Scientists find evidence for alternate theory of how life arose

September 28, 2016, The Scripps Research Institute
This is a computer graphic of an RNA molecule. Credit: Richard Feldmann/Wikipedia

A new study led by scientists at The Scripps Research Institute (TSRI) offers a twist on a popular theory for how life on Earth began about four billion years ago.

The study questions the "RNA world" hypothesis, a theory for how RNA molecules evolved to create proteins and DNA. Instead, the new research offers evidence for a world where RNA and DNA evolved simultaneously.

"Even if you believe in a RNA-only world, you have to believe in something that existed with RNA to help it move forward," said Ramanarayanan Krishnamurthy, associate professor of chemistry at TSRI and senior author of the new study. "Why not think of RNA and DNA rising together, rather than trying to convert RNA to DNA by means of some fantastic chemistry at a prebiotic stage?"

The study was published recently in the journal Angewandte Chemie.

A Look Back in Time

Researchers have explored the RNA world hypothesis for more than 30 years. The idea behind this theory is that a series of chemical reactions led to the formation of self-replicating RNA molecules. RNA then evolved to create proteins and enzymes that resembled early versions of what makes up life today. Eventually, these enzymes helped RNA produce DNA, which led to complex organisms.

On the surface, RNA and DNA molecules look similar, with DNA forming a ladder-like structure (with nucleobase pairs as the rungs and sugar molecule backbones as the sides) and RNA forming what looks like just one side of a ladder.

If the RNA world theory is accurate, some researchers believe there would have been many cases where RNA nucleotides were mixed with DNA backbones, creating "heterogeneous" strands. If stable, these blended "chimeras" would have been an intermediate step in the transition to DNA.

Problems with Instability

However, the new study shows a significant loss of stability when RNA and DNA share the same backbone. The chimeras do not stay together as well as pure RNA or pure DNA, which would compromise their ability to hold genetic information and replicate.

"We were surprised to see a very deep drop in what we would call the 'thermal stability,'" said Krishnamurthy, who in addition to his position at TSRI has joint appointments with the National Science Foundation (NSF)-National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Center for Chemical Evolution and the Simons Collaboration on the Origins of Life. This instability appeared to be due to a difference in the DNA sugar molecule structure versus the RNA sugar molecule.

The finding supported previous research from Nobel laureate and Harvard University Chemistry and Chemical Biology Professor Jack Szostak that showed a loss of (nucleotide-binding aptamer) function when RNA mixed with DNA.

Because of this instability, chimeras in the RNA world would have likely died off in favor of more stable RNA molecules. This reflects what scientists see in cells today: If RNA nucleobases mistakenly join a DNA strand, sophisticated enzymes will rush to fix the mistake. Evolution has led to a system that favors more stable, "homogeneous" molecules.

These sophisticated enzymes were probably not around at the time of RNA and DNA's early evolution, so these substitutions may have had a crippling effect on the molecules' ability to replicate and function. "The transition from RNA to DNA would not have been easy without mechanisms to keep them separate," said Krishnamurthy.

Considering a Second Theory

This realization led the scientists to consider an alternate theory: RNA and DNA may have arisen in tandem.

Krishnamurthy emphasized that his lab is not the first to propose this theory, but the findings on chimeric instability give scientists new evidence to consider.

If the two evolved at the same time, DNA could have established its own homogeneous system early on. RNA could have still evolved to produce DNA, but that may have occurred after it first met DNA and got to know its raw materials.

Krishnamurthy added that scientists will never know exactly how life began (barring the invention of a time machine), but by considering circumstances of early evolution, scientists can gain insights into the fundamentals of biology.

In addition to Krishnamurthy, authors of the study "RNA-DNA Chimeras in the Context of an RNA-world Transition to an RNA/DNA-world," were Jesse V. Gavette (first author) and Matthias Stoop of TSRI and the NSF-NASA Center for Chemical Evolution; and Nicholas V. Hud of the Georgia Institute of Technology and the NSF-NASA Center for Chemical Evolution.

Explore further: Missing links brewed in primordial puddles?

More information: Jesse V. Gavette et al. RNA-DNA Chimeras in the Context of an RNA World Transition to an RNA/DNA World, Angewandte Chemie International Edition (2016). DOI: 10.1002/anie.201607919

Related Stories

New findings challenge assumptions about origins of life

September 13, 2013

Before there was life on Earth, there were molecules. A primordial soup. At some point a few specialized molecules began replicating. This self-replication, scientists agree, kick-started a biochemical process that would ...

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 ...

Recommended for you

Carbon fuels go green for renewable energy

December 18, 2018

For decades, scientists have searched for effective ways to remove excess carbon dioxide emissions from the air, and recycle them into products such as renewable fuels. But the process of converting carbon dioxide into useful ...

62 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 28, 2016
Unlikely. Part of the reason for the RNA world, apart from that it sits at the center of the genetic machinery (mrNA, rRNA, tRNA) *and* metabolic machinery (ATP, NADH, et cetera), was that RNA is used in metabolism to build DNA.
hemitite
4 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2016
"...scientists will never know exactly how life began (barring the invention of a time machine)"

So life may have been seeded on the ancient earth by time travelers seeking the origin of life.... ;)
cgsperling
5 / 5 (6) Sep 28, 2016
"So life may have been seeded on the ancient earth by time travelers seeking the origin of life.... ;)


Sounds loopy to me.
redgrunt
1 / 5 (2) Sep 28, 2016
So life may have been seeded on the ancient earth by time travelers seeking the origin of life.... ;)


More likely we or time travelers would not exist if time travelers fiddled with life creation. (Loopy too, ok)
B Fast
1 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2016
"scientists will never know exactly how life began." Cop out! All that is required is a viable abiogenesis theory. This "never know exactly" kanard implies that we have at least one viable abiogenesis theory. We obviously don't. We obviously still don't.
leetennant
4.5 / 5 (15) Sep 28, 2016
"scientists will never know exactly how life began." Cop out! All that is required is a viable abiogenesis theory. This "never know exactly" kanard implies that we have at least one viable abiogenesis theory. We obviously don't. We obviously still don't.


Abiogenesis isn't proven so therefore we can make up an even more fantastical story that requires not just abiogenesis but the timeless existence of a consciousness that transcends space and time. Sure. Totally more plausible.
optical
Sep 29, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
humy
1 / 5 (1) Sep 29, 2016
Unlikely. Part of the reason for the RNA world, apart from that it sits at the center of the genetic machinery (mrNA, rRNA, tRNA) *and* metabolic machinery (ATP, NADH, et cetera), was that RNA is used in metabolism to build DNA.

agreed.
I am all for exploring alternative theories but their 'alternative' theory does seem both unlikely and unnecessary and I see nothing wrong with the original RNA-only world theory, which I still judge to be by far the most likely one.
A scientific theory should only be rejected if either you find something wrong with it or you got an even better theory.
leetennant
4.7 / 5 (14) Sep 29, 2016
The theory of evolution is observed and replicated every flu season
leetennant
4.7 / 5 (15) Sep 29, 2016
The theory of evolution is observed and replicated every flu season


You don't understand what evolution is generally believed to be. First of all, the spontaneous presentation of life from non-life. Secondly, the change of a species through the appearance of new functional genes (not mutations).

This has never been observed.



Thank you for so clearly demonstrating you don't actually understand what it is you're denying. There's something weirdly familiar about that... wait, give me a moment... it'll come to me...
humy
4.6 / 5 (10) Sep 29, 2016

There is much to be found wrong with the theory of evolution.

Like what?
And it has never been observed

false; it has been observed many times.
nor obviously replicated.

irrelevant; a theory often doesn't need to have something replicated to be scientific providing there is evidence for it. Example; the theory that stars sometimes explode; we observe via telescopes etc that they do sometimes explode. This doesn't require us to 'replicate it by exploding a star for the theory to be scientific. Therefore the theory of evolution doesn't require 'replication' to be a scientific theory.
It is not a scientific theory.

lets see; we have the good evidence (proof, in fact); we have the fossils, we have the genetic evidence showing common ancestry and the examples of living missing links etc. There is currently no plausible alternative theory to explain all that thus it is certainly a scientific theory.
leetennant
4.7 / 5 (12) Sep 29, 2016
There is an even more bizarre theory. BartV offers a way out for people who are to lazy to read more than one book.


Oh? You call me lazy?

I did not. I said you have a nice, short story for intellectually lazy people.
A few lines in Genesis is all they have to read and then they get on with goat herding.


Those Bronze Age goat herders knew *everything*
meerling
4.7 / 5 (14) Sep 29, 2016
Evolution has absolutely been observed in action, even speciation.

Of course the process is much easier to observe with microbes because of their very short generation times as compared to something like us multicellular life forms.

There's enough evidence to back up evolution to fill an entire library, and that's not figurative, though it would have to be a very large library. (Like I said, there's a LOT of evidence.)

Though if someone wants to push a religious creation myth on a science site, all I can really say is go troll somewhere that people are less educated, because you'll just get laughed at here.
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (15) Sep 29, 2016
You don't understand what evolution is generally believed to be. First of all, the spontaneous presentation of life from non-life.

No. this is not (and has never been) part of the theory of evolution. The theory that covers this is called abiogenesis. You are confused (as are many who have little education) by the two statements
"Life evolved on this planet"
and
"The theory of evolution"

The word 'evolved' in the first statement does not refer to the theory of evolution. The word evolved is used in a lot of contexts besides the theory of evolution (e.g. when talking about how the stars evolve over time)

Secondly, the change of a species through the appearance of new functional genes (not mutations).

The appearance of new, functional genes IS mutation. Mutation just means 'change'.

And it has never been observed

Example
https://www.newsc...the-lab/
humy
4.6 / 5 (10) Sep 29, 2016
it has been observed many times....


OK. Just give me 1 example.
...


Just 'one' example? is that all? I give you the many observations of the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria;
http://www.window...n_9.html
If you want another now, just ask and I give you it.
SoylentGrin
4.7 / 5 (13) Sep 29, 2016
First of all, the spontaneous presentation of life from non-life. Secondly, the change of a species through the appearance of new functional genes (not mutations).

The most succinct definition for evolution is "a change in allele frequency in breeding populations over time."
That's it. Note that life (alleles, breeding populations) have to already be present. Nothing about abiogenesis. Evolution deals with how life behaves after it gets here.

And as AA points out above, new genes appear through mutation. You can't say "show me new genes without mutation" any more than you can say "show me how birds fly, but don't mention wings."

That allele frequency changes is an observed fact. The how and why is what the theories are all about. There are many theories of evolution (theory being the highest level in science), and they are not mutually exclusive. They can all be in play at once.

I'm surprised your 1000 books don't already cover this...
Thnder
4.7 / 5 (12) Sep 29, 2016


Neither do you. Really. It is all surmising and black magic.


You literally just described your one book...
emaalouf
1 / 5 (4) Sep 29, 2016
Before determining how RNA and DNA came to exist, it is important to at least hypothesize how/what "initiated" the core process/routine that allowed RNA and DNA to coalesce, grow and evolve into strands.

"Spallation Theory" describes the process that takes place everywhere in the universe on every capable planet (Goldilocks zone). A process at the sub-microscopic level involving embedding routines into quarks within hydrogen isotopes via highly energetic Neutrinos and gamma rays.

https://www.linke...-maalouf
optical
Sep 29, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2016
Try to replace a bizarre theory with another bizarre theory? The origin of life will forever stump atheist scientists and they ever study and never come to any kind of coherent believable theory
because GOD SAYS SO.

Youve got to admit it is one theory that never changes. Its the most persistent theory that ever was.
leetennant
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 29, 2016
Thanks to some of you for serious feedback.
I took a look at your links. There is nothing that suggests: " the change of a species through the appearance of new functional genes (not mutations)."

The links describe a re-arranging of genes, or mutations that inhibit the function of a gene. No new genes.

You have to have this in order for evolution to be possible.

Again, I repeat, this has never been observed.



Asked and answered. Like, fifty times, and not just one this forum thread. You are wrong. You've been told why you are wrong. You have the information. Use it or go hang around a 'crazy theist being wrong about things' forum instead of embarrassing yourself constantly on a science site.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 30, 2016
leetennant---no I am not crazy
Perhaps not but you're obviously not very bright. For instance
just address the science questions
-You don't know what science is so how can you ask meaningful questions about it?

And you're obviously very gullible.
optical
Sep 30, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Enthusiastic Fool
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 30, 2016
My favorite counter-creationist example is the introduction and evolution of Italian wall lizards to the isle of Pod Mrcaru. They evolved an entirely new gut structure to aid in digesting plant material diverging from a mostly carnivorous ancestral population. This is in addition to bite force and head morphology changes.

http://www.pnas.o...c0f8aaf6

Unfortunately, arguing Science with a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon: they'll knock over the pieces, shit on the board, and strut around like they are victorious.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (6) Sep 30, 2016
Ghost---you resort to the same tactics. Attack the messenger. Ignore the message
Your messages make it very easy to draw conclusions about your character and disposition.
You don't think I'm very bright? I can tell you I got a perfect 800 on my SAT math score
"Idiot savant:
1: a person affected with a mental disability (as autism or mental retardation) who exhibits exceptional skill or brilliance in some limited field (as mathematics or music) —called also savant
2: a person who is highly knowledgeable about one subject but knows little about anything else"

-So weve narrowed the possibilities somewhat.

But hey, smart people can be so scared of death that they might even believe that a god who wrote a book full of lies can nevertheless be telling them the truth when he promises them eternal life. In the same book.

And once you take that short step off the ledge, swapping reason for faith becomes easier and easier.
unrealone1
1 / 5 (3) Oct 01, 2016
How does a DNA helix randomly form and self replicate?
The probability is incalculable for this to randomly form from chance occurrence?..

How does a single protein amino acid randomly form from random occurrence events?
The probability is incalculable...
optical
Oct 01, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
LuisDineman
2 / 5 (1) Oct 01, 2016
The function of life (teleologically speaking) is to assist the earth in attaining its thermodynamic (more thermal than dynamic) equilibrium.
LUA was probably a water cycle amplifying chemical soup covering uppermost layer of the equatorial archean ocean surface.

antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 01, 2016
The probability is incalculable...

Only incalculable for you because...math.
Math is hard for you.
But for some other people know how to use math. So stop saying that just because you can't do it that it therefore can't be done. All you're accomplishing is: shouting out to the world that you failed in school.
FredJose
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 01, 2016
Krishnamurthy added that scientists will never know exactly how life began (barring the invention of a time machine), but by considering circumstances of early evolution, scientists can gain insights into the fundamentals of biology.

But in the meantime it all has to be taken by faith that life arose spontaneously from the ground or wherever, all by itself via random chemical and physical processes.
It had to have happened otherwise we wouldn't be here, right?
It doesn't really matter that basic principles of chemistry or physics simply rules out ANY such spontaneous event and that therefore life could ONLY have arisen via an intelligent design by a vastly superior intelligence. But of course that is not allowed and so we sit with the totally intractable problem that life needs to somehow have miraculously arisen from the pond scum all by itself.
FredJose
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 01, 2016
Though if someone wants to push a religious creation myth on a science site, all I can really say is go troll somewhere that people are less educated, because you'll just get laughed at here.

Perhaps you are not aware that abiogenesis is a faith statement that is completely unscientific?
Apply a simple scientific methods test on it: Has it been observed? Can it be repeated? Can it be verified? Can it be falsified? You answer those questions for yourself.
Hence the whole abiogenesis, evolutionary story is a faith based and hence religious paradigm.
FredJose
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 01, 2016
No. this is not (and has never been) part of the theory of evolution. The theory that covers this is called abiogenesis. You are confused (as are many who have little education) by the two statements

You seem to really want this separation of abiogenesis and evolution to be true.
However if we examine your presupposition that there is no God or gods we are immediately faced with the dilemma of having to account for life as we know it.
Without a God in the picture you are left with only abiogenesis and evolution. In fact we can take it one step back: You are left with a universe that created itself from a singularity, ie. from nothing and then have it undergo cosmic evolution to create stars[another impossibility all by itself], galaxies[another impossibility all by itself] and finally planets[once more impossible by itself]. You cannot separate abiogenesis from evolution because your presupposition forces you to unify the two ideas. No abiogenesis, no evolution. Simple.
FredJose
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 01, 2016
@Fool
They evolved an entirely new gut structure to aid in digesting plant material diverging from a mostly carnivorous ancestral population

It might shock you to know that the bible clearly teaches that all birds, animals, creeping things and humans were vegetarian at creation. Check it out for yourself : Genesis 1:29:
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

So basically the genes were there already, the adaptation had simply been reversed. Same as with the fish that lost their scales thru breeding and grew them back when left in the wild.
FredJose
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 01, 2016
@leet
Asked and answered. Like, fifty times, and not just one this forum thread. You are wrong. You've been told why you are wrong. You have the information. Use it or go hang around a 'crazy theist being wrong about things' forum instead of embarrassing yourself constantly on a science site

You should then immediately take your unscientific mythology of abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution somewhere else since they do not make any sense in a real observable, testable and verifiable scientific way.
yep
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 01, 2016
There is nothing that suggests: " the change of a species through the appearance of new functional genes (not mutations)."

The links describe a re-arranging of genes, or mutations that inhibit the function of a gene. No new genes.
You have to have this in order for evolution to be possible.
Again, I repeat, this has never been observed.

This is called horizontal gene transfer and it has been observred. You might need to get up to date with the 21st century.
https://en.m.wiki...transfer
yep
4 / 5 (8) Oct 01, 2016

You should then immediately take your unscientific mythology of abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution somewhere else since they do not make any sense in a real observable, testable and verifiable scientific way.

Fred many Christians believe in evolution and a Sky Daddy. One does not have to preclude the other.
This is a good site for you to learn from, it will answer many of your questions as it addresses creationists misconceptions.

http://www.talkorigins.org

antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 01, 2016
You seem to really want this separation of abiogenesis and evolution to be true.

What I want has nothing to do with it. That's just the way they are defined.
If you wish to conflate the two then that's your private redefinition. But then you're just 'arguing' about redefined words (which is called a "strawman argument" or "moving of the goalpost" - both of which are logical fallacies. Read: you're making yourself look very stupid - yet again.)

Without a God in the picture you are left with only abiogenesis and evolution.

Yup. So?
No abiogenesis, no evolution.

True. So?

The only honest answer we currently have to why there's life on this planet (or why the universe exists) is "we don't know, yet". But science is still working on this, so there's no point in just making shit (like gods) up in the meantime to...what exactly? Make sure that some people's fragile ego isn't bruised?
unrealone1
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2016
For those that struggle with English the specific question is.
How does a single protein, amino acid randomly form from random occurrence events?
The probability is 10 to the power of 50,000?
Where is the science backed example of this single protein forming?

leetennant
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 02, 2016
Abiogenesis and evolution are two. different. things. For the hundredth f**king time.

Unless you think we can't acknowledge evidence into the growth of a cancer without first accounting for conception of the organism that has the cancer. That would be insane! But then, this whole conversation is insane so I guess that's par for the course.

Abiogenesis, evolution - two different things. Now, discuss! Properly.

Also, go get a flu shot because evolution is in obvious action every damn year.
optical
Oct 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (8) Oct 02, 2016
The probability is 10 to the power of 50,000?

And you get this number from...where exactly?
Note: just dropping a random number into a sentence doesn't mean you're contributing to a scientific discussion. It just means you don't know your way around numbers (read: you're making yourself look incredibly stupid on a comment section of a science jouranlism site)

Now go play with your bible verses.


Also, go get a flu shot because evolution is in obvious action every damn year.

There's not enough 5s I could give you for that one. Perfect.
optical
Oct 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
optical
Oct 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
unrealone1
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2016
How does a single protein, amino acid randomly form from random occurrence events?
How does a DNA helix randomly form?
Calmodulin with 148 amino acids long, how does that randomly form?
The best of academia have no answers?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2016
the bible clearly teaches that all birds, animals, creeping things and humans were vegetarian at creation. Check it out for yourself : Genesis 1:29
Your post teaches us that you godlovers are willing to mangle gods word to make it say anything you want. Nowhere does it say that animals shall eat nothing but plants. It does however clearly state that we can eat animals.

But if you're assuming that the original sin makes humans guilty of turning animals into bloodthirsty killers then you would have to acknowledge that your god 1) originally gave predators claws and fangs and specialized digestive systems for no good reason or 2) that these traits EVOLVED to accommodate their newfound thirst for blood.

Or 3) that god not only creates animals, he has to constantly tinker with them to suit changing environments and appetites because they never were perfect; and by extension, neither was he.

Which makes the god he describes himself to be, a lie.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2016
However if we examine your presupposition that there is no God or gods we are immediately faced with the dilemma of having to account for life as we know it
A startling admission but I fear in truth an inadvertent one.

The theory may indeed be inadequate or even entirely wrong; but this in no way means we can conclude that it was your god who was responsible for it all.

And we look at your only source of evidence, the book, and we find it full of errors, inconsistencies, plagarisms, forgeries, and lies.

So we know that if we are living in an engineered universe, the chances are slim to none that the engineer was the omniscient, omnipotent and morally impeccable god of Abraham.

Perhaps it was as you suggest the product of a team effort or a slightly less perfect and more human demigod.
leetennant
4 / 5 (8) Oct 02, 2016
Ignorance can not serve as proof of the correctness of faith.


Argument from ignorance is practically the main logical fallacy that defines theists.That and circular reasoning. It's always all turtles, all the way down. And orbiting teapots.
Osiris1
not rated yet Oct 03, 2016
Probably the best idea is that life is here due to panspermia, and more than once.
optical
Oct 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
FredJose
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2016
Abiogenesis isn't proven so therefore we can make up an even more fantastical story that requires not just abiogenesis but the timeless existence of a consciousness that transcends space and time. Sure. Totally more plausible.

Not really. It is quite clear that the complexity within the cell requires a designer and construction method that exceeds the lame, non-existent abilities of purely random chemical and physical processes.
Also quite clearly there is no viable theory of abiogenesis simply because the known principles of chemistry simply obliterates such mythical magic. To name just one tiny little example - one absolutely critical reaction would take billions of years to occur naturally but happens hundreds of times per second with the correct enzyme. That same enzyme requires the naturally impossible arrangement of only left-handed amino acids. The only way that arrangement is going to happen is with expert outside intervention. Period.
optical
Oct 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
FredJose
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2016
No it isn't.
Speak to Francis Crick. He is the one who tells you to remember that it all looks like it was designed but you have to lie to yourself and claim it evolved by random processes.

You yourself know it was designed, you simply choose to not have to be accountable to the designer. You don't want that person in your life. That's fine. Just remember that all good things come from that person, including the life you currently live. At one stage the designer will withdraw his offer to be with humanity from those who clearly do not want His presence. A conscious existence without the goodness of God is called Hell. That is the realization that God exists but it is too late to access all the good things that His love provides - things like light, friendship, physical life, eternal life with full joy and no disease, sin or death.
Your choice.
In the meantime, abiogenesis is and remains an impossibility from a chemical principle point of view. Dream on.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2016
but you have to lie to yourself and claim it evolved by random processes.
except we can demonstrate evolution in action: http://myxo.css.m...dex.html

if you don't like Lenski's experiments and studies, i can also provide Dr. Extavour's or some others that validate his work

where is the validation or even the evidence of your claim that "You yourself know it was designed"????

that is called a belief, not evidence. it's also called religion (not science)

FredJose
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 03, 2016
The EOI model.

Much better than the hopeless and frankly impossible model of abiogenesis which no atheist or so-called scientist will ever get to see in his/her lifetime. You will go to the grave not having a satisfactory explanation for the existence of life on earth. Then you'll have to deal with the aftermath of such an absolutely dead-end hypothesis which completely denies the very science it purports to uphold. The scientists who study or attempt to find a viable pathway of abiogenesis fully understand the chemical impossibility they are dealing with, they simply choose to ignore the science and go by their faith in a materialistic god of their own making. You are doing the same.
optical
Oct 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
leetennant
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 03, 2016
The 2 critical parts fo evolution that have to be true if you reject God are,
(1) spontaneous presentation of life from non-life (yes, it could have happened in outer space, and brought here, although that theory brings a whole other set of problems).
(2) the change of a species through the appearance of new functional genes (not mutations).


Firstly, a belief in evolution does not have any bearing on a belief in God - just the belief that God made everything as it is 6000 years ago (a belief that is patently absurd, even for the majority of the religious).

Secondly, evolution has nothing to do with how life began and so abiogenesis is irrelevant to this conversation.

Thirdly, new functional genes ARE from mutation. So that question makes no sense.

Fourthly, you are clearly just a troll and so I have now hit the 'ignore' button with a sigh of relief.
leetennant
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 03, 2016

With no scientific evidence, how can you continue to believe in such a theory?


As with climate science, yelling "No it's not" at the evidence doesn't make it magically cease to exist. The weird thing about knowledge acquired through the scientific method is it stays constant whether you believe in it or not. You can't say that for religion, the beliefs of which change more often than Imelda Marcos changes clothes.

One of those changes in beliefs is their acceptance of evolution. Because even religious leaders accept the truth when it stays true over the entire scale of their lifetime.

*Ignore*

*Bliss*
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 07, 2016
you are absolutely wrong that "evolution" (not some general change, but the theory that groups of organisms change with passage of time by inventing new genes, etc) has any kind of evidence, or can be seen anywhere
@barfV
1- they don't "invent" new genes - that is idiotic
2- there is absolutely evidence of mutation and it's change with the passage of time. see Lenski et al or the various validated studies which in turn validate his long term experiment here: http://myxo.css.m...dex.html

It is only a theory at best
you don't understand basic english
1- it's a SCIENTIFIC theory - you're using the colloquial definition, therefore it's

2- "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed" https://en.wikipe...c_theory

learn to read, religious boy, or you will be violating one of your gods commandments not to lie and cheat
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 07, 2016
@barfV cont'd you don't seem to understand any opposing worldview except your own this coming from a person posting a religious POV that has no actual valid evidence on a science site as he argues against a well known validated theory that is evidenciary based and proven through experimentation?
WTF?
Please stop being a name-caller, and get down to real science discussion.
ok, where is your evidence proving the Theory of Evolution wrong?

that includes refuting these known references in this link: http://www.talkor...comdesc/

it also means experiments and studies refuting Lenski, Extavour and the hundreds of other studies that specifically prove your point WRT "evolution" and change wrong...

mind you, not your new, self-created definition of the word evolution, but the actual working definition of the Theory and it's specifics
unrealone1
1 / 5 (2) Oct 07, 2016
Flagellum electric motor inside a bacteria?
How did this "using Darwinian theory of small observable changes" occur?
And how do random rock fragments in solution randomly form Amino acids?
The building blocks of life?
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (1) Oct 08, 2016
Predictive long lived thread. Let me do away with the largest erroneous claims first:

@B Fast: "implies that we have at least one viable abiogenesis theory. We obviously don't."

Obviously we do, if you look at the field. We have soup theory, which has been successfully tested ever since Haldane suggested it, and vent theory, which recently has been even more successful and connects life with a specific geological ancestor system. [ See Wikipedia on "abiogenesis", say.]

Your unreferenced claim is ridiculous for everyone more studied in the field of emergence of life.

@leetennant: "Abiogenesis isn't proven". Its theories are well tested, see above. Don't let the absence of a clear winner yet confuse you, science has been there many times before. C.f. on light being wave or particle (and it turned out to be a quantum field, the QED field, with both).

Moreover, emergence of life is a solid observation. Early Earth accreted so was sterile, and now there is life.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
not rated yet Oct 08, 2016
@unrealone: You ask, as many does in the thread while without reference claim there is still viable alternatives, questions of specific evolutionary pathways. That has nothing to do with biology in general, and each question has more or less well researched answers. Since you can Gish gallop questions ad infinitum, I will pick one to demonstrate that it is ridiculous to engage with science in that way:

"homologies between the type III export apparatus and F1F0-ATP synthetase"

[ http://www.talkde...lum.html ]

And that is all it takes. But if you are more critical, you can benefit from the then suggested pathway that discusses how this result can be arrived at "using Darwinian theory of small observable changes". The site has scientific answers to other Gish gallop questions, by the way.

The viability of biology is of course another question entirely. I.e. does it produce results? Well, yes, see the example we just discussed.

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.