Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lab-made primordial soup yields RNA bases

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 134 posts

Re: Lab-made primordial soup yields RNA bases

#31

Post by toasterlovin »

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.

The Neo-Darwinians don't have an origin of life model. Neo-Darwinism was a synthesis of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection with genetics. It was about fleshing out an actual mechanism behind heritability and variation (two of the three necessary ingredients for evolution by natural selection; the other being selection). It was not about explaining how life started.

The origin of life is very much a speculative area of science. I thought Nick Lane's The Vital Question was an interesting take on how life could have gotten started. I'm not qualified to comment on the validity of the chemistry behind it, though.

Re: Lab-made primordial soup yields RNA bases

#32

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o »

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 get from the basic building blocks to a fully functioning working cell, you need steps A, B, C, D, ...

This article shows that C could have spontaneously happened. It's not at all meaningless. Is it the whole story? Of course not. But it's an interesting part of the chain. Science is slow. Don't throw out the transistor because it's not an iphone.

Re: Lab-made primordial soup yields RNA bases

#33

Post by toasterlovin »

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.

See my response above. Neo-Darwinianism has nothing to do with explaining the origin of life. It was strictly concerned with explaining the mechanism (genetics) underpinning Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. And the fact that the OP has engaged in name calling that isn't even correct kind of implies that their objection is ideological rather than merely logical.

Re: Lab-made primordial soup yields RNA bases

#34

Post by solinent »

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.

Just because you can't explain it doesn't mean it cannot be explained. It could just be a reflection of you.

Re: Lab-made primordial soup yields RNA bases

#36

Post by tasty_freeze »

salgernon wrote: post #11
jonmc12 wrote: post #9

> Carell’s team has shown how all nucleobases could form under one set of conditions: two separate ponds that cycle through the seasons, going from wet to dry, from hot to cold, and from acidic to basic, and with chemicals occasionally flowing from one pond to the other. I've enjoyed Bruce Damer's explanation of related theory, "The Hot Spring Hypothesis for the Origin of Life". Search "goldilocks chemistry" for some…

Is that the Brice Damer of “DigiBarn” fame (vintage computer restoration and archiving)? An illustration shows a MITS Altair reading a paper tape, presumably to illustrate interpreting dna instructions.

Yes, one and the same guy

Re: Lab-made primordial soup yields RNA bases

#37

Post by tlb »

Valmar wrote: post #25
lovecg wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I don't think the idea is failed. Yes, attempts to replicate it in laboratory-scale tanks haven't succeeded yet. But that isn't evidence against the theory that it occurred sometime over millions of years in billions of cubic kilometers of water. It happens at some statistical rate, and lab experiments so far have put an upper bound on the rate.

Re: Lab-made primordial soup yields RNA bases

#38

Post by jamesakirk »

salgernon wrote: post #11
jonmc12 wrote: post #9

> Carell’s team has shown how all nucleobases could form under one set of conditions: two separate ponds that cycle through the seasons, going from wet to dry, from hot to cold, and from acidic to basic, and with chemicals occasionally flowing from one pond to the other. I've enjoyed Bruce Damer's explanation of related theory, "The Hot Spring Hypothesis for the Origin of Life". Search "goldilocks chemistry" for some…

Is that the Brice Damer of “DigiBarn” fame (vintage computer restoration and archiving)? An illustration shows a MITS Altair reading a paper tape, presumably to illustrate interpreting dna instructions.

Yes, it is the same Bruce Damer! Here is a clip of Bruce giving Wozniack a tour of the DigiBarn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsHM3MXnrNM

He's a fascinating individual who wears many hats. He's done a ton of interviews on podcasts (his own, Duncan Trussel Family Hour, Erik Davis's Expanding Mind, Future Fossils, and Rogan come to mind).

Re: Lab-made primordial soup yields RNA bases

#39

Post by dang »

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

Personal attacks will get you banned here, no matter how wrong or annoying another comment is. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting, we'd be grateful.

Re: Lab-made primordial soup yields RNA bases

#40

Post by dang »

nurettin wrote: post #30
Valmar wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar, and please don't cross into personal attack.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Post reply on HN