New study sheds light on how amino acids “evolved”
1–10 of 17 posts
Re: New study sheds light on how amino acids “evolved”
#2Ah the ages old debate about which was the beginning of it all: DNA, RNA, or protein.
My favorite superhero fight, or the very first "my origin of life can beat your origin of life" discussion. How fun.
Re: New study sheds light on how amino acids “evolved”
#3So how did they replicate, and what was the selection process?
Re: New study sheds light on how amino acids “evolved”
#4So how did they replicate, and what was the selection process?
They stitched 25 random amino acids together and then assess the resulting polymer for solubility and foldability. Solubility requirement is self explanatory, can't have life that is insoluble in water. Foldability is basically how likely for these polymers to entangle and collapse on itself. This is critical because protein folding depends on this process to generate highly compact and dense atomic machineries.
They find out stuff that are too soluble can't fold well because they prefer water over other amino acid. And that seems to exert a selection pressure, ending up with a specific set of amino acids that life depends on.
Re: New study sheds light on how amino acids “evolved”
#5Man I been always so fascinated by the Miller-Urey experiment. Ever since I learned about it on YouTube over a decade ago, I went on a PBS binge on evolution and science shows even though I have no formal education only high school. Anyways I found this article fascinating.
It discusses the mystery of how life emerged on Earth, and how scientists have some theories about how complex cellular life was generated around 3.7 billion years ago. Scientists believe that amino acids existed in great abundance in the Earth's early years and contributed to the creation of the first cell. Experiments, such as my favorite lol “Miller-Urey Experiment”, simulate the conditions of Earth's early atmosphere and have produced organic compounds such as amino acids. Proteins are the building blocks of all living organisms, and understanding how they formed is crucial to understanding how life started. Although hundreds of different amino acids may have been present on the early Earth, all living things rely on only about 20 of these compounds. It’s Science man…:)
Re: New study sheds light on how amino acids “evolved”
#6So how did they replicate, and what was the selection process?
They stitched 25 random amino acids together and then assess the resulting polymer for solubility and foldability. Solubility requirement is self explanatory, can't have life that is insoluble in water. Foldability is basically how likely for these polymers to entangle and collapse on itself. This is critical because protein folding depends on this process to generate highly compact and dense atomic machineries. They…
I wonder how this selection process varied as proteins started mixing, or even bonding, with lipids and sugars. Probably not that much, though those processes may have allowed the gradual inclusion of the other amino acids.
Re: New study sheds light on how amino acids “evolved”
#7So how did they replicate, and what was the selection process?
Forgive the plug, but I just wrote up a post[1] on simulating Hypercycles, which are a model showing how self-replication behaviors can emerge through the interactions of simple molecules. Not to say that they are the mechanism, but are an interesting model for exploring emergent behaviors and the conditions under which self-replicating systems can arise.
[1] https://blog.devgenius.io/origins-of-life-building-a-hypercy...
Re: New study sheds light on how amino acids “evolved”
#8So how did they replicate, and what was the selection process?
Selection is what the article describes (solubility and structure). They don't claim that they reproduced; they're just talking about amino acids that come about by non-reproductive chemical processes.
Re: New study sheds light on how amino acids “evolved”
#9So how did they replicate, and what was the selection process?
They stitched 25 random amino acids together and then assess the resulting polymer for solubility and foldability. Solubility requirement is self explanatory, can't have life that is insoluble in water. Foldability is basically how likely for these polymers to entangle and collapse on itself. This is critical because protein folding depends on this process to generate highly compact and dense atomic machineries. They…
>Solubility requirement is self explanatory, can't have life that is insoluble in water. Foldability... is critical because protein folding depends on this process to generate highly compact and dense atomic machineries.
That's a teleological fallacy. Evolution doesn't have a destination, therefore you can't assume the evolution criteria from the end result only. Imagine looking at all of life, adding a 'resulting in human life' criteria and therefore completely failing to understand the evolution of avians.
If the authors want to argue amino acids 'evolved', they need criteria that make sense for amino acids in early Earth environment and not assume the result.
Re: New study sheds light on how amino acids “evolved”
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
They stitched 25 random amino acids together and then assess the resulting polymer for solubility and foldability. Solubility requirement is self explanatory, can't have life that is insoluble in water. Foldability is basically how likely for these polymers to entangle and collapse on itself. This is critical because protein folding depends on this process to generate highly compact and dense atomic machineries. They…
>Solubility requirement is self explanatory, can't have life that is insoluble in water. Foldability... is critical because protein folding depends on this process to generate highly compact and dense atomic machineries. That's a teleological fallacy. Evolution doesn't have a destination, therefore you can't assume the evolution criteria from the end result only. Imagine looking at all of life, adding a 'resulting in…
Not sure what part are you arguing although I get the general gist. Still, to make sure I don't misinterpret you, can you expand a bit on which part of those requirements are teleological fallacy?
The context is for life on earth. All life on earth depends on proteins that are (mostly) soluble in water and almost all protein requires folding to be functional. It is a valid hypothesis to say solubility and foldability are necessary criteria. Then they tested it and found based on these criteria, the current set of amino acids is favored over other sets. Look like good science to me.