Has anyone read this Scientific American article?

Question

In the June issue of Scientific American, there was an article regarding new thoughts on the origin of life on earth that I found particularly interesting.

It explained that 30 years ago or so, many scientists believed that DNA was the building block of life...and it was somehow the beginning chemical structure that initiated all life on earth. (Hawkins also believed in this theory as I understand it)

Then, a few years ago, RNA was discovered and because it was an even simpler form, it was theorized that it, not DNA was the building block etc. (I am not a scientist so I may not be explaining this very well)

According to the article, something new was found however...a rather perplexing puzzle about DNA and RNA molecules. It seems that the old question of which came first, the chicken or the egg is once again being asked.

In order for DNA to exist in the double helix form that we are accustomed to seeing, something had to cause a replicator molecule to be added.

Scientists have found that the only chemical reaction that would cause this anomally would have to come from RNA...thus RNA would have had to come first. (so goes the theory). However, RNA needs a certain type of protein enzyme to accomplish this task...and where does it come from? It had to come from DNA as DNA is the likely source.

So, what it boils down to is the theory that DNA and RNA are mutually dependent on each other.

I see this as one more example of the creation by design idea. as both must have been present at the same time in order for either to exist.

Either that, or it is one more example of how science can disprove something they proved only a few years ago which speaks volumes about how dependable their logical view is when it comes to being fact.

Sorry if I explained poorly but check it out for yourself if you get the chance.

Sorry...it was Dawkins, not Hawkins. Dawkins is famed atheist who relied at least in part on the DNA theory to prove that God did not exist.

Source: scientific american june 2007 issue. As to adding the protein thing...that is my wording...not theirs. But, that is what I got out of it. As I said, I am not a scientist. As to whether it means there is a God..the answer is of course No. Science can never prove or disprove God's existance. That was not my point. My point was that science is not perfect and should not be depended upon to help people make choices that could affect them for all eternity. Yes, I am a believer in God...because I know Him...not because I believe everything I have read about Him in a book.

Answer 1

I read the article. It is mostly about other kinds of molecules that would have been much simpler precursors of RNA. It does not say something had to cause a replicator molecule to be added.

Maybe I don't understand your wording.


EDIT: Now I see your additional details.

You have really misunderstood the article.

Look at the title - "Did this molecule start life? Forget DNA and RNA. Maybe it all began with something much simpler."

The article is about other kinds of precursors that could have made the first replicator. Read it carefully this time.


EDIT: So you're saying - because scientific knowledge improves over time we shouldn't trust it?

Have fun at your faith healer when you get cancer.

Answer 2

You seem to have missed the point.

Initially - many decades ago - abiogenesis researchers figured that it would have been necessary for DNA to form spontaneously as the first replicator. This was unlikely, though not impossible, but DNA was the only known replicator.

Subsequently it was discovered that naked RNA could catalyse replication too, which was a lot more likely.

The SciAm article introduces the hypothesis that even simpler molecules could have been responsible for the first replicators. This enormously increases the likelihood of spontaneous replication arising, and is another nail in the coffin of any requirement for a Creator.

Dawkins' thesis has no requirement for DNA. He simply proposes a Relicator - like all other abiogenesis supporters.

CD

Answer 3

I am a scientist, and I think you've done a very good job explaining this article. I want to encourage you not to be perplexed by the scientific method though. The whole point of science is coming up with theories that can be disproved. If a theory can't be disproved, then it's basically not science. In other words, scientists are in the disproving business, not the proving business. So I am very happy and excited when we come up with new and interesting ways of disproving theories.

If you're looking for a discipline which goes about proving things instead of disproving things, you might try mathematics. They're pretty good at it. But mind you, math is not science. The cool thing about intelligent design is that it can't be disproved - making it a great theory for people who want absolute answers, but a bad theory for scientific investigation.

So you're right. You have to be very careful what kinds of questions you want to investigate scientifically.

Answer 4

Well, I read this article:

"In view of the DNA-RNA-protein team impasse, some researchers have offered “the RNA world” theory. What is that? Instead of asserting that DNA, RNA, and proteins originated simultaneously to produce life, they say that RNA by itself was the first spark of life. Is this theory sound?

In the 1980’s, researchers discovered in their laboratory that RNA molecules could act as their own enzymes by snipping themselves in two and splicing themselves back together. So it was speculated that RNA might have been the first self-replicating molecule. It is theorized that in time, these RNA molecules learned to form cell membranes and that finally, the RNA organism gave rise to DNA. “The apostles of the RNA world,” writes Phil Cohen in New Scientist, “believe that their theory should be taken, if not as gospel, then as the nearest thing to truth.”

Not all scientists, though, accept this scenario. Skeptics, observes Cohen, “argued that it was too great a leap from showing that two RNA molecules partook in a bit of self mutilation in a test tube, to claiming that RNA was capable of running a cell single-handed and triggering the emergence of life on Earth.”

There are other problems as well. Biologist Carl Woese holds that “the RNA world theory . . . is fatally flawed because it fails to explain where the energy came from to fuel the production of the first RNA molecules.” And researchers have never located a piece of RNA that can replicate itself from scratch. There is also the issue of where RNA came from in the first place. Though “the RNA world” theory appears in many textbooks, most of it, says researcher Gary Olsen, “is speculative optimism.”

Another theory that some scientists have espoused is that our planet was seeded with life that came from outer space. But this theory does not really address the question, What originated life? Saying that life comes from outer space, notes science writer Boyce Rensberger, “merely changes the location of the mystery.” It does not explain the origin of life. It merely sidesteps the issue by relocating the origin to another solar system or galaxy. The real issue remains."

Hannah J Paul

Answer 5

First off: RNA and DNA are very similar.
I am a biologist and I work with DNA. If I take two strands of DNA that are "complementary" they will form a double helix on their own. I think the replicator you are referring to deals with the origins of the "polymerases". Basically if DNA is floating around it will combine with itself on its own. The replicator molecules, some of which contain RNA, speed up the process leading to obvious advantages to any confined sack (a cell) that needs to replicate its DNA to make more of itself. Ta Dah!! It has an advantage and will pass on this advantage to the next generation.

Answer 6

A few years ago? Try quite a bit longer that RNA was discovered. But RNA and DNA have been around since the beginning of life.

Funny thing. None of my body is made of clay.

Answer 7

I in basic terms study a million/2 of this formerly I have been given slightly bored, sorry. a number of your references are incorrect nonetheless, be sure to make the noninsignificant differentiation between BGH, a certainly occuring hormone that cows produce so as to produce milk, and rBGH or recombinant bovine growth hormone, the lab-produced hormone it incredibly is injected into cows so as to boost their milk manufacturing. Oh, and human beings drink goat's milk and sheep's milk, too, and have for 1000's of years. there are possibly different animals that are milked, too. additionally, i've got seen grownup cats and canines drink milk, incredibly knocking the stunning off of the colostrum milk field interior the barn so they might attain the milk. It became almost incredibly stable, yet your components weren't all precisely on. once you're turning that for the duration of for credit, it incredibly is incredibly helpful to double examine those.

Answer 8

Yes, actually I have that edition kicking around here some where. They think it was a much smaller molecule that started life rolling.

Answer 9

Scientist's very existence depends on their ability to dream up new theories and convince others to ply them with cash for research: it keeps them all in jobs! Lets face it, nobody stays long in top creative job without hypnotising every one with cooperate bull$%it and that's what these test tube guys do best.

Answer 10

Yes, continue.