Separated R.N.A. A very small one prepared at the University of Colorado is able to catalyze a key chemical reaction necessary in the synthesis of proteins - the building blocks of life. The findings may prove to be a significant step towards understanding the exact origin of life on Earth
Separated R.N.A. A very small one prepared at the University of Colorado is able to catalyze a key chemical reaction necessary in the synthesis of proteins - the building blocks of life. The findings may prove to be a significant step towards understanding the exact origin of life on Earth.
Catalyst H.N.A. The smallest ever able to perform a cellular chemical reaction as described in an article published in the scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
R.N.A. A cell is made up of hundreds or thousands of basic structural units called nucleotides. The research team focused on riboses - a form of RNA that can catalyze chemical reactions - consisting of only five nucleotides.
Because proteins are so complex, scientists wonder how the first proteins were formed, says the lead researcher. "Now it seems that the first catalytic fragment could have been an RNA fragment. "Since it is simpler, it is likely that it existed at the beginning of the formation of the first living systems and is able to catalyze chemical reactions without the presence of other proteins," he says.
"In this paper, the group of researcher Mike Yarus revealed the amazing discovery that even isolated R.N.A. A very small cell is able to catalyze a key reaction necessary for protein synthesis by itself," says researcher Blumenthal. "No one expected that isolated R.N.A. So small and simple you can perform such a complex task."
The findings of this study add solid evidence to the "RNA World" hypothesis, which suggests that life on Earth evolved from early forms of RNA. "Researcher Yarus has been one of the staunchest supporters of this idea, and his lab has provided some of the strongest evidence for it over the past two decades," notes the researcher.
The researchers point out that the assumption of an RNA world was problematic in light of the fact that it is relatively difficult to prepare RNA isolates. "This study shows that it is possible and RNA enzymes They were much smaller and simpler than previously thought, and therefore their preparation was much easier under such primitive conditions."
If isolated R.N.A. Very simple ones, such as those prepared in the researchers' laboratory, could speed up chemical reactions in the "primordial soup" of the earth, so there is a greater chance that N.A. was able to direct and catalyze biochemical reactions under primitive conditions.
Before the appearance of RNA, so most biologists believe, there existed a simpler world of chemical replicators who were only able to copy themselves, given the raw materials found at the time. "If there really is such a type of mini-catalyst, a "brother" to the Feroda that we prepared, then the world of replicators will also jump much closer to the first systems on Earth that can later go through what is known as Darwinian evolution," explains the lead researcher.
"In other words, we may have taken a significant step towards understanding the exact origin of life on Earth," he says. "However, it must be remembered that the tiny replicator we made in the laboratory is not yet found in nature, and that its existence will only be proven after experiments that have not yet been done, and perhaps have not even been thought of by the scientists yet."
21 תגובות
Eddie:
Your words are trending to horror.
In every science we still have holes that we have no idea how to plug and according to you all scientific theories are stupid.
I have no intention of starting to confront such an attitude.
Michael:
I agree with you - "There are only stupid estimates in this matter because when you don't know how it happens there is no way to calculate the chance".
As a rational person, you should ask yourself - why "we don't know how it happens".
There is one clear answer to this: it turns out that the theories are stupid. And no, we are not "all the time getting closer and closer to the matter and it is not a coincidence that they found what they found in the current study". The chatter becomes -perhaps- more 'professional', but there is no scientific 'truth' here, there is no 'general direction that is clearly correct'
- and therefore, whenever such is the state of scientific knowledge - it is time to stop talking about them as if it were 'science'.
This is the obvious rational conclusion, unless we are willing to admit that we simply do not 'know', and that our distance from scientific knowledge on this issue at least - is enormous; A reluctance to admit that may be due to the fear that it might lead us to disillusionment with the illusion that everything is subject to true 'scientific' knowledge, and perhaps nothing at all is subject to true 'scientific' knowledge, yes, and in any case our essence is not subject to knowledge... - and here we come... .
In my opinion, there is a lot of anxiety here, a lot of anxiety from anxiety here, a lot of immaturity, a lot of lack of courage, a lot of running away, and in the end - self-deception and dishonesty - as well.
I've mentioned this before. But I would like to point it out again.
Those who fear science demonize scientists in their minds.
And in every question they ask, even if it is a finding of 2 researchers, they will call them "the scientists" which is a kind of scary monster that reveals the bitter and black truth to the good and honest people who generally want to spend their 100 years quietly according to fixed rules and a fixed order.
They are afraid, someone once said.
Congratulations on the scientific achievement! Very interesting article.
Anonymous from comment 13:
Why don't you identify yourself by your real name?
After all, you can immediately recognize that you are the Oracle of Delphi!
Eddie:
There are only dumb estimates in the matter because when you don't know how it happens there is no way to calculate the chance.
Therefore there is no value in evaluating the chances you tried to sell us.
We are not in a complete scientific vacuum.
We are constantly getting closer and closer to the matter and it is no coincidence that they found what they found in the current study.
There is a general direction that is clearly correct because there is no other possibility.
That is of course - if you don't want to introduce a paradoxical possibility like God into the matter.
There is no need to exaggerate the definition of God.
I will give you complete freedom in defining it and will only require you to give it the will and the ability to create life on earth.
The other characteristics of its definition are subject to your decision and you should choose them so that you can give its formation a high chance.
Of course, in my eyes, this whole game of yours is pointless because you are using an ethereal God, even though the God whose existence you really want to defend is the one who wrote all the nonsense in the Torah about which there is simply no doubt that he does not exist.
Michael:
To 12:
There are different estimates, based on different theories. There is no single estimate - because there is no conceivable theoretical method regarding the spontaneous physical formation of the first living cell, and in fact we are in a complete theoretical vacuum.
For this reason, at this stage of the development of science, there is no scientific validity to the view of the spontaneous formation of life through known physical processes. Whoever adopts such a view does so purely as a matter of faith.
Beyond the lack of validity, there is a difficult problem, and in fact unsolvable today, from the probabilistic point of view. According to all estimates, when discussing the spontaneous formation of the first living cell, these are such minimal probabilities, according to all known methods, that none of them exceeds the minimum required for the practical feasibility of the process ever, taking into account the age of the earth, its initial conditions (according to all the methods) and even according to quantitative data in the cosmos (for example - the number of atoms in the cosmos).
Meanwhile, personally, I don't see anything wrong with people choosing to believe in the purely physical spontaneous formation of the first living cell - as long as it is not about crowning this belief with the title of scientific 'truth', and as long as it is not about making the claim under the guise of scientific truth. It seems to me that the current article is careful enough to exclude it from all such sins, and I saw that it was pointed out positively in my previous response 11.
As for 'God' - if you define what concept of God you mean, I would be happy to address the question of validity of the concept and the general degree of probability of its 'existence', subject to the definition of the concept of 'existence' in general and 'existence' in this specific context.
Life was created from a small spiritual spark that broke into our world from the spiritual world that contains all the information, a plan for the development of our life from beginning to end and we are in the middle of the development. In the beginning the same force developed us from the level of inanimate plant and living that even today we do not understand how the plant was created from the inanimate and the living plant, and even how life was created is hidden from us, the same force is all around us and develops us and we do not feel it, because we are the opposite of it in our nature in our qualities and in us there is Some small point that is a part of him that we don't feel right now and it is called soul, a feature that belonged to his nature and everything else does not belong to his nature, and if we open that feature "soul" we will be able to feel it as the source of our life and we will understand and above all we will feel that this life has a very high purpose.
Chest:
All the scientists ask the stupid question about the origin of life and Hazi the genius offers an answer that is not an answer and when they prove to him that it is not an answer he tells them that it is a stupid question after all.
Eddie:
When you know how to calculate the probability of such a thing - please publish it publicly.
In my opinion, the ability to calculate the probability of the formation of life is definitely an achievement that can win a person a Nobel Prize (because to calculate the probability or even its order of magnitude, you need to know a lot of things that we don't know).
That is, of course, if you ignore the fact that it happened.
On that occasion I propose to use the same method and calculate the probability of the creation of God.
A careful, matter-of-fact and therefore high-quality article.
two questions:
A. Quote:
"However, it must be remembered that the tiny replicator we made in the laboratory is not yet found in nature, and that its existence will only be proven after experiments that have not yet been done, and perhaps have not even been thought of by the scientists yet."
Do scientists have even a faint idea about the question of what is the process by which riboses may have been formed in nature - a separate RNA (RNA) consisting of only five nucleotides? They do not seem to offer any suggestions on the subject.
B. If the spontaneous formation of a ribosome is proven as above, the possibility of the spontaneous formation of the first cell will surely increase by several orders of magnitude. But will this raise the level of probability to the minimum level necessary to justify the practical possibility of the formation of the first cell, under the conditions of the earth and in general? The deletion of some of the tens or hundreds of orders of magnitude in the negative power does not make such a practical possibility.
To Laban-Ner and Michael.
A- Even in the vast distances, it could not have been a problem for beings slightly more developed than us to send frozen life forms or seeds,
With the help of "missiles".
There are many facts that can support the distribution of life in this way (for example: that life of different species "created" precisely in a certain place, and from there they spread.
B - I am not a religious person, and I do not refer to the creation story in the book in my head. as a fact
C- Meteorites that came from space prove without a doubt that there is abundant organic matter in space.
So why stay stuck on the point of departure that life started right here "on its own"?
D- The stupid question: So how did life start in space, is not a reason to cancel its existence.
I don't know and I won't know...
I already wrote here that the great "God", distant from us by several billion light years,
that there is no chance for any person in the future to get close or know anything about him.
What is left for us regarding the beginning of life, only to guess and build stupid theories...
A. Ben-Ner:
It's really - but really! Not what Hazi is talking about.
to Michael Rothschild
Along with and despite what I wrote in my previous response to Hazy, it is not possible to completely rule out his claim, there may still be something in it. I mean the matter of the beginning of life on Earth. From the little that I know of the science of "astrobiology", the most fundamental claim of this science is the existence of "pre-organic chemistry" that exists in space, which is formed from elements that are the products of nuclear fusion in stars and supernova explosions. This chemistry Includes fairly large molecules, with a carbon skeleton, which have the (amazing) feature of "spontaneous" growth and self-replication. Well, the claim is that it is possible that this "pre-organic chemistry" reached the Earth with meteorites
And asteroids and is the source of the beginning of the evolution of life according to KDA.
to my chest... really...
And how did extraterrestrial life originate, do you already know?
By the way, according to the simplistic religious worldview, life was created by God on the surface of the earth. In any case, if the religious people, as they are, stand by the traditional, simplistic interpretation of the concept of "earth" (and they do stand by it, as of our time, as far as I understand) then if life outside the earth is discovered, then the conclusion that they will have to The conclusion is that, life dispersed and spread from the beginning of time to all the expanses of space in which it exists. This conclusion is more or less the opposite of the theory put forward by Mr. Hezi here (in response number 5) as if life came to Earth from outer space.
Chest:
In view of the vast distances and the almost certain assessment that it is not possible to move between stars at a relevant speed - what the researchers of life (who in your uneducated opinion are a different group and separate from the serious scientists) are doing is extremely logical.
It is even more logical if you think about the fact that wherever it is - whether on Earth or on another planet - life had to arise at some point naturally and without external intervention and saying that it did not happen on Earth does not solve any problem when trying to find out how life could have arisen - Solves also solves.
In other words - what you offer as a substitute for what you call (incorrectly) looking for the solution under the lamp is the very interesting substitute of ignoring the problem.
Despite the fact that most serious scientists,
It is believed that life also exists in other places in space,
Researchers of life on Earth continue to ignore the plausible possibility
Because the life here was brought or sent here from outside the earth,
And all research aims to explain how life developed "by itself"...
It's just like searching at night under a flashlight...
I'll be a snoozer, in Hebrew initials are written with double hyphens " and not with dots. It bothers me a bit.
Other than that, the article and disclosure are great.
a quote:
"The research team focused on riboses - a form of RNA that can catalyze chemical reactions - consisting of only five nucleotides."
And how many nucleotides are there in this RNA?
More on the same subject