Abiogenesis

[seraph]

Hello, all! This fall, I will begin working on my PhD in biochemistry. My research interests have, until recently, mostly been in the realm of protein structure, function, and evolution. However, I am beginning to find that research in the area of abiogenesis is catching my interest.

 

There really doesn't seem to be a ton of research going on though. Maybe I'm searching in the wrong places, but not many scientists appear to be very interested in the subject. I know that at the university I'll be attending in the fall, there is none going on.

 

How is abiogenesis viewed by the scientific community? Is there much abiogenesis research going on in universities?

[cameron marical]

First of all. Welcome to SFN!

 

Second. Im not even in college yet, so i dont really know how anyone else stands upon abiogenesis, but i personally believe in it.

[iNow]

seraph - The summary answer is that abiogenesis is accepted by nearly every scientist who isn't blinded by their religious views. Once religion gets involved, however, the acceptance of abiogenesis seems to decrease accordingly.

 

 

One option to learn about what research is going on is to use the search feature on this site. Search for posts by member "Lucaspa" and the word "abiogenesis."

 

Ensure that you return the results as "posts" instead of "threads," and you will see many references to current research on this topic. Lucaspa is a staff member here who is very well trained in biology, and he has posted rather extensively on this topic.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/search.php

[seraph]

Thanks for the quick responses guys. I guess my original question was phrased poorly. My reason for asking what most scientists think about the subject was due to the lack of research going on.

 

I figured most respectable scientists would side with abiogenesis over the New Testament's Genesis. However, the overwhelming lack of research going on relative to other areas of biochemistry has lead me to wonder why this is the case. I didn't know if some feel as though it is a waste of time or if they have problems receiving funding for the type of research or not.

 

But I'll check out the search feature. Thanks for the heads up on that.

[scrappy]

How is abiogenesis viewed by the scientific community? Is there much abiogenesis research going on in universities?

You may need to join the Church of Abiogenesis, because some biological true believers here support the Poof Theory, wherein the digital information of genes just spontaneously occurred somehow—“Poof!”—amongst the chemical analogues. Some people are so entrenched in their beliefs that they claim their opponents are propagating “Persistent Logical Fallacies” without defending such claims. So, seraph, be prepared for a lot of condescension if your opinions don’t match those who claim intellectual supremacy.

[iNow]

You may need to join the Church of Abiogenesis, because some biological true believers here support the Poof Theory, wherein the digital information of genes just spontaneously occurred somehow—“Poof!”—amongst the chemical analogues. Some people are so entrenched in their beliefs that they claim their opponents are propagating “Persistent Logical Fallacies” without defending such claims. So, seraph, be prepared for a lot of condescension if your opinions don’t match those who claim intellectual supremacy.

 

Scrappy - Your post is a classic representation of the logical fallacy known as a strawman. As was explained to you repeatedly in your other discussions on this topic, nobody supports this idea of "poof." You are simply disparaging their positions and completely misrepresenting it, instead of arguing against their actual claims and evidences.

 

One key issue here is that you try to mandate digital information appearing, while ignoring this not being a requirement to describe the process. It is your own goalpost and has nothing to do with the definitions or terms used in the scientific community. It's as if you're challenging evolution for not properly explaining gravity and nuclear fusion, and it's mistaken of you to continue to do so.

 

On another note, I want to caution you against trolling, as this thread has a very clear question which was well articulated in the OP. Any further posts of the nature above will be off topic and I suggest should be addressed sternly and directly by the staff.

[scrappy]

Scrappy - Your post is a classic representation of the logical fallacy known as a strawman. As was explained to you repeatedly in your other discussions on this topic, nobody supports this idea of "poof." You are simply disparaging their positions and completely misrepresenting it, instead of arguing against their actual claims and evidences.

 

One key issue here is that you try to mandate digital information appearing, while ignoring this not being a requirement to describe the process. It is your own goalpost and has nothing to do with the definitions or terms used in the scientific community. It's as if you're challenging evolution for not properly explaining gravity and nuclear fusion, and it's mistaken of you to continue to do so.

The most crucial question regarding abiogenesis concerns how the earliest stereochemical process of building proteins evolved into an information storage/access system that does not function sterochemically but digitally. The genes, which are purely digital information, are not “blueprints” of proteins—a common fallacy—but instead just coded instructions for making them. There is nothing about a gene that looks anything like a protein. And you can change an entire protein by merely switching out a single nucleotide (i.e., a SNP, or “single nucleotide polymorphism”). This clearly demonstrates that genes are not sterochemical with their proteins, but instead digital.

 

On another note, I want to caution you against trolling, as this thread has a very clear question which was well articulated in the OP. Any further posts of the nature above will be off topic and I suggest should be addressed sternly and directly by the staff.

Since when did you become a mod?

[iNow]

One doesn't need genes or digital information to reproduce. You're trolling again, scrappy, and I'm sure it's not helpful to this new member who was curious to get a real answer to a question they find interesting.

[scrappy]

One doesn't need genes or digital information to reproduce.

One what? We are talking about biological abiogenesis aren't we? Show me something biological that doesn't require digital information to reproduce.

 

You're trolling again, scrappy, and I'm sure it's not helpful to this new member who was curious to get a real answer to a question they find interesting.

No, I am not trolling. I am raising a serious objection to the assumption that a digital genetic alphabet will naturally-but-mysteriously arise from the stereochemical interplay of nucleic acid and proteins. There is no principle I know of in either biology or chemistry that explains how pre-biological life invented its own digital genetic alphabet. Yet that seems to have happened somehow. Therefore, to me anyway, the biggest mystery of abiogenesis is not about the chemicals but about the code.

[Mokele]

Show me something biological that doesn't require digital information to reproduce.

 

Show me a synapsid that doesn't have warm blood. Just because there aren't any around today doesn't mean there never were, or that we must infer that even early pelycosaurs were endotherms.

 

You've trotted this out before, I've said the same - you cannot assume the past is exactly like the present. That nothing today can reproduce without DNA doesn't mean nothing ever could.

[Pangloss]

Infractions have been issued in this thread, and it has been moved to Pseudoscience and Speculations where it belongs. Note the particular rules for this subforum, which may be found here, and the FAQ "Why has by thread been moved to P&S?", which may be found here.

[Moontanman]

Personally I am in the metabolism first camp, no DNA needed at first, then there is the garbage bag idea and the RNA world, clay temp plates, oh the possibilities! Deciding a cell or even DNA had to spontaneously appear for life to exist is not exactly accurate. I've read a few good books of recent date and it would seem at some research is going on currently.

[iNow]

How is abiogenesis viewed by the scientific community? Is there much abiogenesis research going on in universities?

 

Hi Seraph,

 

Considering your question above, I'm not too sure why your thread was moved to P&S. It seems a perfectly valid scientific question, or, at least a question directly pertaining to an active research domain. Either way, despite your question not fitting into P&S, I'll try to provide another way of answering (while simultaneously ignoring most of the off-topic stuff above).

 

Another approach might be to explore some of the articles about this topic to which I've linked below, and simply find out at which university the researchers reside.

 

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=abiogenesis&num=100&hl=en&lr=&as_subj=bio+chm&scoring=r&as_ylo=2004

 

 

Another potentially fruitful set of search results might be these (although, I personally find those claiming to have evidence of supernatural influence to be a bit less based on reality):

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&num=100&q=abiogenesis+research+site%3A.edu&btnG=Search

 

 

Enjoy.

[Kaeroll]

Research into abiogenesis is often termed "prebiotic chemistry". I know at least one group working in my department that uses this term and works with an international group studying RNA formation.

[jackson33]

Hi Seraph,

Considering your question above, I'm not too sure why your thread was moved to P&S. It seems a perfectly valid scientific question, or, at least a question directly pertaining to an active research domain. Either way, despite your question not fitting into P&S, I'll try to provide another way of answering (while simultaneously ignoring most of the off-topic stuff above).

I agree!!!

 

 

 

Seraph;

 

Having had trouble researching 'Abiotic Oil' (biochemistry) several years ago, it was suggested I research Russian Scientist on the subject. This produced some interesting evidence....

 

If your interest IS 'Biological' Abiogenisis (I'm not sure) then Harvard would be good place to start your study. There are many others studies under way in many fields of science to create conditions and element 'thought' to be instrumental of forming living cells (organic). You could research Professor George Church, probably make contact for other projects (University) that his research has crossed, where a PhD in Biochemistry or what ever your interest are...if not Medical.

 

http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2009/03/08/harvard_fuels_quest_to_create_life_from_scratch/

 

Harvard scientists have created a biological machine in the lab that manufactures proteins, mimicking the activity of a cellular structure, called a ribosome, that is critical for life.

 

If it is verified by other scientists, the work by Harvard Medical School professor George Church would be an important step in the quest to create life from scratch.

 

For a good outline on the differences in Evolution vs. Abiogenesis...not equal subjects, think being confused here. Might add I know of three forums that are discussing this today and not under speculation.

 

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Abiogenesis

[cameron marical]

How would something reproduce without digital blueprints for It? I am not siding with anyone, I am just curious and would have thought that RNA or DNA or something of similiar Purpose would be needed for It,

[iNow]

Nope. Why do chemicals form molecules? Same thing here.

No purpose needed.

[jackson33]

How would something reproduce without digital blueprints for It? I am not siding with anyone, I am just curious and would have thought that RNA or DNA or something of similiar Purpose would be needed for It,

 

What your talking about is after the creation of organic cells. Then either by blue print or spitting, which had been done 3.5B year ago, important---that we know of.

 

The theory is that organic cells may have been produced from certain chemical/elements from reactions to, pressure, heat or electrical shock, or a combination while the earth was very young. What Harvard and others are trying to do, is to recreate those conditions. IMO; Inorganic matter and/or the elements to make up organic cells exist in all matter after solar combustion (star forming) as we think all elements other than Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium formed (Nucleosynthisis). To what and where they develop depends on environmental condition, in Earth's case about 3B years later to any complex life, then plant life in the oceans of the day.

 

Today a good many feel, life forms new deep in the sea, where pressures and heat should be intolerable to anything and we now know life exist...

[Pangloss]

You're right iNow, that was a mistake. Actually you guys did a great job putting pseudoscience aside and answering the OP on point. I'll move it back to the original location right now. Thanks for pointing this out.

[iNow]

Actually you guys did a great job putting pseudoscience aside and answering the OP on point.

 

Outstanding. Thank you, my friend. I knew it was likely a error resulting from the other posts which had been made, but which were unrelated to the OP, and that you would make it right once it had been called to your attention.

 

 

Speaking of the OP, here was an interesting article recently in Wired magazine:

 

 

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

A fundamental but elusive step in the early evolution of life on Earth has been replicated in a laboratory.

 

Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made. Until now, they couldn’t explain how these ingredients might have formed.

 

“It’s like molecular choreography, where the molecules choreograph their own behavior,” said organic chemist John Sutherland of the University of Manchester, co-author of a study in Nature Wednesday.

 

RNA is now found in living cells, where it carries information between genes and protein-manufacturing cellular components. Scientists think RNA existed early in Earth’s history, providing a necessary intermediate platform between pre-biotic chemicals and DNA, its double-stranded, more-stable descendant.

<more at the link>

 

 

Here's an article in Nature about it:

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090513/full/news.2009.471.html

[granpa]

"Once religion gets involved, however, the acceptance of abiogenesis seems to decrease accordingly."

 

and you base this conclusion on what exactly? have you actually gone to any religious forums and actually asked people what they think? I have and most religious people seem willing to accept the idea. but that is another thread so lets not get into it here.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

"The genes, which are purely digital information, are not “blueprints” of proteins—a common fallacy—but instead just coded instructions for making them."

 

just coded instructions for making them? most normal english speaking people would call that a blueprint. you just seem to be nitpicking the arguments of others. that is definitely trolling.

Edited May 25, 2009 by granpa
Consecutive posts merged.

[scrappy]

The genes, which are purely digital information, are not “blueprints” of proteins—a common fallacy—but instead just coded instructions for making them.

just coded instructions for making them? most normal english speaking people would call that a blueprint. you just seem to be nitpicking the arguments of others. that is definitely trolling.

A blueprint bears a drawing, an analogue, of the structure to be built. There is no such blueprint in the arrangement of nucleotides on a nucleic acid molecule; there is only digital code for that structure. This is the essence of my point: somewhere in the course of abiogenesis the information needed to make proteins was transferred from a stereochemical process ("Tinkertoy" chemistry) to one of digital encoding with a 4^3 geometry. Digital codes DO NOT resemble the structures they inform; they are NOT analogues of proteins, they are code that has to be transcribed and translated for implementation.

 

And by merely arguing this point I am accused of trolling and threatened with suspension. My, oh, my! What a scientific forum this is!

[Mokele]

No, the problem is that you take a legitimate puzzle and prematurely use it to declare the entire system impossible, all while deliberately mis-characterizing the views of others.

 

Yes, the origins of DNA coding and the transcription and translation into proteins is unknown. But your continued insistence that it is some sort of insurmountable hurdle, along with your claims that others who study the topic simply ignore it, are both flat-out false.

 

You're using the same method as ID proponents: You find a gap then immediately give up and proclaim it unsolvable without even trying.

 

Sorry, but if that's your idea of science, you have a lot to learn.

Edited May 25, 2009 by Mokele
grammar

[iNow]

There really doesn't seem to be a ton of research going on though. Maybe I'm searching in the wrong places, but not many scientists appear to be very interested in the subject.

 

<...>

 

Is there much abiogenesis research going on in universities?

 

Research into abiogenesis is often termed "prebiotic chemistry". I know at least one group working in my department that uses this term and works with an international group studying RNA formation.

Good call, Kaeroll. That helped a lot.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22prebiotic+chemistry%22+%22active+research%22+site%3A.edu&btnG=Search

[MM6]

How is abiogenesis viewed by the scientific community? Is there much abiogenesis research going on in universities

 

ASU (Arizona State University) has an excellent astrobiology program and a new "Origins Initiative," headed by Lawrence Krauss.

 

http://astrobiology.asu.edu/Astrobiology/People.html

 

http://www.origins.asu.edu/