Life's Origin, RNA vs pre-RNA

While I have no belief of a religion-like god, something I just read caught my attention and has me pondering what involvement a god-like sentience might have had on how our universe is. Hold on folks, this may take an open mind...

Firstly, let start with the quotes:
"recent finding[s show] that activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides [RNA] can be synthesized under plausible prebiotic [pre-'life'] conditions."
"Despite their structural simplicity and possession of properties comparable with RNA, the chemically plausible generation of "simpler" nucleic acids under prebiotic conditions has yet to be demonstrated."

A little background, RNA is basically half of a DNA strand, is less stable and holds less information. It's basically a precursor to current DNA based life forms we see everywhere today. It's also a minor step to go from RNA based life forms to DNA based life forms, which have the ability, obviously, to form the wide variety of life we see today.

Now the interesting parts of the above quotes are that while RNA has been shown to be able to be spontaneously formed from a pre-life "soup" (the ocean, about 4.1 billion years ago), acids that are simpler to RNA in various ways (size, complexity, etc) and might be thought of as the building blocks to RNA, have yet to be seen spontaneously forming. To me this seems completely backward, for even if the pre-RNA acids can in fact spontaneously form, the more complex version just shoots the gap and will inevitably form first.

If it is found that no "pre-RNA acids" can spontaneously form, then you have to wonder how RNA itself can form. This is not creationism or evolution, this is college level chemistry (which, granted, I've personally only seen the beginnings of). This would be like eating the contents of a can without ever opening or puncturing it, like figuring out calculus problems without knowing algebra, like a stork giving a mom her baby.

Assuming some logical reason is found for RNA to form before pre-RNA, I posit that it's going to be called the [why pre-RNA forms before RNA theory] and would have almost no affect in any other facet of chemistry physics or any other field of science besides the origins of life. Looking at it this way, while life on earth may not have been zapped into existance, we may have life in this universe solely because some thing helped RNA form where it otherwise would not have (because the pre-RNA acids don't, so RNA never would either)

------

I have always fully believed in the evolution of the human race (there's far too much proof to be able to dismiss it) but have also given that what started life itself may have had some prodding along by some higher up. This was only just a vague idea that allowed both creationism and science to remain in tact, to placate both sides with one theory. This post details the first time I have ever come across any actual science based evidence for this theory, tho my theory still requires two things to provide further proof:
1) It must be shown that the pre-RNA acids are actually impossible or near impossible to spontaneously form, making RNA formation impossible without,
2)a. A reason specific to the creation of RNA that allows RNA to form.
2)b. The reason may be general or a direct consequence of other much more obvious or important aspects of how our universe works, but the more specific it is to the creation of just this one molecule (RNA) the more it implies a purposeful insertion into our universe, and not just a randomly generated law that is likely to exist in any kind of universe

As an aside, If you believe the multiverse theory, than there may be an unlimited number of universes just like our own but that which would not have this law that allows RNA to form, and thus the entire universe would be without our form of life. (maybe it would have energy beings or consciousness' made of rock or some other hard to imagine thing)

EDIT: One more point that occured to me, to be as complete as possible:
Assuming '1)', if the pre-RNA acids are then still found to have actually existed before RNA (maybe a '2)a.' doesn't actually exist, and certainly not a specific-to-RNA-2)b.) then some unknown force (or a sentience maybe?) is required to explain the presence of the acids.

 

All very interesting, good post!

 

if you stick an rna or a dna in a good environment, what will it do?

 

Well, they basically are the code used by living organiss to duplicate themselves. Literally, the RNA/DNA (RNA came well before DNA) will combine with other molecules or protiens (amino acids) and recreate a specific part of the cell. In bacteria for example, once all of the parts of a cell are duplicated the cell will devide everything in half and then split, forming two cells exactly like the original. Mutations happens when the new cell is not exactly like the old one for whatever reason; if the mutation helps the cell to live and create more new cells, the cell just furthered it's evolution.

In the earliest environments of the the earth, the main point of the RNA is that the RNA can replicate itself, no mater how primitive the sturctures the RNA is replicating is, over time, the fact that it can replicate (maybe simply within a semi protective "slime," unrelated to the RNA itself) the RNA would (over most of a billion years) eventually have a cell wall, some structure inside that helps it survive, some structures that help it replicate, etc.

I don't think any scientist really knows what the very earliest self replicating organic structures looked like or how they functioned, just have rought ideas based on the highly advanced life we see around us today.

 

I mean, if we made a self-replicating molecule in the lab, what would it do first? Would it turn left; turn right, do a jig, etc. I thought the self-replicating molecule needs ANOTHER molecule to trigger ANY action on its part. In other words, the s.r. molecule would do nothing without an outside catalyst; and if there just happened to be a self-replicating catalyst molecule around at the same time in the same area as a self-replicating molecule, then doesn't that catalyst molecule need another molecule to catalyze it, etc.?
In other words, is a self-replicating molecule able to replicate itself without some other catalyzer molecular- thus showing they are not self-replicating, but need help from the outside(another biological molecular machine)? What are the chances of having a s.r.m. and its necessary catalyst molecules, and who knows what else(what is the nature of the first catalyst?) in the same place? seems like the prebiotic soup would have to create all of them- thus meaning that its a snap for nature to create these molecular machines, which from my meager study of the problem, is very hard to do.
What is a catalyst for a dna molecule- a protein? How complicated would the simplest catalyst have to be to get the ball rolling on its unlikely s.r.m. buddy?
I'm assuming- from my meager studies- that s.r.m.'s dont unzip for by themselves- they are sleeping beauties needing a prince to start them up; but what if these catalyst prince charmings(catalysts) also need [another] prince to get them started? You can see- I hope- what I'm getting at. I want real answers- and am having aproblem visualizing all these players coming together in a semi-permeable slime bubble(even with a half a billion years for help- although I really have no clue as to what half-a billion years(or is it a billion?) can do- do you?

And that's just for starters.

p.s. do you think that s.r.m's and catalysts in the cell today are directed by transmission signals like radio or other types of waves? Would this mean that they have a quartz-like crystal in them picking up messages- or is just their physical shape enough to make them jig, twirl and jive around?

 

We can't say anything unless more things are proven.
I'd say it formed with help of chemical reactions we don't know yet.

@LAGoff
If they are truly self-replicating then they don't need any other organisms and if not, there definitely would be more of them around. I don't think it is possibile to receive only one unit of anything in natural chemical reaction. There had to be bunch of them.

 

I think you might be putting too much stock on these catalysts. Basic amino acids and other similarly easy to envisage molecules were quite common in the prebiotic soup, or at the very least the molecules/atoms which would create all the necessary amino acids were present. Once some primitive RNA formed, it would simply start goggling up the acids/other stuff in its close proximity making copies of itself. Heat from hydrothermal vents or radiation from the sun would provide the necessary energy to help along whatever reaction might be required. Another interesting theory is that life first formed in ice because when water freezes, only (for the most part) does the water itself freeze, and the remaining none water molecules (acids, phosphorous, whatever) increase in concentration near the ice, or in little pockets within the ice; this may increase the chance that these random catalysts or whatnot have a chance to start the chain of events leading to us.

Now what would actually cause the RNA to want to make copies of itself? I have no idea. I have no idea what makes any cell in our bodies want to replicate itself either, so I'm not sure I can put forth any logical arguements for or against what would cause the RNA to recreate itself. I'm kind of just assuming that if it has the ability to, then it would, cuz why not? Once something has the ability to self replicate (using the surrounding soup to gather the required nutrients) there's no reason it wouldn't start doing just that.

A quick google search found me the following website:
http://lifesorigin.com/

The page on RNA self replication details how it happens and the many problems with the process and seems to make it pretty unlikely (in the 'real' world). I get the feeling they are over-complicating some of the problems they discuss, but I'm no microbiologist so I can't give evidence one way or another.

 

I'm looking for triggers that get a bio-molecule from point a to b.
I suppose it's done through info/knowledge.
Can anyone explain condescendingly just what that entails/is/looks like in regards to the swiss-watch choreography done by these biomolecular machines?
Is it like in a computer with its 1000101001010001011 sequencing?

 

I don't understand half a sentence of this post.

Why does a molecule need a point a and b? A is that it exists, B is that, "if it can replicate, it will." What the molecule ends up doing through replication is a none issue. It takes acids or other molecules, uses them to make more of itself; likely some byproducts are produced, which helps feed the chain, as another molecule will eventually form to take advantage of these by products. Once we have two SRM's, it just goes on from there.

Info/knowledge? What? It's done through chemical reactions.
Condescendingly explain something? Why? What is this switch watch analogy you're bringing up? Are you wondering how a molecule of RNA has the ability to self replicate? It's detailed pretty well on this page in figure 10.1:
http://www.lifesorigin.com/chap10/RNA-self-replication-3.php

And it kind of is like the 0101101001011. The point is that it would first form 1010010110100, then use that to recreate the original 0101101001011. It's all explained in the link.

 

All I know is that ID people bring up something called the "information problem", and that is the big thing for why they hold what they do. I don't know what it means, but then I don't know how a bunch of 1's and 0's make a wing wang, or a wang chung.
Information in a cell? No clue, but these very intelligent ID(Intelligent Design) scientists think it's their ace in the hole/Trojan Horse to knock off the Evolutionists.

 

The basic idea is that the cells we see today require 100's of proteins working in tandem to do what they do, and for these cells to develop is basically the counter intuitive to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. A simple analogy is, if you poor some red dye in water, the red dye will expand to the extents of the whole cup, producing some semi-red liquid; you'd never later see all the red dye congregate in the upper right corner of the cup (for example, to form some red-dye cell), it will always remain fully spread out. Natural processes always form the least complicated, uniform substance.

Unfortunately, evolution says that this conglomerate goo suddenly decided it's time to start forming complex cells, decreasing entropy.

I would say tho that it's the SRM's ability to reproduce, the RNA is doing work, that allows it to eventually form us. We can do work right now that forms more of us, so obviously the first molecules could do work to form more of themselves. Once the forming and reforming starts, there's nothing to stop it going to infinity.

 

As proven by the Double-slit Experiment and the EPR Effect/Bell's Theorem, I see atomic and subatomic particles having astonishing("impossible") intelligence/prescience/awareness.

What I'm saying is that maybe God doesn't have to dip His Finger in the "soup" to make SRM's(and the catalyst[bio-molecules?] that catalyze them).

These experiments/theorems show/prove that the miracle is not just life, but particle behavior.

Perhaps when we know more from science/CERN,etc. we can then say: "Oh, that's how it is possible for the "impossible"(abiogenesis) to occur.

I feel that it gives God more glory for SRM's to have been formed by NOT having had a Finger stuck in their "soup"

 

"As proven by the double slit experiment"? All that shows is that light acts as a wave, it's very simply understood by basic wave mechanics. The EPR effect and bells theorem are some quantom mechanical mumbo jumob (as far as I can tell) that has nothing to do with "impossible intellegence" (Unless you mean that by affecting one system, another unconnected-system becomes agitated, but that is an information problem, not an intelligence problem)

Can you please explain how the above affects have any insights into abiogenesis? I mean, I get the feeling you're agreeing with me, but I'm not following your reasons. And I would definitely not have used the word "prove" in your post, as it's far from anything but some theory you (with a little inspiration from me?) came up with lol.

I also do not believe that CERN or anything like that are going to answer the question of abiogensis. I think we'll know better when we start exploring the galaxy/universe and actually have the opportunity to find a very early form of life on some distant planet to study.

 

Well, if I know next to nothing about the nuts and bolts of how even the very computer I am writing this on uses 1's and 0's to get the job done, I certainly am not going to know even more complicated things like... the things I attempted to theorize on.
So, I just have to rely on what the big boys say/said like, "If you don't think quantum mechanics is strange, then you haven't understood it." This statement by one of its architects has NOT been [formally] challenged by other "big boys".
What I mean is, there are many quantum weirdnesses/strangnesses that just may lead- if they can somehow be applied/extrapolated to "life"/abiogenesis- to helping us move more in the direction of better understanding certain processes that are now- for many of us- "impossibilities". In other words, I don't think the lamb will ever lie down with the lion,etc.(Isaiah), but I do think that one day CERN/science/DoubleSlitExp./EPR/other QT weirdness-confirmations may enable "Fundies" and abiogenesis skeptics like me to "lie down"- i.e. to be more comfortable that nature is doing it, not God sticking His finger in to make what seems impossible [to many of us] now.
I really hope for the day that this happens to me, because I really think it detracts from Man's image and likeness to God to cry God-of-the-gaps. Certainly this is not what that biblical verse is telling me to do. It's saying: "Go and find out; don't throw up your hands and cry to Me". And this weakness is dangerous, in that it leads to "Fundie-ism" and other obnoxiousnesses that are every bit as dangerous as their secret associates: Atheists

 

[ "Fundie-ism" and other obnoxiousnesses that are every bit as dangerous as their secret associates: Atheists[/QUOTE]
:coffee: well thats just like, your opinion man....fuck it, you're a ninny.

 

I just speed-read this thead, and it seems to me you're having problems understanding one of the hypothesis of life origin - the so so called "RNA World". Ribonucleotids aren't such complicated molecules, and it is easy to imagine their spontaneous formation.

The big step was was to make small 20-30 base fragments of RNA polymers - and still - that isn't life. But then, due to, probably millions of different combinations, "nature" hit the jackpot - this time it was a rather longer RNA fragment with a unique ability - it was able to function as a catalyst and replicate itself! Today, still some of the RNA-catalyst are found in living organisms - called ribozymes.

So the "RNA World" begun like that - with an RNA polymer able to self-catalyse and make a copy of it self. Later, proteins shown up, with much greater efficiency when it comes to playing this role of biocatalysts or enzymes. So, RNA replication was now depended on enzymatic activity of proteins. Also, RNA is just one string and not really a best way to store date, and specially to replicate them correctly, and that is why onther more complex structure formed a DNA double helix.

Basically, DNA is our genetic library, it's handy 'cause everything is "written" two times, so when it replicates, each chain can be used as a source of info to "fill" a new chain (of course, it's not so easy, chains have different directions, so one can replicate smoothly while the other one goes in so called Okazaki blocks...). Lots of enzymes, such as DNA replicase, helicase etc.. are involved.

RNA, in a proper eukaryotic cell has many functions: like messenger RNA (mRNA) or ribosomal RNA etc... all of tehm through a complicated process of transcription , basically use the genetic information from the DNA in order to synthesize proteins. And proteins can be like, anythinf, from antybodies, hemoglobulin, hormones, enzymes... you name it...

 

This thread got me thinking about the beginning of time and it really hurts my head thinking about it. Even if you go back to when there was nothing in any of the dimensions there really was no beginning to the space that was there before because it was always there but wouldnt time have to start somewhere? Sure time is a man made measurement but it would still have to pass even before there was nothing.

 

Not really. Think about it like this. 1 +1 = 2. 1 + (-1) = 0.

Deconstruct 2, and you get a 1 and another 1. Deconstruct zero (that is, nothing) and you CAN get a 1 and a (-1). So there's something-actually, 2 somethings, one positive, one negative-from nothing.

As for time, it is literally all relative. An hour in a boring lecture will seem to take an eternity. An hour with a hot girl flies by. Banal, but true nonetheless. Time only has relevance when it is measuring something, and if there is nothing to measure and no-one to do the measuring, who is to say what happens to time?

It's a bit "tree falling in the forest with no-one to hear it does it make a noise", but it does start you on the path to a glimmer of understanding.

And yeah my head hurts too.

 

Right. and what is energy but a spatial wave with one period consisting of one positive phase and one negative phase. Positive and negative phases perpendicular to direction of energy is also called polarity or magnetism. All intrinsic properties of energy, and what is matter? concentrated energy. Concentrated amounts of orbiting positive and negative phases that equate to zero.