap from a of individual monomers to self-replicating chains?

A new model published this week in The Journal of Chemical Physics, from AIP Publishing, proposes a potential mechanism by which self-replication could have emerged. It posits that template-assisted ligation, the joining of two polymers by using a third, longer one as a template, could have enabled polymers to become self-replicating.

"We tried to fill this gap in understanding between simple physical systems to something that can behave in a life-like manner and transmit information," said Alexei Tkachenko, a researcher at Brookhaven National Laboratory. Tkachenko carried out the research alongside Sergei Maslov, a professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign with joint appointment at Brookhaven.

Origins of Self-Replication

Self-replication is a complicated process—DNA, the basis for life on earth today, requires a coordinated cohort of enzymes and other molecules in order to duplicate itself. Early self-replicating systems were surely more rudimentary, but their existence in the first place is still somewhat baffling.

Tkachenko and Maslov have proposed a new model that shows how the earliest self-replicating molecules could have worked. Their model switches between "day" phases, where individual polymers float freely, and "night" phases, where they join together to form longer chains via template-assisted ligation. The phases are driven by cyclic changes in environmental conditions, such as temperature, pH, or salinity, which throw the system out of equilibrium and induce the polymers to either come together or drift apart.

According to their model, during the night cycles, multiple short polymers bond to longer polymer strands, which act as templates. These longer template strands hold the shorter polymers in close enough proximity to each other that they can ligate to form a longer strand—a complementary copy of at least part of the template. Over time, the newly synthesized polymers come to dominate, giving rise to an autocatalytic and self-sustaining system of molecules large enough to potentially encode blueprints for life, the model predicts.

Polymers can also link together without the aid of a template, but the process is somewhat more random—a chain that forms in one generation will not necessarily be carried over into the next. Template-assisted ligation, on the other hand, is a more faithful means of preserving information, as the polymer chains of one generation are used to build the next. Thus, a model based on template-assisted ligation combines the lengthening of polymer chains with their replication, providing a potential mechanism for heritability.

While some previous studies have argued that a mix of the two is necessary for moving a system from monomers to self-replicating polymers, Maslov and Tkachenko's model demonstrates that it is physically possible for self-replication to emerge with only template-assisted ligation.

"What we have demonstrated for the first time is that even if all you have is template-assisted ligation, you can still bootstrap the system out of primordial soup," said Maslov.

The video will load shortly
Animation showing template-assisted ligation for creating self-replicating polymers.

The idea of template-assisted ligation driving self-replication was originally proposed in the 1980s, but in a qualitative manner. "Now it's a real model that you can run through a computer," said Tkachenko. "It's a solid piece of science to which you can add other features and study memory effects and inheritance."

Under Tkachenko and Maslov's model, the move from monomers to polymers is a very sudden one. It's also hysteretic—that is, it takes a very certain set of conditions to make the initial leap from monomers to self-replicating polymers, but those stringent requirements are not necessary to maintain a system of self-replicating polymers once one has leapt over the first hurdle.

One limitation of the model that the researchers plan to address in future studies is its assumption that all polymer sequences are equally likely to occur. Transmission of information requires heritable variation in sequence frequencies—certain combinations of bases code for particular proteins, which have different functions. The next step, then, is to consider a scenario in which some sequences become more common than others, allowing the system to transmit meaningful information.

Maslov and Tkachenko's model fits into the currently favored RNA world hypothesis—the belief that life on earth started with autocatalytic RNA molecules that then lead to the more stable but more complex DNA as a mode of inheritance. But because it is so general, it could be used to test any origins of life hypothesis that relies on the emergence of a simple autocatalytic system.

"The model, by design, is very general," said Maslov. "We're not trying to address the question of what this primordial soup of monomers is coming from" or the specific molecules involved. Rather, their model shows a physically plausible path from monomer to self-replicating polymer, inching a step closer to understanding the origins of life.

Waiter, there's an RNA in my Primordial Soup—Tracing the Origins of Life, from Darwin to Today

Nearly every culture on earth has an origins story, a legend explaining its existence. We humans seem to have a deep need for an explanation of how we ended up here, on this small planet spinning through a vast universe. Scientists, too, have long searched for our origins story, trying to discern how, on a molecular scale, the earth shifted from a mess of inorganic molecules to an ordered system of life. The question is impossible to answer for certain—there's no fossil record, and no eyewitnesses. But that hasn't stopped scientists from trying.

Over the past 150 years, our shifting understanding of the origins of life has mirrored the emergence and development of the fields of organic chemistry and molecular biology. That is, increased understanding of the role that nucleotides, proteins and genes play in shaping our living world today has also gradually improved our ability to peer into their mysterious past.

When Charles Darwin published his seminal On the Origin of the Species in 1859, he said little about the emergence of life itself, possibly because, at the time, there was no way to test such ideas. His only real remarks on the subject come from a later letter to a friend, in which he suggested a that life emerged out of a "warm little pond" with a rich chemical broth of ions. Nevertheless, Darwin's influence was far-reaching, and his offhand remark formed the basis of many origins of life scenarios in the following years.

In the early 20th century, the idea was popularized and expanded upon by a Russian biochemist named Alexander Oparin. He proposed that the atmosphere on the early earth was reducing, meaning it had an excess of negative charge. This charge imbalance could catalyze existing a prebiotic soup of organic molecules into the earliest forms of life.

Oparin's writing eventually inspired Harold Urey, who began to champion Oparin's proposal. Urey then caught the attention of Stanley Miller, who decided to formally test the idea. Miller took a mixture of what he believed the early earth's oceans may have contained—a reducing mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water—and activated it with an electric spark. The jolt of electricity, acting like a strike of lightening, transformed nearly half of the carbon in the methane into organic compounds. One of the compounds he produced was glycine, the simplest amino acid.

The groundbreaking Miller-Urey experiment showed that inorganic matter could give rise to organic structures. And while the idea of a reducing atmosphere gradually fell out of favor, replaced by an environment rich in carbon dioxide, Oparin's basic framework of a primordial soup rich with organic molecules stuck around.

The identification of DNA as the hereditary material common to all life, and the discovery that DNA coded for RNA, which coded for proteins, provided fresh insight into the molecular basis for life. But it also forced origins of life researchers to answer a challenging question: how could this complicated molecular machinery have started? DNA is a complex molecule, requiring a coordinated team of enzymes and proteins to replicate itself. Its spontaneous emergence seemed improbable.

In the 1960s, three scientists—Leslie Orgel, Francis Crick and Carl Woese—independently suggested that RNA might be the missing link. Because RNA can self-replicate, it could have acted as both the genetic material and the catalyst for early life on earth. DNA, more stable but more complex, would have emerged later.

Today, it is widely believed (though by no means universally accepted) that at some point in history, an RNA-based world dominated the earth. But how it got there—and whether there was a simpler system before it—is still up for debate. Many argue that RNA is too complicated to have been the first self-replicating system on earth, and that something simpler preceded it.

Graham Cairns-Smith, for instance, has argued since the 1960s that the earliest gene-like structures were not based on nucleic acids, but on imperfect crystals that emerged from clay. The defects in the crystals, he believed, stored information that could be replicated and passed from one crystal to another. His idea, while intriguing, is not widely accepted today.

Others, taken more seriously, suspect that RNA may have emerged in concert with peptides—an RNA-peptide world, in which the two worked together to build up complexity. Biochemical studies are also providing insight into simpler nucleic acid analogs that could have preceded the familiar bases that make up RNA today. It's also possible that the earliest self-replicating systems on earth have left no trace of themselves in our current biochemical systems. We may never know, and yet, the challenge of the search seems to be part of its appeal.

Recent research by Tkachenko and Maslov, published July 28, 2015 in The Journal of Chemical Physics, suggests that self-replicating molecules such as RNA may have arisen through a process called template-assisted ligation. That is, under certain environmental conditions, small polymers could be driven to bond to longer complementary polymer template strands, holding the short strands in close enough proximity to each other that they could fuse into longer strands. Through cyclic changes in that induce complementary strands to come together and then fall apart repeatedly, a self-sustaining collection of hybridized, self-replicating polymers able to encode the blueprints for life could emerge.

Explore further: New study hints at spontaneous appearance of primordial DNA

More information: The article, "Spontaneous emergence of autocatalytic information-coding polymers," by Alexei Tkachenko and Sergei Maslov, The Journal of Chemical Physics on July 28, 2015: http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/143/2/10.1063/1.4922545

Related Stories

New study hints at spontaneous appearance of primordial DNA

April 7, 2015

The self-organization properties of DNA-like molecular fragments four billion years ago may have guided their own growth into repeating chemical chains long enough to act as a basis for primitive life, says a new study by ...

New Study Brings Scientists Closer to the Origin of RNA

December 24, 2013

(Phys.org) —One of the biggest questions in science is how life arose from the chemical soup that existed on early Earth. One theory is that RNA, a close relative of DNA, was the first genetic molecule to arise around 4 ...

New evidence emerges on the origins of life

June 1, 2015

In the beginning, there were simple chemicals. And they produced amino acids that eventually became the proteins necessary to create single cells. And the single cells became plants and animals. Recent research is revealing ...

Recommended for you

Fast, efficient sperm tails inspire nanobiotechnology

December 2, 2016

Just like workers in a factory, enzymes can create a final product more efficiently if they are stuck together in one place and pass the raw material from enzyme to enzyme, assembly line-style. That's according to scientists ...

Biodegradable polymers made by chemical vapor deposition

December 1, 2016

Polymerization by chemical vapor deposition (CVD) is a simple method for modifying surfaces by which topologically challenging substrates can be evenly coated with polymers. In the journal Angewandte Chemie, researchers have ...

Controlling chain conformations to enhance electronic devices

December 1, 2016

Controlling the way fluorinated polymer chains twist and turn may enable fast and flexible electrical circuits, according to collaborative research conducted at Penn State. The findings may offer substantial impact on the ...

48 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

tadchem
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 28, 2015
The Theory of Evolution suffers from vocabulary problems. The words 'evolve,' 'selection,' and 'adapt' elicit hints of a directing intelligence behind the processes. The actual processes include purely random changes and differentials between the interactions of similar objects and their shared environment.
I do not blame anyone for this, since humans are hard-wired for anthropomorphism. We tend to view everything as a reflection of ourselves for a default viewpoint, and find it quite difficult to divorce our own egos from the models used to represent processes in the objective universe.
The bottom line is that all of the processes required for 'evolution' can be found independently of any 'intelligent designer'.
verkle
Jul 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (12) Jul 28, 2015
This article suffers from some very unscientific trains of thought, and relies on atheist imaginations (not science) to figure out what may have been billions of years ago. Science doesn't use the word "may". It is more definitive. "May have started..." does not belong in a science article. Best to leave the discussion of evolution to an atheist website or a science-denier website.

Where does that leave the agnostics?
viko_mx
1 / 5 (10) Jul 28, 2015
Again conjectures and hypotheses that do not comply with the laws of physical reality in which we live. Why these philosophers did not test their hypotheses in the lab? Probably because they suspect that the results of such experiments are not going to like it.

The hit of the season:
"Competition between these molecules would allow the ones most efficient at making copies of themselves to do so faster or with greater abundance, a trait that would be shared by the copies they made."

Do you imagine what will hapen if the molecules in the living cells are competing in such manner as explained in the article?
viko_mx
1 / 5 (12) Jul 28, 2015
If such willful chemical interactions happen in nature, life would never be possible.
Vietvet
4.5 / 5 (17) Jul 28, 2015
This article suffers from some very unscientific trains of thought, and relies on atheist imaginations (not science) to figure out what may have been billions of years ago. Science doesn't use the word "may". It is more definitive. "May have started..." does not belong in a science article. Best to leave the discussion of evolution to an atheist website or a science-denier website.

@verkle

It's obvious you've never read a research paper and Genesis isn't a science text.
greenonions
5 / 5 (18) Jul 28, 2015
Verkle
. "May have started..." does not belong in a science article.


Is that not called a hypothesis? Is a hypothesis not a very common part of the process of science?
Rockguy
4.3 / 5 (14) Jul 28, 2015
It would be interesting to see if it were possible to create computer models that run with different chemical sets. For example seeing if Saturn's moon Titan could have any possible analogue to to the simulation mentioned in the article.

BTW Please ignore the trolls, by answering and interacting with them you are encouraging them and giving them the attention that they seek. Ever heard of bad dog syndrome??
Vietvet
4.7 / 5 (15) Jul 28, 2015
@Rockguy

I have to respectfully disagree with you about the trolls. I take the perspective that a new reader with a curiosity about science but little knowledge could be led astray by the cranks that comment at PO.. When pseudoscience pollutes the site it has to be confronted.
NiteSkyGerl
Jul 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Squirrel
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 29, 2015
The link at the bottom of the piece does not work. This is the link to the abstract and contains a link to its free article pdf http://scitation.....4922545
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.9 / 5 (9) Jul 29, 2015
Rather nice article, besides the new model. Template-assisted ligation is indeed likeliest to have provided the initial growth of polymers and later replicators.

It will be interesting to see if they have solved the inherent strand shortening seen in "pot" (soup) conditions. They don't mention that the same mechanism in "reactor" (fuel cell) conditions of vents doing PCR solves it, but they do describe a hysteresis of self-replication populations appearing.

Nit: "The question is impossible to answer for certain".

Overreach, we don't know that. It may be unlikely, like how it is hard to find enough rare fossils. Yet we can make phylogenies that are more or less certain, even if we can't resolve all the tips to the exclusion of similar trees.

What we know is that we can possibly eventually have an exclusive answer, here as elsewhere. For today, the main fuel cell theory is robust and the winner in test.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (9) Jul 29, 2015
It is good advice to not humoring trolling. But also to provide newbies with info.

- Is this science, done by scientists?

Yes, it is published in peer reviewed JCP. So the two crackpot trolls fail to get to first basis of attacking science. (Efficiently, they are just troll spamming. That is, they show that their magic alternative is a dud.)

- Is science "atheist"?

Yes, it is non-magic. But it isn't so by choice but by observations. It could have been otherwise. But after many centuries of research magic has refused to appear in the real world. "Magic" is now know to be just a belief behavior of magic believers.

Consequently the education takes believers to agnosticism and agnostics to atheists. most scientists are atheists, and the more proficient they are the more the frequency rises. But as per above, that is just because the whole world is "atheist" (non-magic), and that it is a well observed fact.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 29, 2015
very unscientific trains of thought, and relies on atheist imaginations (not science) to figure out what may have been billions of years ago. Science doesn't use the word "may"... "May have started..." does not belong in a science article. Best to leave the discussion of evolution to an atheist website or a science-denier website.
Verkles post suffers from some very unscientific trains of thought, and relies on the insistence that god is the reason for everything (not science.)

Strange that he uses the scientific age of the universe (based entirely on evidence) while referencing a book that insists that it is only 6 or 7000 years old.

But that is wholly the result of interpretation which varies from personal god to personal god.

Verkle has been here for some time and should know by now that scientists frequently use the term 'may' when speculating. The hallmark of science is scepticism. Only religionists are sure about anything which is why theyre usually wrong.
johnhew
1 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2015
Yes, there is magic still in several areas of science, for example, the magic that inexplicably rolls up 150 layers of myelin around a nerve, which you apparently overlooked the other day:
http://phys.org/n...bly.html
RealScience
5 / 5 (6) Jul 29, 2015
@johnhew:
Thanks - I missed that article.

But complex results do not require a complex process, as your example of swords can show:

If the blade was of a particularly high quality, like a Samurai sword, they could see the multiple layers that were created the through laborious cycles of heating, hammering and refolding that are typically used to optimize the grain structure for both toughness, hardness, and grain orientation. The point here is that the structure evident in the Samurai sword cross section didn't just passively polymerize out of thin air like a snowflake, or get made by some other passive thermochemical series of events, it took a more directed driving force.


However in 'Damascus steel" swords the complex pattern DOES just crystallize out of the melt, and as it is hammered out just once into a sword shape produces a comparable or even superior finely-layered pattern of hard and soft steels, complete with carbon nanotubes and cementite nanowires.
johnhew
3 / 5 (4) Jul 29, 2015
ah see I knew there was magic in there, nanotubes and wires in Damascus steel
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (11) Jul 29, 2015
ah see I knew there was magic in there, nanotubes and wires in Damascus steel


Any technology, sufficiently advanced, appears as magic to the untrained eye...
bschott
1 / 5 (5) Jul 29, 2015
@Rockguy

I have to respectfully disagree with you about the trolls. I take the perspective that a new reader with a curiosity about science but little knowledge could be led astray by the cranks that comment at PO.. When pseudoscience pollutes the site it has to be confronted.


So why have we never had a discussion? Oh yeah, if you can't refute anything but just don't like what was said you rate it a one....very scientific. very confrontational.


When pseudoscience pollutes the world it has to be confronted, when it's proponents have nothing to say when the flaws are revealed, they click "1 star" and duck out. The physorg version of a drive by temper tantrum.
elviin
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2015
I think repetition/rotation is a precursor for replication. The conditions on the Earth could be favouring such processes that are described in the article. The Earth day was shorter, the Moon was closer, so the tides were more regular than today. Also there could be more shallow places with atmosphere above with highly reducing properties.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (10) Jul 29, 2015
But complex results do not require a complex process
Reminds me of varves.

"Varves are laminated layers of sedimentary rock that are most commonly laid down in glacial lakes. In the summer, light colored coarse sediment is laid down, while in the winter, as the water freezes and calms, fine dark silt is laid down. This cycle produces alternating bands of dark and light which are clearly discernible and represent, as a pair, one full year. As is consistent with the old earth view, many millions of varves have been found in some places. The Green River formation in eastern Utah is home to an estimated twenty million years worth of sedimentary layers."
RealScience
4.9 / 5 (10) Jul 29, 2015
ah see I knew there was magic in there, nanotubes and wires in Damascus steel


If by 'magic' you mean "something awe-inspiringly cool!" then yes there is plenty of really cool 'magic' in science, including both myelin sheathing and Damascus steel.

But if, on the other hand, you mean 'magic' in the sense in which it was introduced in this thread ("something beyond the laws of physics"), then no, neither Damascus steel nor myelin sheathing has that kind of magic.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (11) Jul 29, 2015
ah see I knew there was magic in there, nanotubes and wires in Damascus steel


If by 'magic' you mean "something awe-inspiringly cool!" then yes there is plenty of really cool 'magic' in science, including both myelin sheathing and Damascus steel.

What's really cool is the "magic" of discovering the mechanism behind the magic of the Universe...:-)

But if, on the other hand, you mean 'magic' in the sense in which it was introduced in this thread ("something beyond the laws of physics"), then no, neither Damascus steel nor myelin sheathing has that kind of magic.

Wait... there's something beyond the (magic) laws of physics!?!?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (8) Jul 29, 2015
But complex results do not require a complex process
Reminds me of varves.

"Varves are laminated layers of sedimentary rock that are most commonly laid down in glacial lakes. In the summer, light colored coarse sediment is laid down, while in the winter, as the water freezes and calms, fine dark silt is laid down. This cycle produces alternating bands of dark and light which are clearly discernible and represent, as a pair, one full year. As is consistent with the old earth view, many millions of varves have been found in some places. The Green River formation in eastern Utah is home to an estimated twenty million years worth of sedimentary layers."

That was actually quite interesting, Otto. I learned of something I was not aware of and it makes sense to boot...:-)
Thanks!
yob2073
5 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2015
I think repetition/rotation is a precursor for replication. The conditions on the Earth could be favouring such processes that are described in the article. The Earth day was shorter, the Moon was closer, so the tides were more regular than today. Also there could be more shallow places with atmosphere above with highly reducing properties.


I like this reminder on shorter rotation period. Helps raise the profile for me of day/night perturbations' total forcing vis a vis deep hydrothermal vents with their extreme pressure/chemical/electronic gradients.

How, I wonder, would shallow seas / volcanic pools be affected by what I presume to be higher tides, to go along with those more frequent tides...
yob2073
not rated yet Jul 29, 2015
I'd like to see this paper followed up with consideration of ACGU pi stacking energies.
ogg_ogg
1 / 5 (4) Jul 30, 2015
Current majority (consensus?) view is that Earth's atmosphere was slightly oxidizing at 4 Gy BP. This is, as article above mentions, a significant change from the thinking in the 50's & 60's of a reducing atmosphere. So the lightning experiment really is a POOR example of inorganic to organic transformation, since you COULD argue that the non-realistic conditions were chosen to force the result. OTOH, there are plenty of places on a planet as large and geologically and hydrologically active as Earth is, where such transitions could have occurred. AFAIK, it hasn't ever been demonstrated that such "spawning grounds" could result in accumulations of organics over biologically or geologically significant time spans. Which is one reason that comets, and other extra-terrestrial sources for organics, are still in the running.
ogg_ogg
1 / 5 (4) Jul 30, 2015
I disagree with the proposition, sermonized by atheists that Science MUST lead "rational observer/thinkers" to conclude there's no "magic" (supernatural) required to explain our reality. The "God of the gaps" criticism of theists - that the scientifically literate (rational, honest) ones invoke the supernatural to explain what science can't YET, but that every scientific advance reduces the 'scope' of such a god and the ONLY rational conclusion is that eventually god's 'scope' will be the null set - may be true, but all of our experience says nothing continues 'forever', and arguing that "scientific progress" will be an exception is FAITH, not a necessary rational conclusion. Physicist's believe that the fundamental Conservation Law is Conservation of Information. I've not been able to find much about it (as a scientific theory), but it seems to be based on the need for the Laws of Physics to be micro-reversible - which means space-time has to be continuous, but space-time is NOT that.
ogg_ogg
1 / 5 (3) Jul 30, 2015
Most of the math Physicists use is based on smooth limits and continuous functions. Its not very likely that the "ultimate" points of space-time are continuous (ie, not likely that an interval can be sub-divided to ANY arbitrary degree) so its likely that the math at the foundations of our Science is only a crude approximation to the "ultimate" reality. I doubt if anyone believes it will EVER be possible (but see my contradictory remark above) to SCIENTIFICALLY test the "ultimate" nature of space-time. At scales of 10^-100 or 10^-1000, no plausible way exists (afaik) to do tests and/ make observations. Meaning, unless the ultimate points of space-time are a whole lot coarser that they are likely to be (ie Planck dimensions) we're never going to be able to scientifically speak about their properties or rather never be able to scientifically prove their nature does not contain some supernatural aspects. Of course, there are some theists who claim that their god is NECESSARY for our world
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (6) Jul 31, 2015
@johnhew: "Yes, there is magic still in several areas of science, for example, the magic that inexplicably rolls up 150 layers of myelin around a nerve".

You mean as of yet unexplained phenomena, not 'magic' action but observed phenomena that we not yet understand enough. Of course there is, and always will be, else science would have stopped. That is the planned or unplanned goal of pseudoscientists such as creationists by the way, if you point at everything and say '[my] magic-did-it' you both explain nothing and stop looking for explanations.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (5) Jul 31, 2015
@bschott: "So why have we never had a discussion?"

Because it is meaningless to discuss with drive by trolls like verkle and/or describe the facts for the 1000th time despite already Wikipedia describes them - e.g. it would take trolls 10 s to check facts before commenting. All you can do is show newbies that their comments are idiotic, and giving a low rating is the easiest way.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (7) Jul 31, 2015
@ogg_ogg: "AFAIK, it hasn't ever been demonstrated that such "spawning grounds" could result in accumulations of organics over biologically or geologically significant time spans."

Yes, it has. "This is an attractive hypothesis because of the abundance of CH4 (methane) and NH3 (ammonia) present in hydrothermal vent regions, a condition that was not provided by the Earth's primitive atmosphere." [ https://en.wikipe...mal_vent ]

And the rest of your comments are factually wrong too, but I rest my case with the above. Except for noting that if you want evidence of the absence of magic instead of erroneously claiming we can't do this or that (without evidence in the first place), it has been around since thermodynamics of the 18th century. (No magic in any closed system and so none in open systems, or thermodynamics wouldn't work.) There is at least 6 known evidences for the absence of magic.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (6) Jul 31, 2015
Re organics from vents, it has just been shown that, as expected, you don't even need CH4 (and NH3 + HS) to build larger organics from. The redox potentials of the chemical garden sulfides in the AHVs is enough to build up to pyruvate from atmospheric CO2. And from there glycolysis kicks in, i.e. production by gluconeogenesis (and and later breakdown when glucose production becomes scarce) under product separation. [Keller et al.]

Once you have purine nucleotide base pairing out of that glucose/pentose metabolic pathway, the AHVs do PCR while selecting for longer nucleotides. That template assisted replication would kick in was expected but is now shown to be a likely observable effect. Life from Hadean vents. (As phylogenetics tell us is the most likely ancestor of the UCA lineage.)
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 31, 2015
That was actually quite interesting, Otto. I learned of something I was not aware of and it makes sense to boot...:-)
Yah something else creationists can't explain beyond the 'well if god did it then we don't have to explain it' crap.
cgsperling
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 31, 2015
Enjoy your "gaps" while you can, creationists. It's only a matter of time before we fill them with reactions and equations.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (5) Aug 01, 2015
After so many speculative theoriеs and bold contrary to physical reality hypotheses, evolutionists never managed to prove their theories in the laboratory. And they have no intention of doing so. Most of them know that they are wrong. But their ego and as consiquence the rebel against God's order cause them to do such irrational activities. They earn time with constant lies or half truths that are addressed towards more uninformed readers.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 01, 2015
After so many speculative theoriеs and bold contrary to physical reality hypotheses, evolutionists never managed to prove their theories in the laboratory. And they have no intention of doing so. Most of them know that they are wrong. But their ego and as consiquence the rebel against God's order cause them to do such irrational activities. They earn time with constant lies or half truths that are addressed towards more uninformed readers.
Religionists like viko feel justified in making up lies like this because the evidence that science has produced against their beliefs is so conclusive.

They know lying is the only defense they have.
Mike_Massen
3.8 / 5 (10) Aug 01, 2015
viko_mx claims
If such willful chemical interactions happen in nature, life would never be possible
No, you are backwards

Its *because* of what occurs as 'willful' "chemical self assembly" that we DO have life = chemistry !

Life based on very simple, commonly available atoms & sequences of chemical interactions and all subject to simple chemical/physics rules such as Eg. Activation Energy, motion, heat etc.

Massive problem with you, verkle, ren82 & other uneducated is inability to understand *Permutations*

There are estimated 10^60 of C,H,N,O based molecules that are or could be of use in life processes.

Now viko_mx, work out permutations ie (10^60) !

ie (10^60) Factorial, then face FACT that only molecules that interact in a further multitude of permutations survive ie Natural Selection, then tell us about the actual attributes of your claimed deity and WHY it acts exactly like a nasty Devil making everyone suffer for ever ?

Is any claimed god Sane ?
viko_mx
1 / 5 (6) Aug 01, 2015
I can not know where you got your education but obviously you missed the lectures for variations and permutatinos . Permutation of n elements is сcalled their random arrangement in which each of these elements occurs only once. The number of different arrangements (permutations) is n! = 1.2.3 ... n.

In the living organisms there is only 20 aminoacids which are encoden by each coddon (3 base pairs) in the DNA. So random protein composed of two randomly selected amonkiselini has 20-2 protein composed of 10 amino acids has 20 ^ 10 options. A typical protein izpzolvan cells and composed of 150 amino acids has 20 ^ 150 chemical variants or approximately 1 427 * 10 ^ 195. Their 3D topological forms are even more but how mutch exactly no one can say definitely.

viko_mx
1 / 5 (6) Aug 01, 2015
То claim that at the moment there are are such random permutations between chemical elements can only demonstrated ignorance. But the problem is not in the permutations at all which with such colossal counts require a colossal time many orders of magnitude more than billions of years.
In the process of protein sythesis from amino acids are involved enzymes that are also proteins. The question is what first emerge by chance? The proteins or enzymes that are needed for the synthesis of proteins? Furthermore the environment which tolerate protein synthesis does not tolerate the synthesis of carbohydrates. Which problem some dreamers are trying to solve with fictional panspermia with the hope that other worlds will offer more favorable conditions for life emerging with another more suitable physical laws.
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (12) Aug 01, 2015
Take this STEP by STEP - in clear & plain logical inference/deduction for convergence...

viko_mx asked
I can not know where you got your education but obviously you missed the lectures for variations and permutatinos
Basic Probability & Statistics training, part of Electronic Engineering & Mechanical Engineering & electives many decades ago in Western Australia at the "Western Australian Institute of Technology" (WAIT) renamed to "Curtin University" at Bentley

http://curtin.edu.au

Answer MY questions viko_mx, you skip queries as if you are hypnotised to ignore details !!!

1. Where do you get university or ANY other substantive training in Probability & Statistics ?

AND

2. Why don't you answer MY questions, Eg WHY is your deity an impotent communicator ?

Step by Step viko_mx, you ask me, I answer. I ask YOU again, your answers...

3. Have you heard of the Golden Rule, "Do unto others..", from Greeks then repeated by jesus ?

YOUR turn - Answer above 1-3
viko_mx
1 / 5 (5) Aug 02, 2015
This golden rule is not Greek but God principle. The Bible is predecesor of this rule so I do not undertand what is the reason for suck question. Probably desperate attempt to defend your wrong position. Do not forget that God created us as moral being that know intuitively which is right and which is wrong. The problem is not in this but in our will to do the right things and not succumb to sin and temptations that are a manifestation of our weaknesses and our degrade.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (7) Aug 02, 2015
Re "it is meaningless to discuss with drive by trolls", we have a prime example here.

I mentioned the recent progress in experimental testing (even if I omitted the references due to time/space constraints - but they are googleable), yet the first drive by troll manages to repeat 'no testing in laboratories'.

And when prompted why he would lie, he continues to lie: "This golden rule is not Greek". It has arosen in secular states many times over (Babylon, China and even religious Egypt), before it was adopted by Greece (probably from Egypt). [ https://en.wikipe...den_Rule ]

And of course, when we get back to the existence of religious magic ('gods', 'sin'). If introduced, you need evidence. But religionists have never managed to prove their theories in the pew.

That said, lying is frowned upon besides making your argument void.
EnricM
not rated yet Aug 03, 2015
The Theory of Evolution suffers from vocabulary problems. The words 'evolve,' 'selection,' and 'adapt' elicit hints of a directing intelligence behind the processes. .


Yet ID advocates have been unable to spot this fact and use it to their advantage in the same way Catholics and Anglicans did quite some time ago.
EnricM
5 / 5 (1) Aug 03, 2015
two randomly selected amonkiselini


Is that a pasta dish?
EnsignFlandry
5 / 5 (9) Aug 03, 2015
This golden rule is not Greek but God principle. The Bible is predecesor of this rule so I do not undertand what is the reason for suck question. Probably desperate attempt to defend your wrong position. Do not forget that God created us as moral being that know intuitively which is right and which is wrong. The problem is not in this but in our will to do the right things and not succumb to sin and temptations that are a manifestation of our weaknesses and our degrade.


And your evidence for even one of your unprovable assumptions is?......
EnsignFlandry
5 / 5 (8) Aug 03, 2015
What Intelligent Designer designed and created such things as brain-eating amoebae, animals that have to eat each other alive to survive, the Ebola virus, 20-foot long worms that live in our intestines, slowly starving the victim to death, African pythons that kill and eat several dozen children in Africa each year, slowly digesting them over months, and on and on?
exequus
1 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2015
- "Waiter, there is an RNA in my primordial soup"
- "We could offer you onion soup, at no charge, Gouda or Havarti cheese?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.