Science Daily: What Came First in the Origin of Life? New Study Contradicts the 'Metabolism First' Hypothesis.
ScienceDaily (Jan. 9, 2010) — A new study published in Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences rejects the theory that the origin of life stems from a system of self-catalytic molecules capable of experiencing Darwinian evolution without the need of RNA or DNA and their replication.
The research, which was carried out with the participation of Mauro Santos, researcher of the Department of Genetics and Microbiology at Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), has demonstrated that, through the analysis of what some researchers name "compound genomes," these chemical networks cannot be considered evolutionary units because they lose properties which are essential for evolution when they reach a critical size and greater level of complexity.
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
12 comments:
WARNING: This website contains opinions that are not only wrong, they are purposefully twisted and edited to misrepresent good science and mislead those who are susceptable to bullshit.
It is suggested that referenced articles be read in their entirety to fully understand the science behind them, rather than blindly accepting the nonsense spewed by the blogger himself.
"It's like... wrong, man." -Jeffery Keown
Oils,
You fail again. What you understand about biology could be written in 12 pt type on a regulation US postage stamp, with room for your signature.
Researchers state that different prebiotic Earth scenarios can be considered. However, the basic property of life as a system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution began when genetic information was finally stored and transmitted such as occurs in nucleotide polymers (RNA and DNA).
What this says is that evolution had a start. Basic chemistry can't evolve... but life can... get a fucking clue.
Sounds like they are rejecting the notion that metabolism is a necessary requirement for evolution to occur....I don't even think this qualifies as news though, haven't you ever heard of evolutionary computing OIM?
This post is childish and stupid.
OIM, I enjoy Forteana, and the general run of the weirdness you post here, but deliberately misleading potential readers -- just to get them to read your post -- is an irritating waste of everybody's time.
OIM,
You obviously did not understand what you posted in the previous post. Here is an extract:
...then for a prolonged period he must test and prove it, observing what part of it is in agreement, and what in disagreement with obvious fact; thus he will choose this and turn away from that.
Looks like the beamfuckers have returned to mess with your brain, go take some lillies...
The Heart of the Sun,
"This post is childish and stupid."
Welcome to the website. Well at least I know how to get you to comment. Just post something childish and stupid and it gets your undivided attention right away. I guess I can conclude that all of my other posts haven't been childish and stupid which is somewhat comforting.
I suggest you read the following: Schwartz, M.A., The Importance of Stupidity in Scientific Research, Journal of Cell Science, Volume 121, 1771, Apr 2008
"OIM, I enjoy Forteana, and the general run of the weirdness you post here, but deliberately misleading potential readers -- just to get them to read your post -- is an irritating waste of everybody's time."
Did you even read the post?
OIM,
It is obvious that you do not read before you post. From - Galen: On Prisca Sapientia
...then for a prolonged period he must test and prove it, observing what part of it is in agreement, and what in disagreement with obvious fact; thus he will choose this and turn away from that.
This is against your belief system of blind faith in ancients including wimps and hot rock throwers...
Did you even read the post?
Oh, there's no way he didn't. You see, "New PNAS Study Rejects Darwinism" sounds as if a new PNAS study rejects Darwinism.
It doesn't.
It states that chemistry isn't bound by the sorts of constraints that evolution applies to actual lifeforms.
You're a decietful piece of work at times, Oils.
"Their research demonstrated that the dynamics of molecular compound populations which divide after having reached a critical size do not evolve, since during this process the compounds lose properties which are essential for Darwinian evolution."
Science Daily article.
I have little respect for Science Daily or any other journal, as they distort science in their reportage. This is however, a challenging sentence which obviously comes from the researchers?
"However, the basic property of life as a system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution began when genetic information was finally stored and transmitted such as occurs in nucleotide polymers (RNA and DNA)."
It seems the researchers disproved to their own satisfaction, the possibility that RNA was possible after matabolic processes. They seem to be of the view that RNA needs to be established before an organism acquires metabolic processes as these clearly need a foundation?
Is that the sense of the article?
They presuppose that evolution occurs, a matter upon which I am neutral, but it seems likely that we do change, from generation to generation. Whether this variability, the consequence of sex and environment, amounts to evolution is another matter?
The thrust of the article is a rejection of a particular abiogenetic hypothesis--but since the 'RNA world' hypothesis has always been out ahead of the metabolism hypothesis, I am neither surprised nor disappointed to see evidence that contradicts the latter. What you fail to understand is that not only does this have nothing to do with 'Darwinism', it also does not reject abiogenesis, only the particular 'metabolism-first' hypothesis advocated by Oparin.
Post a Comment