Study Suggests Life On Earth Sprang From Borax Minerals

GAINESVILLE, Fla. --- Researchers at the University of Florida say they have shown that minerals were key to some of the initial processes that formed life on Earth. Specifically, a borax-containing mineral known as colemanite helps convert organic molecules found in interstellar dust clouds into a sugar, known as ribose, central to the genetic material called RNA. This announcement provides a key step toward solving the 3-billion-year-old mystery of how life on Earth began. The findings will appear in Friday's issue of the journal Science. Steven Benner, Alonso Ricardo, Matthew Carrigan and Alison Olcott built on a famous experiment done 50 years earlier by Stanley Miller that is found in many textbooks. In 1953, Miller showed that electric sparks in a primitive atmosphere made amino acids, the building blocks of proteins.

Miller's experiment failed to identify sugars that were needed for genetic material, however. "The sugar ribose can be formed from interstellar precursors under prebiotic conditions," said Benner, who led the research funded by NASA, the National Science Foundation and The Agouron Institute in Pasadena, Calif. "But ribose is too unstable to survive under Miller's conditions." Ribose, like most sugars, turns into tar if not handled carefully. "It is like baking a cake too long," said Benner, a UF distinguished professor of chemistry and anatomy and cell biology. In 1995, Miller gave up trying to make ribose prebiotically, writing: "The first genetic material could not have contained ribose or other sugars because of their instability."

Benner, who also is a member of NASA's Astrobiology Institute, did the first experiments as an instructor at an international geobiology course last summer funded by the Agouron Institute and held at the University of Southern California Wrigley Institute for Environmental Studies. "We asked two questions. First, what simple organic molecules might have been present on early Earth as starting materials to form ribose? Then, what might have been present on early Earth to capture ribose and keep it from burning up like overcooked cake?" Benner said.

To identify simple organic molecules that might be the starting materials, Benner turned to compounds known to exist in interstellar dust, such as formaldehyde, used to preserve tissue. "Formaldehyde may not seem to be a good starting point for the life that we know," he said. "But it is simple. With only one carbon atom, one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms, there is a lot of formaldehyde to work with in the cosmos."

Benner and his team showed that formaldehyde, with other interstellar compounds, could form ribose and other sugars when treated in the presence of base materials such as lime, a material used to adjust the pH level of lawns, among other things. Lime was effective, but the ribose decomposed soon after it was formed.

Recognizing that ribose had a particular chemical structure that allowed it to bind to minerals containing the element boron, they turned to another substance called colemanite. "Colemanite is a mineral containing borate found in Death Valley," he said. "Without it, ribose turns into a brown tar. With it, ribose and other sugars emerge as clean products." Benner then showed similar reactions with other borate minerals, including ulexite and kernite, which is more commonly known as borax.

Benner and his team are the first researchers to succeed in making significant amounts of ribose under these early conditions.

Joseph Piccirilli, a biological chemist at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the University of Chicago, said Benner's work "has simplicity and brilliance."

"Organic chemists have long known that borate complexes with compounds like ribose," Piccirilli said, "and prebiotic scientists have long believed that minerals on the early Earth played an important role in the origin of life." Until now, "no one has put the two ideas together," he said.

"We are not claiming that this is how life started," Benner stressed. "We are saying that we have demonstrated a recipe to make a key part of life without any biochemical machinery. The more recipes of this type that can be found, the more clues we have about how life could have actually gotten started on the primitive Earth."

While best classified as basic science, the work has practical biological and medical value. "Curiously, thinking about how life originated and what form it might take on other planets helps us design new tools for disease diagnostics and therapy," Benner said. Diagnostic tools enabled by Benner's work seeking alternative life forms are used today in the clinic to monitor the load of the viruses that cause AIDS and hepatitis C.

The work also complements other research Benner is conducting that focuses on ancient forms of life on Earth. In a September report in Nature, Benner and his collaborators deduced the structure of a protein found in a bacterium that lived several billion years ago and resurrected the ancient protein. By studying it in the laboratory, the group inferred the ancient bacteria lived in a hot spring at about 150 degrees Fahrenheit.

With the prebiotic experiments, Benner said, "we are working forward in time, from the origin of the planet to the first life. With experiments with ancient proteins, we work backwards in time, from the modern world to the most primitive of bacteria." The group's goal, he said, is to have the two meet in the middle.

"How do you know that even one answer is right?"

Because I've seen too many answered prayers. Because I can find no purer explanation of what is good that that contained in the JudeoChristian scriptures. Because I have sensed God's presence. Because the scriptures contain prophecies that can be dated to before their fulfillment. Because of the witness of people who have seen miracles including that of Israel and the many many early Christians who saw Jesus in action.

And because God's plan makes sense, at least on a certain level. It doesn't make sense that God would hang on a cross for us, but then love doesn't make sense either. Only self-love makes sense, not love of others.

This, of course, has gotten completely off of the original topic of discussion.

Yes it has.

"You're asking me to assume that you're right in order to demonstrate that you're right. If I assume that you're right, however, I don't need an adequate demonstration and as such it doesn't matter how valid your "proof" is. It's a weak cop-out, an excuse to use when you don't have any real evidence."

I'm asking you to assume that God might exist, that your request might get heard and answered. And to make the request on those grounds. That is different from full acceptance that God is. In that sense, it's not circular.

It a way it's no different from me telling you that George Bush exists and asking you to call the White House and talk to him. What evidence do you really have that Bush exists? You've seen him on TV, but you know the tricks hollywood can do. You've heard other people talk about him, but you've heard other people talk about God too.

The only difference is that your call is much less likely to be accepted at the White House.

And if you have actually met the president then subsitute some other famous person that you haven't met.

If I assume that you're right, however, I don't need an adequate demonstration and as such it doesn't matter how valid your "proof" is. It's a weak cop-out, an excuse to use when you don't have any real evidence.

Think of it like trying to prove anybody else exists. Again take George Bush.

If I had to prove George existed, I'd show you pictures and if I could obtain documentation, birth certificates, etc, I would. That obviously doesn't work with God.

Next, I suppose that I could bring in witnesses, that have met George Bush and they could vouch for him. Now that I can do.

Then I suppose I could show you things that were done that only George Bush could do. I'm not sure what that would be for George, but fulfilled prophecies and people who have had miracles are a testament to the existence of God. The book "Evidence that demands a verdict" is a good compilation of such evidence.

Finally, the easiest way to prove a person exists, the easiest way is to introduce you. Let you meet him one on one.

That's all I'm trying to do. You don't have to assume He exists, you just have to be a little curious.

There are ways to evaluate the world's religions. What should a religion do if it is true? It should provide practical instruction for man as to how to live and it should tell him how he relates to god(s) and the world, and what his purpose is.

Meaning and Meaninglessness

As Dimensio said of Hindu, it doesn't matter because we will all get to try again. To which I will add, it doesn't matter, because according to Hindu when the cycle of birth and death is over the end result is our soul merges back into the soul of the cosmos and we as individuals cease to exist.

Why not just be an athiest than to practice a religion of meaninglessness. The end result is the same. And no doubt the atheist has fewer rules. In fact under the Hindu cosmos, the atheist lives longer.

Real Guilt and Illusion

A second way is whether the religion deals with real guilt or illusion. Only those belief systems which take man's sinfulness seriously can hope to provide a satisfying answer.

Again if there is no good and evil, if guilt and sin are illusions, then what good is that religion? This criteria also eliminates Hinduism, Buddism, most eastern religions. The better to be an athiest comment applies again.

Self-Help or Salvation

Once you eliminate the Eastern religions, you are primarily left with the montheist beliefs of Judaism, Christianity and Islam and with the nontheistic belief of Atheism.

As I've pointed out before God doesn't judge on a bell curve. He judges according to His own standards, and He is holy. He knows no sin. He tells us in the bible to "Be Holy for I am Holy." God ain't going to settle for mostly good. The great difference in Christianity is that only in Christianity is salvation a free gift from God. Practically all other religions teach you have to earn your salvation. Which is an impossible feat if the goal is holiness... perfection.

Logic and Truth

Christianity views itself as the fulfillment of Judaism, the fulfillment of the prophecies contained therein. It fully accepts the sacred works of Judaism as authentic revelations from God. It's not too hard to verify the prophecies. In fact here is a pretty good link from a former atheist who did just that...

Is The God Of The Bible Is Really God?"

Islam views itself as the corrected form of monotheism. But does this claim hold up? Is it logical that a God that knows the future, would give two revelations only to put His foot down on the third version and say "This one I'm not going to be allowed to be corrupted?" Is it logical for the Koran to tell Jews and Christians to search their scriptures only to have Jews and Christians reject the Koran when they do?

Conclusion

The eastern religions can be ruled out because they give no meaning to life. They cannot be viewed as superior to atheism. Islam can be ruled out because of it's internal inconsistencies.

The choice is now down to whether there is no god or whether the God of the Bible is God. The previous link answers that with prophecies. But there are other ways to know as well. One is to go seeking Him to see if He is.

Is The God Of The Bible Is Really God?"

Comparative Religions

"One way is to divide the religions is between meaning and meaninglessness. Only those belief systems which regard the world, man and the cosmos as real both in their existence and purpose can provide meaning for man. This would eliminate the many forms of Hindu, Buddism, most easter religions.

In other words, only the religions that say what you want them to say are true. Therefore, any religions that you don't like are false.

That is not logical reasoning.

Why not just be an athiest than to practice a religion of meaninglessness. The end result is the same. And no doubt the atheist has fewer rules. In fact under the Hindu cosmos, the atheist lives longer.

I can't speak for Hindus, since I've not met many and I don't know the religion that well, but the understanding that I've gotten is that Hindus believe that their lives are ultimately more fulfilling with their religion. They believe that their religion is true, that's why they are Hindus. Why not live as atheists? They believe that their gods exist. That makes them theists. You're suggesting that people could just will themselves to be atheists or theists -- this is not the case. Your argument for religion is silly and devoid of any serious thought.

A second way is whether the religion deals with real guilt or illusion. Only those belief systems which take man's sinfulness seriously can hope to provide a satisfying answer.

Assuming the conclusions (man's state of sinfulness). Again, projecting your expectations of religion and assuming that only those that meet your expectations can be true. Argument from wishful thinking.

Again if there is no good and evil, if guilt and sin are illusions, then what good is that religion? This criteria also eliminates Hinduism, Buddism, most eastern religions. The better to be an athiest comment applies again.

Hindus that I've met disagree. Buddhism is not always theistic -- there are atheist Buddhists out there, thus treating Buddhism and atheism as mutually exclusive states is nonsensical.

As I've pointed out before God doesn't judge on a bell curve. He judges according to His own standards, and He is holy. He knows no sin. He tells us in the bible to "Be Holy for I am Holy." God ain't going to settle for mostly good. The great difference in Christianity is that only in Christianity is salvation a free gift from God. Practically all other religions teach you have to earn your salvation. Which is an impossible feat if the goal is holiness... perfection.

Once again, assuming the conclusion.

Islam views itself as the corrected form of monotheism. But does this claim hold up? Is it logical that a God that knows the future, would give two revelations only to put His foot down on the third version and say "This one I'm not going to be allowed to be corrupted?" Is it logical for the Koran to tell Jews and Christians to search their scriptures only to have Jews and Christians reject the Koran when they do?

Is it logical for Christians to tell us to search the Bible, only to have us reject it when we do? Or are we just not reading the Bible properly, just as a Muslim can claim that you're not reading the Koran properly when you reject it or the Bible correctly when you accept it as absolute truth?

The eastern religions can be ruled out because they give no meaning to life. They cannot be viewed as superior to atheism. Islam can be ruled out because of it's internal inconsistencies.

In other words, Eastern religions can be ruled out because you don't like them -- not that your dislike has any bearing on their truth value. Islam can be ruled out because you think that you've found inconsistencies in it that Muslims will dispute, and you ignore inconsistencies that people point out in your own religion.

Do you have an argument that isn't rife with poor reasoning and logical fallacies?

"In other words, only the religions that say what you want them to say are true. Therefore, any religions that you don't like are false."

Any religion whose end result is the dissolution of the individual or that provides no purpose is irrelevant. It just doesn't matter. It's like atheism, if athiesm is true, it doesn't matter, because both your days and my days will run out with no purpose, and anything we accomplish will ultimately fade away with the death of the solar system. So if you are going to have any religion, at least pick one that provides a purpose.

(Hindus) They believe that their gods exist. That makes them theists. You're suggesting that people could just will themselves to be atheists or theists -- this is not the case.

Even if their gods existed but their ultimate purpose is to be devoid of desire so that they merge back in with the soul of the cosmos and cease to exist as individuals, then again, it just doesn't matter. The religion is irrelevant to the individual because there is no ultimate purpose.

Again, projecting your expectations of religion and assuming that only those that meet your expectations can be true.

Yes I have expectations of religion. I cannot be like Deepak Chopak and say "The world is exactly as it was designed. The world is as it should be. Therefore don't concern yourself about anything." The man obviously isn't looking at the same world I look at. I may have only a very limited responsibility for the world, but it doesn't take a lot of serious thought to see that the world is not as it should be.

Buddhism is not always theistic -- there are atheist Buddhists out there, thus treating Buddhism and atheism as mutually exclusive states is nonsensical.

Agreed there are atheist Buddists. Let my reference to Buddhism be to theistic buddists. And put nontheistic buddists in the atheist camp along with nontheistic confusious followers and all other nontheists. If any of them have an unltimate purpose let me know. If they are all going to fade out of existence, then the religion whether true or false is irrelevant. "Is it logical for Christians to tell us to search the Bible, only to have us reject it when we do?"

Yes. It is either true or not. If you find it to be untrue, I would expect you to reject it. Just make sure that what you think is untrue is really untrue. I find nothing untrue in the Bible.

To say that I shouldn't analyze religions according to expectations is ridiculous. If you can show me why my expectations of religion are wrong, fine. But otherwise it is logical to analyze religion this way. The alternative is to throw your hands up and say it is unknowable, because there can be no framework to analyze it by. THAT is a copout.

Any religion whose end result is the dissolution of the individual or that provides no purpose is irrelevant.

Why? Because you don't like that outcome?

It's like atheism, if athiesm is true, it doesn't matter, because both your days and my days will run out with no purpose, and anything we accomplish will ultimately fade away with the death of the solar system.

Actually, Buddhism believes that everything will continue in an endless cycle unless action is taken to escape the wheel of karma. The "goal" of Buddhism is the dissolution of the individual. You, however, discount Buddishm as false simply because you don't like its implications. That's not logical reasoning, that is the fallacy of argument from the consequences.

Even if their gods existed but their ultimate purpose is to be devoid of desire so that they merge back in with the soul of the cosmos and cease to exist as individuals, then again, it just doesn't matter. The religion is irrelevant to the individual because there is no ultimate purpose.

There is an ultimate purpose. It's just not the ultimate purpose that you want, so you pretend that it doesn't count and that the religion is meaningless to all of its followers.

Yes I have expectations of religion.

Your expectations have no bearing on their truth values, however. Since I've let it be known that I'm not so foolish sa to believe that your strings of logical fallacies has any bearing on the validity of the religions that you are criticizing, I don't understand why you continue to defend your use of such faulty arguments.

. I may have only a very limited responsibility for the world, but it doesn't take a lot of serious thought to see that the world is not as it should be.

How should the world be? By what method have you determined that the world is not currently at that state?

If they are all going to fade out of existence, then the religion whether true or false is irrelevant.

Traditional Buddhist teachings is that we will not "fade out" of existence but are condemned to an endless cycle of life, death and rebirth until we learn to cast off our desires. I'm not a Buddhist, so I don't believe that. Please don't compare my personal beliefs -- or lack thereof -- with Buddhism simply because you don't understand either.

To say that I shouldn't analyze religions according to expectations is ridiculous.

You're analyzing religion according to what you "want to be" and tossing out any religion that doesn't tell you that you want to hear. That's a great way to choose a belief, but don't pretend that it has any basis in rational thought or in reality. Your dismissal of Hindusim and Buddhism for the reasons that you have given are rooted in faulty reasoning and have no bearing on the actual truth values of those religions, nor does it advance the validity of Christianity.

Once again, what the hell does any of this have to do with a study that suggests that the first life forms sprang from Borax minerals?

"Why? Because you don't like that outcome?"

No, because logic says if that is the outcome, then it doesn't matter what we do in this life. It's all in vain. Therefore if those religions represents truth, the religion is irrevelant, in the big picture it just doesn't matter. It's not just that it's an outcome I don't like, it's that it makes all we do in vain.

Atheism has the same result, but at least Atheism in my mind is logical. "There is no God and therefore your life is in vain" is infinitely more logical than "there is god(s) but your life is still in vain".

But fortunately I know different. There is a God and your life doesn't need to be in vain. It doesn't need to end, it doesn't need to merge with the cosmic soul and lose your identity.

How should the world be? By what method have you determined that the world is not currently at that state?

Because I have a conscience. And it tells me that when men do what is evil, that shouldn't be. There shouldn't be murders, rapes, child abuse, thefts, hatred, etc. Those things are wrong. I know this. Maybe I don't have a mathematical proof for it, but I suspect you know it too. And that knowledge, Dimensio, you have to deal with. If there is good and evil, if there is right and wrong, where does it stem from? If everything is happenstance who is to say what is good and evil? The individual would determine that for himself. But that's not the way it is.

"That's a great way to choose a belief, but don't pretend that it has any basis in rational thought or in reality."

Ok, fair enough. Maybe I haven't proven them false, the proof of Christianity lies in it's prophecies, miracles, changed lives, and meeting the Creator one on one.

What I'm saying in defending that logic, is in response to your question of which religion is right. If you are going to investigate any religion, you might as well concentrate on the ones that have some relevance. Maybe that is a better way to choose a belief than to disprove a religion.

But your right, I don't want those religions to be truth because of the implications. If they are true, it doesn't matter that I'm wrong. If they are false, then what is true? If Christ is true, then it does matter if you are wrong.

DannyTn: “What should a religion do if it is true? It should provide practical instruction for man as to how to live and it should tell him how he relates to god(s) and the world, and what his purpose is.”

I believe in Jack Hayes, the one true god of Texas. The gospel of Jack can be found in the compendium of Texas statutes as codified by Vernon’s. These statutes tell me everything from which side of the road I can drive on to the nature of the paperwork necessary to set up an S corporation. Thus, they “provide practical instruction for man as to how to live.” The statutes also tell me that if I disobey Jack by violating his statutes, I will be subject to quite specific penalties. Thus, “they tell me how I relate to [Jack] and the world.” Finally, I view it as self-evident that my purpose in life is to obey Jack and the Texas statutes (coupled with the very purposeful goal of avoiding Huntsville prison at all costs).

DannyTn: "One way is to divide the religions is between meaning and meaninglessness. Only those belief systems which regard the world, man and the cosmos as real both in their existence and purpose can provide meaning for man.”

As a practical matter, if you view Jack and the Texas statutes as meaningless, you are going to have some serious problems. Jack and the Texas statutes also regard the world, the cosmos, and me as quite real, as evidenced by their presumption that I (and the balance of the world known as Texas) are subject to their regulation. They also regard the purpose of the world, the cosmos, and me in a pretty straightforward way -- to follow the statutes and render Texas an orderly place, or pay the price.

DannyTn: “Only those belief systems which take man's sinfulness seriously can hope to provide a satisfying answer.”

Believe me, Jack and the Texas statutes take sinfulness seriously. The execution rate in Texas is nothing to sneeze at.

DannyTn: “To say that I shouldn't analyze religions according to expectations is ridiculous.”

I agree. And my expectations are that if I obey the Texas statutes, Jack will for the most part leave me the heck alone (which in the end is all we believers in Jack and the Texas statutes really want).

I am of course being facetious. But, as you can see, the religion of Jack and the Texas statutes satisfies most of you supposed criteria for gauging the truth of a religious belief.

Left unaddressed are your perfectly non-objective and evidence-free beliefs in “eternal life” and “salvation by acceptance of Christ.” I happen to believe both of these as well, but I know they cannot be “proven” in any way whatsoever, and they certainly cannot be “proven” by a method that presumes otherwise universally accepted rules of civilization to be uniquely Christian in origin or practice.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.