Changing Ideas About The Origin Of Life

[little_monkey]

It seems that RNA has lost its priviledged position as the catalyst that started it all.

See:
http://www.science20.com/chemical_ed...gin_life-92684

[shunyadragon]

It seems that RNA has lost its priviledged position as the catalyst that started it all.

See:
http://www.science20.com/chemical_ed...gin_life-92684

I believe this is nothing new. Inorganic catalyst have been know to be a necessary component of the first formation of RNA for a long time. Certain kinds of Iron pyrites are at the top of list. Ancient heat vents are probably the main source of the energy.

[little_monkey]

I believe this is nothing new. Inorganic catalyst have been know to be a necessary component of the first formation of RNA for a long time. Certain kinds of Iron pyrites are at the top of list. Ancient heat vents are probably the main source of the energy.

Perhaps, it was already known, my knowledge of biochemistry is not as steep as my knowledge of physics, ;-).

However, I have been following for quite some times Jack Szostak, a Nobel-prize winning biologist at Havard, who has spent decades tinkering with biological molecules to create simple artificial life. He has maintained that RNA-based life preceded DNA-based life. So this article seems to imply that life originated in a different direction, perhaps making his approach slightly out of tune, which is why it piqued my curiosity.

[shunyadragon]

Perhaps, it was already known, my knowledge of biochemistry is not as steep as my knowledge of physics, ;-).

However, I have been following for quite some times Jack Szostak, a Nobel-prize winning biologist at Havard, who has spent decades tinkering with biological molecules to create simple artificial life. He has maintained that RNA-based life preceded DNA-based life. So this article seems to imply that life originated in a different direction, perhaps making his approach slightly out of tune, which is why it piqued my curiosity.

Actually, I think this is still the view, but RNA likely had to be able to form first in some way, and it is apparent it could not form without inorganic catalysts, and inorganic energy.

[phank]

a Nobel-prize winning biologist at Havard

I think you mean "Hahvahd".

[little_monkey]

Actually, I think this is still the view, but RNA likely had to be able to form first in some way, and it is apparent it could not form without inorganic catalysts, and inorganic energy.

Sheeshh, don't say it too loud, I mean, if you mean that living systems must have arisen from non-living chemicals on the early earth, this is NOT going to make you popular at all on this forum!!! ;-)

[granpa]

the article states:

Another argument against RNA exclusivity from Lane, Allen and Martin is that each time RNA makes a copy of itself in a "primordial soup" its concentration drops so the rate of reaction can only be maintained if nucleotides are continuously replenished

the first monomers were probably held together weakly by hydrogen bonds or something similar.
(not by chemical bonds)
the supply was replenished when the polymers were split apart
perhaps by something as simple as wave action

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAH_world_hypothesis

[shunyadragon]

the article states:


the first monomers were probably held together weakly by hydrogen bonds or something similar.
(not by chemical bonds)
the supply was replenished when the polymers were split apart
perhaps by something as simple as wave action

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAH_world_hypothesis

Interesting! Thank you for the reference.