Lab-made primordial soup yields RNA bases • Hacker News Board

Re: Lab-made primordial soup yields RNA bases

#21

Post by Valmar » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 7:55 PM UTC

brink wrote: post #15

Valmar wrote: post #14

For all of these lab soups, it means basically nothing. None of this has advanced any understanding of the Neo-Darwinian origin of life model. There's still no working theory of how one gets from basic building blocks to a fully-functioning working cell, nevermind the rest.

To those downvoting this comment, can you please clarify why you're downvoting? This is also how I see it, and I'd like to know the counter-argument.

The Neo-Darwinists are downvoting me, no doubt.

I don't buy the Christian fairytale, either.

In fact, I'm happy to accept that none of us know what the origin of life is.

Life is just too complicated to be an accident of random, purposeless matter.

Life is also too complex and multi-faceted to be explained by any religion's mythos.

Re: Lab-made primordial soup yields RNA bases

#22

Post by foota » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 7:55 PM UTC

Valmar wrote: post #18

analreceiver wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How?: Time

Time cannot logically explain it. Given such complex lifeforms, even a billion years wouldn't suffice to explain going from a RNA bases to a modern day human. And no, I don't buy the Christian fairytale, either. It's fine for me to accept that we humans have no answer as to life's origins.

Fwiw I think the transition from single cellular life, or even non-callulqr life like viruses, is fairly easy to imagine.

Re: Lab-made primordial soup yields RNA bases

#23

Post by mikelyons » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 7:56 PM UTC

Valmar wrote: post #18

analreceiver wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How?: Time

Time cannot logically explain it. Given such complex lifeforms, even a billion years wouldn't suffice to explain going from a RNA bases to a modern day human. And no, I don't buy the Christian fairytale, either. It's fine for me to accept that we humans have no answer as to life's origins.

Be patient, this step is part of the process of discovering the part that you are focused on.

Re: Lab-made primordial soup yields RNA bases

#24

Post by JorgeGT » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 7:56 PM UTC

The actual paper: http://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax2747

Re: Lab-made primordial soup yields RNA bases

#25

Post by Valmar » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 7:58 PM UTC

lovecg wrote: post #19

Valmar wrote: post #14

For all of these lab soups, it means basically nothing. None of this has advanced any understanding of the Neo-Darwinian origin of life model. There's still no working theory of how one gets from basic building blocks to a fully-functioning working cell, nevermind the rest.

So? Don't you think it’s important to understand even this first basic step?

Sure, I guess.

But we've been down this road of chemical soups before ~ and gotten nothing out of it.

I'm just frustrated that they seem to keep chasing the same failed ideas.

It's time to look for other explanations... not a religious one, at that.

Some biologists look towards a meteoric explanation of life, but punting it off-planet isn't an explanation, either...

Re: Lab-made primordial soup yields RNA bases

#26

Post by Valmar » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 7:59 PM UTC

smpetrey wrote: post #20

Valmar wrote: post #14

For all of these lab soups, it means basically nothing. None of this has advanced any understanding of the Neo-Darwinian origin of life model. There's still no working theory of how one gets from basic building blocks to a fully-functioning working cell, nevermind the rest.

You must be fun at parties. /s

I dislike parties. Too much noise. Plus, I get bored easy. :P

Re: Lab-made primordial soup yields RNA bases

#27

Post by lisper » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 8:00 PM UTC

brink wrote: post #15

Valmar wrote: post #14

For all of these lab soups, it means basically nothing. None of this has advanced any understanding of the Neo-Darwinian origin of life model. There's still no working theory of how one gets from basic building blocks to a fully-functioning working cell, nevermind the rest.

To those downvoting this comment, can you please clarify why you're downvoting? This is also how I see it, and I'd like to know the counter-argument.

Because the first two sentences in the GP comment are false and the third is a non-sequitur.

Re: Lab-made primordial soup yields RNA bases

#28

Post by bduerst » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 8:02 PM UTC

aazaa wrote: post #17

> Carell, an organic chemist, and his collaborators have now demonstrated a chemical pathway that — in principle — could have made A, U, C and G (adenine, uracil, cytosine and guanine, respectively) from basic ingredients such as water and nitrogen under conditions that would have been plausible on the early Earth. The reactions produce so much of these nucleobases that, millennium after millennium, they could have a…

I agree, but keep in mind abiogenesis is probably one of the tallest orders for chemistry. I'm glad scientists are at least exploring possible explanations, even if it means possibly disproving the mechanisms.

Re: Lab-made primordial soup yields RNA bases

#29

Post by jhedwards » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 8:04 PM UTC

Valmar wrote: post #14

For all of these lab soups, it means basically nothing. None of this has advanced any understanding of the Neo-Darwinian origin of life model. There's still no working theory of how one gets from basic building blocks to a fully-functioning working cell, nevermind the rest.

Aren't alkaline hydrothermal vents[0] a pretty good candidate for that? AFAIK they provide almost everything necessary for the creation of cellular life. Once you have cells and RNA everything else is just time + evolution.

[0] https://schaechter.asmblog.org/schaechter/2014/03/from-geolo...

Re: Lab-made primordial soup yields RNA bases

#30

Post by nurettin » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 8:06 PM UTC

Valmar wrote: post #21

brink wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To those downvoting this comment, can you please clarify why you're downvoting? This is also how I see it, and I'd like to know the counter-argument.

The Neo-Darwinists are downvoting me, no doubt. I don't buy the Christian fairytale, either. In fact, I'm happy to accept that none of us know what the origin of life is. Life is just too complicated to be an accident of random, purposeless matter. Life is also too complex and multi-faceted to be explained by any religion's mythos.

It is great that you've found a way to feel superior to others with your purpose narrative.