The new Nobel laureate from the Weizmann Institute presented her findings and the findings of her research group at an international conference held at the Technion which dealt with innovations from the research front in the field of biology on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's book Origin of Species
A total of two weeks before the Nobel Prize in Chemistry ceremony to be held in Stockholm, Prof. Ada Yonat was a guest at an important scientific conference that was held at the Technion on the 150th anniversary of Darwin's book On the Origin of Species. At the conference - from Darwin to EVO-DEVO, innovations at the forefront of science in the field of biology were presented,
Prof. Yonat described her research from the past few years that may lead to insight into the transition from RNA-based life to DNA-based life as we know it today. In her estimation, survival of the fittest and natural selection played an important role in the prebiotic world (that is, in the period that preceded the development of life as we know it), although these features are mainly associated with the evolution of species.
This assessment, which only two years ago was taboo, is gaining momentum in light of the discovery that a small area within the ribosome is the intracellular "factory" that translates the genetic code into proteins needed by the cell for its basic activities.
Prof. Yonat, whose decoding of the spatial structure and cracking of the ribosome's modes of action won her the Nobel Prize, claimed that she and her group members assume that they discovered the prebiotic machine, which later evolved into the ribosome, which was capable of forming chemical bonds and evolved to create short peptides, of which those that could speed up reactions survived More important to the RNA with an efficiency that exceeds the RNA itself or that they knew how to stabilize the machine that created them. These peptides evolved into small proteins (proteins) and since there was a demand for these proteins, they led to the creation of a code that produced more of them at first. It is possible that initially this code was written in the language of RNA and then DNA which eventually became the instruction book for building those proteins.
About six years ago, Dr. Ilana Agmon, who was then working in Yonat's group, discovered that a certain part of the RNA that makes up the ribosome - 23S RNA, contains two almost identical components arranged symmetrically around an imaginary axis of rotation of 180 degrees that has been preserved throughout evolution among all species and therefore we came to the conclusion that inside today's complex ribosome hides the same component that was the pre-ribosome (or proto-ribosome).
Prof. Yonat also referred to work carried out in other laboratories around the world that support her theory. These are the publication and reaction of Sterland and Jack Shostak in Nature on May 14, 2009, in which the researchers showed that it is possible that RNA was created from simple chemical substances that were probably already present in the probiotic world and to Joyce's work that was published a few months before in "Science" in which A teaching that RNA can duplicate itself, that is, for programming that RNA was itself the first life machine. In her reference to the substance of the substances that reacted with the ancient machine, she cited works by Yaros, Libkabar and others that showed that pieces of RNA were able to attach amino acids to them.
She also suggested that later on, a co-evolution of those protoribosomes together with the reactive substance (REACTANT) probably occurred. This mutual evolution could have led to the creation of the mechanism as we know it today, i.e. Yonat proposed a continuous transition from the world of RNA to the modern world octeted by proteins and RNA, a hypothesis that is currently being tested in Yonat's laboratory by experiments to create the ancient machine, and watching the continuous path of a process It's from the ancient world of RNA to today's genetic translation.
- The ribosome - the key to life at the atomic level - translation of the review explaining why the Nobel Prize was awarded to the discoverers of the ribosome, including Prof. Ada Yonat - part XNUMX
- The ribosome - part XNUMX of the review
- To Part C of the review, in which there is a description of Yonat's discovery about the Dead Sea bacterium
- To the fourth and last part of the review, and further details on Prof. Yonat's discoveries
27 תגובות
Derwin's weak point is not in circularity but in the statistical chance of creating a new protein in the minimal form necessary for its basic function.
There is understanding in the mind and there is in the body. If man really descended from the ape,
Please join the fight to close Mazur Farms
http://www.anonymous.org.il/v-mazor.htm
Michael, absolutely acceptable, this is the beauty of the theory of evolution, its simplicity and minimalism, it is also an excellent expression of the "occam's razor" principle, if it explains everything then why prefer a more complicated explanation?
Despite the obvious need to reduce the basic assumptions as much as possible, the dream of explaining everything only with the help of the minimal axioms of mathematical logic itself, seems absurd and impossible to me.
I agree with Rothschild that Yonat did not invent the puzzle but she probably found a very important part of it. A small and conserved region in the ribosome with a unique structure.
Its preservation in all species indicates two things:
A. It is very important, even necessary.
B. It was created a long time ago, in the ancient ancestor of all the cells that contain it.
Together with the two other pieces of the puzzle described in her lecture that were also recently discovered: the discovery that RNA can replicate itself and that RNA can be created from the building materials that were hypothesized to be in the prebiotic "soup", the hypothesis of the origin of life from RNA, also called the RNA world theory, gained momentum very serious
Of course, until there is no time machine, there will probably be no way to prove its correctness, but at least now we get the impression that it is acceptable and indeed life as we know it on Earth could have been created under the right conditions from RNA.
Regarding the tautology, as we mentioned above, it is easy to show that the argument "How do we know which language is the most suitable? After all, we don't see those that are not suitable!" He is not valid. It is enough to change the conditions and very quickly those who do not fit will become extinct, other species or mutants of the existing ones will take their place. It is very easy to demonstrate this in bacteria, yeast, plants and even animal species.
I didn't understand from my father what was taboo two years ago. The idea that RNA connecting to proteins was at the beginning of life was put forward many years ago, among other things by Lynn Margolis, also in a book published in Hebrew - Microcosmos, published by Magnes in XNUMX.
Nad:
Obviously, evolution is not theology, but I wanted to clarify what A. Ben-Ner meant.
It is clear, however, that of all the scientific theories - evolution is the closest to a state of tautology in the sense that it is based on a mathematical theorem that has very clear conditions that all exist in our world and can be easily tested.
In fact, this theorem means that in any situation where there will be elements capable of replicating themselves with small variations and there will be competition in which success will have a positive correlation with the dimensions of reproduction - evolution will occur.
Such replicating elements do exist in our world, and animals and genes are examples of them, so evolution must apply in our world.
Opponents of evolution often throw at it the claim of its "tautologies" in order to claim that it means nothing.
In fact, the situation is exactly the opposite - if this were a complete tautology, it would have to exist under all conditions.
The whole ambition of science is to formulate more and more "tautologous" theories in the sense that the number of assumptions that must be tested before it is possible to derive everything else with mathematical tools will be minimal.
There are even scientists who hope that one day they will be able to prove that the universe must be as it is from pure mathematical considerations (and this also includes the fact that the values of the various constants - such as the mass of the electron, etc. will be derived from mathematical necessity).
I don't see it happening, but it's clear that if it comes true it will be the fulfillment of science's wildest dreams and then it will be even funnier to hear the creationists claim that this theory means nothing because it is a tautology.
Correction - the one who became extinct became extinct either because he -didn't- fit enough or because he was really unlucky
Michael, I may be wrong here, but according to the way I understand it, a tautological claim is a claim that is true in any situation because it includes all possible situations, it is actually a collection of claims. The claim - the fit survive is not tautological because there are definitely situations where the fit are extinct due to randomness, so a tautological claim might be - those who are extinct are extinct either because they were fit enough or because they were really unlucky 🙂
Just to illustrate the existence of the aforementioned puzzle many years ago, see for example here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis
"In her estimation, survival of the fittest and natural selection played an important role in the prebiotic world (that is, in the period that preceded the development of life as we know it) even though these features are mainly associated with the evolution of species.
This assessment, which only two years ago was taboo...
I think there is quite a bit of exaggeration here.
This assessment was not only not taboo but was the common belief among scientists.
Yonat did not invent a new "puzzle" but apparently discovered an important part of this puzzle.
It seems to me that the article does not emphasize enough what is, according to my impressions, the main point of Yonat's proposal:
"Ilana Agmon who then worked in Yonat's group found that a certain part of the RNA that makes up the ribosome - 23S RNA, contains two almost identical components arranged symmetrically around an imaginary axis of rotation of 180 degrees that is preserved throughout evolution among all species, and therefore we came to the conclusion that inside the ribosome Today's complex hides the same component that was the pre-ribosome (or proto-ribosome)."
The intention - as I understand it (and maybe everyone understood it, but I think it's worth emphasizing - just in case) is that the same part that appears twice is actually something that had an independent existence at an earlier stage, and this is because the chance of developing a symmetrical and complex structure from zero is much lower than the probability that two copies of a single structure (and asymmetric) will stick to each other and create a symmetrical structure.
Friends:
It seems to me that you are not interpreting A. Ben-Ner's claim correctly.
As I read his words, he embraces the principle of evolution with both hands.
He does indeed use the phrase "circular argument" but from the content it is clear that he means a tautology and he understands that contrary to the claim of all kinds of anti-evolutionists - the tautology of the argument actually lends itself to it and does not refute it.
I think, however, that historically A. Ben-Ner's description is not correct and Darwin did need a journey (and the time the journey took) to formulate the conclusion.
Naturally, the article is intended for readers who have prior knowledge and background on the subject. It is not possible to give an entire course of "Introduction to Modern Biology" in a short essay.
Even for a layman like me, who didn't finish ten years of study and feeds on scraps of information on the Internet, the article is enough to make it clear that this is a revolution and a real breakthrough in the historical dilemma of the "origin of life", and allows a way out of the classic "chicken and egg" question involved in previous classical models that were accepted on the subject ( such as the theory known as the "Oparin hypothesis"). Kudos to Professor Yonat, and to the author of the article for summarizing her work in such a short article.
I agree with a point, there is a cause and effect relationship here and not a circular argument, adaptation precedes and leads to survival
You can perhaps think of it this way - "all the ripe apples fell from the tree" is the falling from the tree the reason for the ripeness of the apples?
150 years after Darwin developed the theory of evolution
that man descended from the monkey
Adiyo operates Mazor Farm in the State of Israel
http://www.anonymous.org.il/v-mazor.htm
If not stop this activity
We can come to the conclusion that the monkey came from man!
A. Ben Nar
You are confusing a circular argument with a real and self-evident argument.
The fact that the correctness of an argument is self-evident does not make it untrue as you disguisedly think.
The suitable one is the one who fits the environment at a given time, and how do we know that a creature is suitable, simply and we see that it adapts to the environment in terms of its own features (for example the ability to camouflage).
And that such a creature that adapts to the environment will survive more strongly, this is a clear, reasonable and logical claim, and statistically true.
Darwin merely pointed out this obvious fact and said that biological life itself behaves this way. Contrary to popular belief.
Thank A. Ben-Ner
This is indeed a lecture at a scientific conference intended for biologists, and in my estimation I did my best to simplify the things that were said in it.
Sorry for the ignorance but I can't understand what is circular in the argument. He who fits his environment survives. Those who don't fit (by the way, it's a sequence and not black and white) are more likely not to survive and this has been proven more than once and even more strongly in the mass extinctions in cases where the environmental conditions changed at once and the rug was dropped from under the feet of many species. The circle is broken here. Your claim that we don't know that the survivors are the ones who really deserve to be called suitable makes no sense. We do know by the fact that they are here.
The idea seems definitely in the right direction.
What logical beauty lies in the theory of evolution. In my opinion, there is the possibility that the genius Darwin had already conceived and formulated the principles of the theory of evolution in his mind, even before he set out on his world-wide travels in the Galapagos Islands. After all, the basic principle of evolution, "survival of the fittest" is a circular logical principle. Therefore, it cannot be contradicted. After all, how do we know that the "survivors" are really the ones who deserve to be called "the suitable"? The answer is of course: what defines them as "suitable" is (and only it)... the fact that they survived.
In order to reach this logical, irrefutable conclusion, the genius Darwin did not need to travel to the other side of the world. However, Darwin in his genius
Because Raba, he also understood that the scientific-conceptual discovery he arrived at, with the power of his thinking, was a "social and religious bomb". He realized that in order to spread his revolutionary idea he had to wrap it in "marketing packaging". The marketing package was the trip to the Galapagos. After all, Darwin did not see, nor did he expect to see in the Galapagos Islands, species that change before his eyes and adapt themselves, day and night, to changing living conditions. In my opinion, Darwin "built" the marketing plan for the idea of evolution, on the ignorance of the masses and especially on the ignorance of politicians and religious priests of all kinds. Yes, the same ignorance that led them then (and today) to vigorously oppose the idea of evolution. He understood that it would be easier for them to "swallow" "miraculous practices from distant lands" than to accept his discovery as a logical-scientific conclusion. The more I think about it, the more I am in awe, not only of Darwin's scientific wisdom, but also, and no less, of his human and political wisdom.
My fellow commenters, pen your harsh criticism. After all, this is not a translation or a summary of an article, but a summary of a lecture, therefore the difficulty in clear and concise formulation, although in my opinion the general basic idea of the article, namely the evolution of DNA, RNA and ribosomes, has been conveyed and clarified.
Do not expect an article in a popular magazine to go into detail.
Very vaguely written.
A horrible article written in Khartoum language