You did.
Cold, empty space does not just go "BANG!" on it's own.
Actually, it does. Look up "quantum foam."
ac·tu·al·ly 
( P ) Pronunciation Key (
k
ch
-
-l
)
adv.
- In fact; in reality: That tree is actually a fir, not a pine.
Posted on 02/21/2006 9:53:32 AM PST by presidio9
NEVER make forecasts, especially about the future. Samuel Goldwyn's wise advice is well illustrated by a pair of scientific papers published in 1953. Both were thought by their authors to be milestones on the path to the secret of life, but only one has so far amounted to much, and it was not the one that caught the public imagination at the time.
James Watson and Francis Crick, who wrote “A structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid”, have become as famous as rock stars for asking how life works and thereby starting a line of inquiry that led to the Human Genome Project. Stanley Miller, by contrast, though lauded by his peers, languishes in obscurity as far as the wider world is concerned. Yet when it appeared, “Production of amino acids under possible primitive Earth conditions” was expected to begin a scientific process that would solve a problem in some ways more profound than how life works at the moment—namely how it got going in the first place on the surface of a sterile rock 150m km from a small, unregarded yellow star.
Dr Miller was the first to address this question experimentally. Inspired by one of Charles Darwin's ideas, that the ingredients of life might have formed by chemical reactions in a “warm, little pond”, he mixed the gases then thought to have formed the atmosphere of the primitive Earth—methane, ammonia and hydrogen—in a flask half-full of boiling water, and passed electric sparks, mimicking lightning, through them for several days to see what would happen. What happened, as the name of the paper suggests, was amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. The origin of life then seemed within grasp. But it has eluded researchers ever since. They are still looking, though, and this week several of them met at the Royal Society, in London, to review progress.
The origin of pieces The origin question is really three sub-questions. One is, where did the raw materials for life come from? That is what Dr Miller was asking. The second is, how did those raw materials spontaneously assemble themselves into the first object to which the term “alive” might reasonably be applied? The third is, how, having once come into existence, did it survive conditions in the early solar system?
The first question was addressed by Patrick Thaddeus, of the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, and Max Bernstein, who works at the Ames laboratory, in California, part of America's space agency, NASA. As Dr Bernstein succinctly put it, the chemical raw materials for life, in the form of simple compounds that could then be assembled into more complex biomolecules, could come from above, below or beyond.
The “above” theory—ie, that the raw materials were formed in the atmosphere, and which Dr Miller's original experiment was intended to investigate—has fallen out of favour. That is because it depends on the atmosphere being composed of chemicals rich in hydrogen, which methane and ammonia are. Dr Miller thought this was likely because it was known in the 1950s that Jupiter's atmosphere contains these gases. Modern thinking, though, favours an early terrestrial atmosphere rich in carbon dioxide, as is found on Venus and Mars. Such an atmosphere is no good for making amino acids.
The “beyond” theory is that the raw materials were formed in space, and came to Earth either while it was being formed, or in the form of a later chemical “top up” from comets and interstellar dust. Dr Thaddeus waxed eloquent in support of this, pointing out that radio astronomy has now identified 135 different molecules in outer space (each gives out a specific pattern of radio waves when its atoms are shaken, allowing it to be identified from afar). Moreover, these molecules tend to be concentrated in the sorts of nebulae in which stars and their associated planetary systems are known to form.
Sadly, though, few of the 135 chemicals found so far resemble any important building block of life. That leaves the “below” hypothesis, which is the one Dr Bernstein favours. His theory is that the crucial raw materials were built up in hydrothermal vents like those found today in the deep ocean. These do, indeed, leak chemicals of the sort that Dr Miller used, though they provide reaction-encouraging energy in the form of heat alone, with no electricity. Nevertheless, modern vents do seem to produce not only simple amino acids but also short amino-acid chains—in other words, tiny proteins.
Going from the raw materials to the finished product, though, is a big step. In this case, the definition of “finished product” is something that is recognisably the ancestor of life today. Such an ancestor would store information in DNA, or a molecule similar to it, that was able to replicate, and thus breed. It would also use that information to make proteins. And it would probably do all this inside a membrane made of fatty molecules. In other words, it would be a living cell.
Worlds without end The favoured theory at the moment is that the first genetic material was not DNA, but its cousin RNA. In the wake of the Watson and Crick paper, a series of experiments showed that RNA acts as a messenger for the DNA, and as a fetcher and carrier of amino acids for the factories in which proteins are made. Until recently, therefore, it was seen as a rather humble substance—a molecular hewer of wood and drawer of water for the presiding DNA genius in the cell nucleus. But it is also an important component of the protein factories themselves. Indeed, these factories are known as ribosomes because of it. And the past few years have seen the discovery of more and more roles for RNA, including some in which it acts as a chemical catalyst—a job that had previously been thought to be restricted to protein-based enzymes.
This ubiquity, combined with the fact that RNA can catalyse chemical reactions, has led to the idea of an RNA world that preceded the modern DNA/protein world—and it seems very likely that RNA did, indeed, precede DNA, if only because it is the more chemically stable of the two. But that does not explain either where the RNA came from in the first place, or how the RNA/protein interdependence came about—a question known as the “breakout” problem.
There are several ideas for how large molecules such as RNA (and also early proteins) might have been generated out of the chemical raw materials that came from above or below or beyond. Two of the most persistent, though, are that clay was the catalyst, and that iron and nickel sulphides were the catalysts.
The clay theory is widely held, but needs tightening up. James Ferris of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, in New York state, explained to the meeting that his research on a type of clay called montmorillonite showed that it catalysed the formation of RNA molecules up to 50 units long. (A unit, in this context, is one of the four chemical bases that make up the alphabet of the genetic code, attached to some sugar and phosphate.) He also showed that the process was selective, with the same relatively small set of RNA molecules emerging every time. That is important, because if all possible permutations of the four bases were equally likely, none of them would ever become common enough for anything interesting to happen.
The iron/nickel/sulphur model is the brainchild of Günter Wächtershauser of Munich University. It, too, relies on catalysis, though in this case the best-tested chemical pathways generate amino acids and proteins, rather than RNA. Unfortunately, neither the clay route nor the iron/nickel route answers the breakout question. But a third, and novel, model described at the meeting might.
This was devised by Trevor Dale of Cardiff University, in Wales. He has come up with a way that proteins and RNA might catalyse each other's production.
The protein involved would crystallise in the form of long, and easily formed, fibres called amyloid. (This is the form that proteins take in brain diseases such as Alzheimer's and Creutzfeldt-Jakob.) The amyloid fibres would then act as surfaces on which RNA molecules could grow.
Crucially, RNA forming on a fibre this way would grow as double strands, like the DNA in a cell nucleus, rather than as the single strands in which the molecule normally comes. When the strands separated, each would act as a template for a new double-stranded molecule, just as happens when a DNA molecule divides.
The protein, meanwhile, would grow because the protruding end of the RNA would act as a catalyst, adding amino acids on to the end of the amyloid fibre. When the fibre grew too long to be stable, it would break in two. Thus both RNA and protein would replicate.
Such a system, Dr Dale thinks, could be the ancestor of the ribosome and, if wrapped in a fatty membrane, of the cell. And, as David Deamer, of the University of California, Santa Cruz, told the meeting, such membranes will assemble spontaneously in certain conditions.
Dr Dale's idea is certainly chemically plausible, though it has yet to be tested in a laboratory. But he is conducting tests at the moment, and hopes to have the results later this year.
The third sub-question—of how life managed to get going at all in the hostile arena of the early Earth, was neatly addressed by Charles Cockell, of Britain's Open University. The perceived problem is that for the first 600m years of its existence, the planet was being bombarded by bits of debris left over from the formation of the solar system. Yet chemical signatures in the few rocks left over from this period suggest that life—presumably in the form of bacteria—was well established by the end of it. How, then, did that life survive the constant rain of asteroids?
Beginnings are such delicate times Dr Cockell turned the question neatly on its head by showing that impact craters are ideal places for life to get going. The heat generated by an impact produces local hydrothermal springs. These start off hot, thus favouring the formation of amino acids and RNA-forming bases. They then cool over the centuries to the point where these individual molecules can get together in more complex chains. And they also have lots of microscopic nooks and crannies with space for micro-organisms to breed, and interesting chemicals in them for bugs to feed on.
The biggest irony of all, then, might be that the conditions once thought a near-insuperable obstacle to the emergence of life on Earth may actually have enabled it to come about.
One thing is sure. If life is created in a lab, it will be the result of Intelligent design. ;-)
YEC INTREP
"You assign "fact" to speculation."
Here is what you need to know about "quantum foam" theory, for now. It has been around since the 1960's and to date there is zero evidence supporting the theory.
From wikipedia: "Physicist Michio Kaku thinks that this enormous uncertainty in the estimation of quantum-foam density would represent the largest disparity for any quantity in all of physics."
This is what another physcist had to say "the problem is that we have no evidence that 1) gravity is a quantum field and 2) that space-time has this type of structure at these scales."
In other words it is just another fantasy theory without any basis in fact. It is fun to play with the math of it all, but that does not make it probable.
orionblamblam, why do atheists jump on any fantasy no matter how far removed from reality in order to come up with opposing theoris against God? That is not even faith but departure from reality.
BTW: I would still investigate the math and concept but certainly not give it any credence unless we found some evidence that makes it click. As for Jesus Christ and God I have already found the evidence that makes them click as an absolute truth.
You did.
Cold, empty space does not just go "BANG!" on it's own.
Actually, it does. Look up "quantum foam."
ac·tu·al·ly ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kch--l)
adv.
I wouldn't be that harsh on it. The Casimir effect can be invoked. However, the stipulation of cold empty space is not met. Try to measure it without anything influencing the area being measured.
>>It has been around since the 1960's and to date there is zero evidence supporting the theory.
> I wouldn't be that harsh on it.
No, you'd just call it a fairy tale. Them durn "scientists," just making stuff up with *no* evidence to back them up again, I guess.
Talk about mischaracterization. No, I did mention the Casimir effect. Now if the effect can be measured in a cold empty universe... But at this point the quantum foam is speculation. A fairy tale is like the "Nature" article by the Korean scientist. That, we know, was fiction.
We weren't talking about Korean cloning.
The 'Monster' god does fit the profile of the gods of knowledge.
"Nothing life does is inexplicable to basic physics"
What is your basic physics explanation of our ability to think?
> What is your basic physics explanation of our ability to think?
Complex organic comupter.
>>> What is your basic physics explanation of our ability to think?
> Complex organic comupter.
"Computer," that is. Sometimes there's a bug in the software.
I don't mind being so harsh. ;^)
The casimir effect is exciting but it is just 1 of a myriad seemingly unconnected ideas that can be reassembled into various working theories.
I am particularly interested in field theory myself. We don't really understand how force fields work at all. We cannot even explain mass and gravity very adequately.
If you think about it you will realize that a field does not exist in our current dimensions, not really. That part of it which supplies the force to move particles does not have any mass or dimensionality. The region in which it operates (the field) can be defined in 3-d space and time, but what "it" (the force) is and the path it uses for vectoring energy is not understood at all.
Further study of light will be helpful. For the first time we have now actually imaged a light wave, but of course it has mass too...where is that mass when it is an EM wave?
The mathematics we have today is, I believe, very insufficient to explain the next generation of physics.
Newton had to invent new mathematics to help explain his physics (calculus), and other math has come along later, but we need a real revolution in mathematical thinking. we are too bogged down in the complexities, inexactitudes, inelegancies of current mathematics.
Everywhere you turn around a physicist is plugging in a fudge factor or making simplifying assumptions (away from reality).
It is a bit like modelling plasma dynamics in 3-d using slide rules and pencils.
You mentioned fairy tales.
I agree with everything you say.
The Korean cloning fiasco was not a fairy tale; it was fraud. Believing that the natural world is incapable of doing what it clearly does... that's closer to "fairy tale."
It was fraud and a fairy tale.
Belief is not a tale. And the "natural world" does not do anything because the "natural world" is a concept.
> It was fraud and a fairy tale.
It was fraud, but it was plausible. That separates it from "fairy tale."
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.