Has DNA or RNA ever been produced experimently?


#1

What I mean is, we have scientists saying they have proven that we are nothing more than chemical sludge animated by an electrical current. What I want to know is, has anyone or any group ever put that to the test? Has anyone or any group (probably have to be a university group) set up, say, a 200 gallon vat, dump all the chemicals life is made up of in it (including good old H2O, which is what we mostly are), passed maybe a gigawatt or a hundred gigawatts of electricity through it, and produced a strand of DNA? Some RNA? Maybe a gene? How about some proteins? How about an amino acid? If yes, where can I find information on this? And remember, I’m talking about trying to replicate the conditions which would bring about these things (DNA, amino acids, ect,) on Earth over a billion or so years ago, naturally done, not produced in a laboratory. I’m serious here. Has it ever been done? Please be honest with the answer.

And if it hasn’t, then why is there so much controversy about intelligent design? I would say then that DNA becomes ID’s smoking gun, not evolution’s.


#2

Yes, Miller and Urey produced amino acids in an experiment just like the one you described back in 1953.


#3

Look here, this is a very pro - evolution treatment of the subject.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

Notice all the “citations needed” tags in places…

But even here, the author is honest in pointing out that in those experiments that equal amounts of L-handed and R-handed amino acids are formed. In nature L-handed dominate because many R-handed molecules are poisons which kill off life.
No mechanism is offered as to how equal amounts has become biased toward left handed only, or how a soup of equal mixtures could ever have produced life.
Essentially, all current theories are incomplete hypothosii.

Also note, that at the end of the article – the study of older genes that are “enriched” with the amino acids produced in the Miller-Urey experiment – but enriched is not the same as exclusively containing. Essential amino acids, if not present, will stop life from regenerating or originating at all – and poisons are a real problem for the theory.

Essentially, the argument is one of imagination – either life already existed in outer space, or came here through organic molecules of “unknown” synthesis – or there is no explanation of how it happened.

I was noting recently in a magazine considering one of the moons of the planets in our solar system that volcanic activity induced by gravitational fluctuation has kept a portion of the moon warm – eg: parts of it have been at water temperatures for evolutionary time-periods. All though, the moon could be contaminated by DNA/RNA/Bacteria from earth – as several tons of earth originated material get knocked into space every year (I was surprised – but it’s true) – it will be interesting to see if any form of life has evolved on that moon, since the conditions are certainly conducive to life in narrow geographic bands on that moon. So far – no results, but there will be future missions to analyze it more closely…


#4

I have a couple of thoughts on this.

The first is that scientists have yet to determine the exact method by which life emerged. As it is, at the moment, scientists can conduct experiments that show that amino acids are likely to emerge in conditions that existed on the early Earth, but they have not been able to show that DNA and RNA are likely to emerge.

The second is that even if they are able to show that life can emerge by natural processes, it does not probe that we are simply animate sludge. Imagine if a scientist had been given a radio, but knew nothing about radios. He might end up drawing the conclusion that somehow the radio is able to generate the music and other sounds it produces on its own; never realizing that all the radio is, is a method for translating a broadcast into sound. Likewise, our bodies, chemical sludge though it may be, is simply a matrix to allow our souls to interact with our world and with each other.

The question of life’s emergence is a separate question from how life ultimately took its present form. Evolution explains how, once life emerged in the first place, how it changed and diversified into the millions of different species it is today. Everything from bacteria and algae to us all share a common genetic heritage. Intelligent Design may or may not explain how life got on Earth, but it does generally seem to preclude the notion of Evolution for which there is a large amount of evidence in the fossil record.

From a scientific perspective, I tend to view myself as an evolutionist; the theory makes the most sense scientifically. From a philosophical perspective, I view myself as a thesistic evolutionist. I.e., while I don’t believe it should have an influence on the way the science is conducted, I believe that ultimately divine providence was responsible for shaping species into what they are today, including us!


Bill


#5

But even here, the author is honest in pointing out that in those experiments that equal amounts of L-handed and R-handed amino acids are formed.

However, the Murchision meteorite, in which abiotic amino acids were found, shows that some of them have an excess of L-forms. Something in nature favors L-forms, which is a prediction of abiogenesis.

No mechanism is offered as to how equal amounts has become biased toward left handed only

There are a number of possible ways:

An initial imbalance of enantiomeric forms of a catalytic amino acid can occur in meteorites from circularly polarized light from a selective process by absorbtion on various minerals, or from:

**Racemic D,L-asparagine causes enantiomeric excess of other coexisting racemic D,L-amino acids during recrystallization: a hypothesis accounting for the origin of L-amino acids in the biosphere.Kojo S, Uchino H, Yoshimura M, Tanaka K.
Department of Food Science and Nutrition, Nara Women’s University, Nara 630-8506, Japan

When recrystallizations were performed using a mixture of 12 D,L-amino acids (alanine, aspartic acid, arginine, glutamic acid, glutamine, histidine, leucine, methionine, serine, valine, phenylalanine, and tyrosine) with excess D,L-asparagine, all amino acids with the same configuration as asparagine were preferentially co-crystallized, indicating that it is the nature of a mixture of racemic amino acids to produce a spontaneous high enantiomeric excess.**

So it’s not a problem.

Theories differ from hypotheses by having evidence (such as mentioned above) to support them.

[quote]Also note, that at the end of the article – the study of older genes that are “enriched” with the amino acids produced in the Miller-Urey experiment – but enriched is not the same as exclusively containing.

True. This would require that they have mutated over time. But we know that happens, so it’s not a problem. Even more significant, the genetic code differs slightly among living things, but it differs along lines of common descent established earlier by other evidence. So it’s clear it happens.

Essential amino acids, if not present, will stop life from regenerating or originating at all

Centrioles, if not present, will stop eukaryotes from regenerating or originating at all. But they weren’t originally necessary. You’ve assumed that life had to always be as it is now.

Essentially, the argument is one of imagination

Now you know different. There’s a lot more. Would you like to see more?

Whether life pops up almost everywhere it’s possible,or whether it’s unique to Earth, I don’t know. But the former seem more likely. We have as yet, no data.
[/quote]


#6

Of course Amino Acids to DNA is like saying I’ve found Iron Ore, all I need now is how to make it into a 747.

Still needs a bit of work. The easy part is done. Now try to make protiens (the next step). It’s been 50 yrs, should happen any day now.


#7

Of course Amino Acids to DNA is like saying I’ve found Iron Ore, all I need now is how to make it into a 747.

No. Proteins are not parts of DNA. However, we now know that the precursors to RNA are naturally found, and that some forms of RNA self-catalyze has made that more likely.

Still needs a bit of work. The easy part is done. Now try to make protiens (the next step).

Not a major issue. Peptides (short proteins) have been found in the Murchison Meteorite, and we now know that they can also form on hot volcanic rock.

It’s been 50 yrs, should happen any day now.

A long time before that.


#8

Something in nature — that’s a chicken egg problem.

Which aminos? and are there no poisonous R-forms in the meteorite. nor other poisons to life? Eg. None of the other acids are in excess of R-forms?

Let me be clear – all life as I know it – depends on obtaining a certain set of amino acids, either by creating them – or by getting them from outside. Since we are discussing potential first life forms (progenotes) any amino acid they required to come into existance had to either be formed from RNA/DNA (probably RNA) or the opposite had to happen – the RNA had to be formed from something statistical emulating amino acids … Most amino acids require at least three seperate enzymes to form, so are a complicated process … and are not likely candidates for the first organism to exist…

Let me be precise and accurate, an essential amino acid is context dependent on the organism being discussed.

There are a number of possible ways:

An initial imbalance of enantiomeric forms of a catalytic amino acid can occur in meteorites from circularly polarized light from a selective process by absorbtion on various minerals, or from:

Hmmmm… I am having a hard time imagining a wholescale intense source of circularly polarized light in space for meteorites — but OK. I’ll accept that just for argument’s sake – but are you saying there are no poisons in that case (or was that left out of the data?) – and are those amino acids sufficient for any known life form – or even those amino acids plus some others made by a different natural process…

**Racemic D,L-asparagine causes enantiomeric excess of other coexisting racemic D,L-amino acids during recrystallization: a hypothesis accounting for the origin of L-amino acids in the biosphere.Kojo S, Uchino H, Yoshimura M, Tanaka K.
Department of Food Science and Nutrition, Nara Women’s University, Nara 630-8506, Japan

When recrystallizations were performed…
So it’s not a problem.
**

Post a link to the experiment. Ohhh – no L-lysine, and several others … hmmm, so which progenic life-form does this experiment purport to support?

Eg: are you saying that a single crystalization removed sufficient poison to solve the possibility problem for all necessary amino acids (whichever ones they are)?

Eg: what happens to the poisonous amino acids in the mixture (assuming the “D” or right handed forms in the particular experiment were the poisonous forms.) – all life uses water – not solid amino acids. So if the poisons are more concentrated in the solution…

Also, I have noted that during decay L-handed amino acids spontaneously convert to R-handed (poison) varieties at various rates affected by unpolarized light (>98% of all starlight), etc. How does the crystal solve the poisoning problem…

[quote]
Theories differ from hypotheses by having evidence (such as mentioned above) to support them.

OK. They are not well supported – so badly so, that I think of them as hypothesii. You’re entiltled to your imagination.

True. This would require that they have mutated over time. But we know that happens, so it’s not a problem. Even more significant, the genetic code differs slightly among living things, but it differs along lines of common descent established earlier by other evidence. So it’s clear it happens.

It is clear that what happens? that existing Genes mutate? So?

At OHSU in Portland, OR, there are machines to synthesize arbitrary DNA, mRNA, and RNA sequences based on computer controlled temperature cycling and reagant grade chemicals with a computer program. Many prokaryotic bacteria have been completely genetically characterized of how simple they are – and their genetics are reproducable using the machines from scratch chemicals – given that the supposed proto-life creature in the primordial soup is EVEN SIMPLER than these simple bacteria it ought to be easy to come up with at least ONE kind of life form, even if not the same one that existed on earth at the start of life which can be synthesized using modern lab equipment – even designing it – not evolving it…
There are only 20 likely amino acids, and the genetic sequence needs to be as short and simple to be likely – should be easy to do…

Hasn’t happened yet…

Centrioles, if not present, will stop eukaryotes from regenerating or originating at all. But they weren’t originally necessary. You’ve assumed that life had to always be as it is now.

I don’t recall talking about Centrioles or eukaryotes specifically.

Now you know different. There’s a lot more. Would you like to see more?

Sure, I always enjoy learning new things.
Do you have links to the experiments/data presented so far?

Whether life pops up almost everywhere it’s possible,or whether it’s unique to Earth, I don’t know. But the former seem more likely. We have as yet, no data.

Yes, I agree.

But, I am contending that no one has even collected a complete set of processes which “might” have existed at the time of life’s origin that are capable of producing even all the required and perishable amino acids for the first time for ANY known life form without poisons which would kill the organism off before it ever got started…

I don’t care if evolution is proven or not – it won’t shake my faith. But imagination needs to at least be put to the test.
[/quote]


#9

Something in nature — that’s a chicken egg problem.

The egg came first, BTW.

Which aminos?

Large list of them, including a few not found in living things on Earth.

and are there no poisonous R-forms in the meteorite. nor other poisons to life? Eg. None of the other acids are in excess of R-forms?

No excess of R-forms. Just some excess of L-forms. Not surprising considering the various natural processes by which that happens.

Let me be clear – all life as I know it – depends on obtaining a certain set of amino acids, either by creating them – or by getting them from outside.

Of course, life is not constrained to meet your expectations. It could have been much different early on.

Since we are discussing potential first life forms (progenotes) any amino acid they required to come into existance had to either be formed from RNA/DNA (probably RNA)

No. Nucleic acids do not manufacture amino acids. Please do a little reading on it.

or the opposite had to happen – the RNA had to be formed from something statistical emulating amino acids … Most amino acids require at least three seperate enzymes to form

No, the Murchison Meteorite put that one in the dumpster.

Barbarian on naturally occurring L-form excesses:
There are a number of possible ways:

An initial imbalance of enantiomeric forms of a catalytic amino acid can occur in meteorites from circularly polarized light from a selective process by absorbtion on various minerals, or from:

Hmmmm… I am having a hard time imagining a wholescale intense source of circularly polarized light in space for meteorites — but OK.

Read up a little astronomy. It’s there.

I’ll accept that just for argument’s sake – but are you saying there are no poisons in that case (or was that left out of the data?)

At one point, oxygen was a poison for living things. For some, it still is. “Poison” is a relative term, depending on the organism.

and are those amino acids sufficient for any known life form

Yes.

**Racemic D,L-asparagine causes enantiomeric excess of other coexisting racemic D,L-amino acids during recrystallization: a hypothesis accounting for the origin of L-amino acids in the biosphere.Kojo S, Uchino H, Yoshimura M, Tanaka K.
Department of Food Science and Nutrition, Nara Women’s University, Nara 630-8506, Japan

When recrystallizations were performed…
So it’s not a problem.

Ohhh – no L-lysine, and several others … hmmm, so which progenic life-form does this experiment purport to support?

Just an observation that L-form dominate amino acids form naturally.

Eg: are you saying that a single crystalization removed sufficient poison to solve the possibility problem for all necessary amino acids (whichever ones they are)?

“Poison” seems to be something you imagined.

what happens to the poisonous amino acids in the mixture

What poisons? D-forms have little effect on living things:

**Antagonism of the D-Forms of the Essential Amino Acids Toward the Promotion of Growth by D-Histidine1
Shrinivas H. Kamath and Clarence P. Berg

Department of Biochemistry, State University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa

Growth in rats fed diets containing normal levels of the L-amino acids plus glycine, is only moderately retarded by replacing the L-histidine with its D-isomer.**

assuming the “D” or right handed forms in the particular experiment were the poisonous forms.

Bad assumption, goofy conclusion.

Barbarian observes:
Theories differ from hypotheses by having evidence (such as mentioned above) to support them.

OK. They are not well supported – so badly so, that I think of them as hypothesii.

The plural of “hypothesis” is “hypotheses.” Perhaps if you knew a little more science, it would help.

Barbarian on genes coding for 20 amino acids:
True. This would require that they have mutated over time. But we know that happens, so it’s not a problem. Even more significant, the genetic code differs slightly among living things, but it differs along lines of common descent established earlier by other evidence. So it’s clear it happens.

It is clear that what happens? that existing Genes mutate? So?

So, it’s not surprising that modern genes could code for more amino acids than the first ones.

Essential amino acids, if not present, will stop life from regenerating or originating at all

[quote]

Barbarian observes:
Centrioles, if not present, will stop eukaryotes from regenerating or originating at all. But they weren’t originally necessary. You’ve assumed that life had to always be as it is now.

[quote]I don’t recall talking about Centrioles or eukaryotes specifically.

[/quote]

[/quote]

I restored the context you deleted. Hope you don’t mind.

Barbarian observes:
Now you know different. There’s a lot more. Would you like to see more?

Sure, I always enjoy learning new things.
Do you have links to the experiments/data presented so far?

Sure:
Murchison Meteorite:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murchison_meteorite

Abiotic amino acids:
springerlink.com/content/qx1362688894680q/

Abiotic peptides:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31045

Anything else?

Barbarian observes:
Whether life pops up almost everywhere it’s possible,or whether it’s unique to Earth, I don’t know. But the former seem more likely. We have as yet, no data.

And BTW, read up why feeding rats D-form amino acids won’t kill them.**


#10

OK. I’ll look at the links. That will supply some things.

Of course, life is not constrained to meet your expectations. It could have been much different early on.

Duh – what expectations? That it contained something emulating amino acids, or that it contained genetic material of probable RNA form?
I could IMAGINE other life forms… funny, even ones based on R-isomers, but no completely R-based life forms are known…

No. Nucleic acids do not manufacture amino acids. Please do a little reading on it.

dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C11/C11Links/www.bact.wisc.edu/microtextbook/metabolism/aminoacids.html

The genes that code for amino acid synthesis enzymes and the enzymes themselves are under tight control and are only turned on when they are needed.

genes are made of DNA – RNA and DNA are made of Nucleic acid sequences. They are what hold the code for the synthesis of amino acids. By the way, my dad has a PHd in botany, and I took an honors course in genetic enginnering. I passed too – with way above average grades… also, there are enzymes involved complicating the process as I noted before in my post…

Regarless of the first life form(s) TODAY nucleic acids form the very pattern used to MAKE both ENZYMES AND AMINO ACIDS — if it works today, it could have worked yesterday. Now, I am not aware of any other but imaginary ways of making it work… that’s the point.

Read up a little astronomy. It’s there.

From astronomy, circularly polarized light is from stars over 100 parsecs away so it is SWAMPED by light from stars less than that distance away… secondly the degree of polarization is very small – on the order of 1.5%. Even so, I granted your argument. But if you insist on rubbing non-arguments in – there is also a distinction between the degree of circular polarization and the percentage of the light which is polarized BOTH of which can reduce its specific chemical activity.
Since unpolarized light can be used in the decomposition of left handed amino acids I would expect (wrong or right) that this is a loosing battle. Only a VERY SLIGHT excess of any kind of amino acid. vs. the poisonous versions would exist in my estimation, and that would be counterbalanced by the bad effects of the other kinds of acids.

At one point, oxygen was a poison for living things. For some, it still is. “Poison” is a relative term, depending on the organism.

Sure – and my posts are totally consistent with this fact.
What’s your point? ( I never mentioned OXYGEN).

A given substance may or may not be a poison – My question is DO YOU KNOW WHICH AMINO ACIDS WERE USED IN THE FIRST LIFE FORM OR ARE YOU IMAGINING IT? If you knew, then I could look up the poisonous/plugging effects of the optical isomer, and the possibility could be analyzed.

Just an observation that L-form dominate amino acids form naturally.
“Poison” seems to be something you imagined.

What poisons? D-forms have little effect on living things:

In the original 1954 experiment to recreate early earth conditions which were known to exist --> L forms did not dominate in any significant amount.
(Most people think of dominate as having a clear majority – as in annihilating the competition. So, do you mean 90% 60% or is this a slinky 50.0000001% or what? and LD 50/50 is very easy to achieve in a bacteria where is’s metabolic pathways are plugged by indigestable food and proteins and amino acids – in fact many anti-biotics are just that — food that a bactera can eat, but not digest. If 50% of the food is unexcretable and indigestable – the bacteria is WAY beyond the death point…)

Side note on poisons, deleterious substances:

thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=577

Human kidneys contain enzymes that can break down D-amino acids, essentially removing them from the body to prevent them having a deleterious effect

Like the rat, humans have the advantage of “evolution” to produce enzymes to break down and remove poisons from the body. Where did the first organism get these without RNA or DNA since it had not time to “evolve”?

Bad assumption, goofy conclusion.

Shallow research on your side. Show me that of the original amino acid set (whatever it reasonably was), could have gotten rid of right handed aminos which were undigestable (reasonably) since it had not time to evolve both the food digesting and D-amino breaking down enzymes simultaneously.

The plural of “hypothesis” is “hypotheses.” Perhaps if you knew a little more science, it would help.

Fungus / Fungi not (funguses). :rolleyes
potato potatoe and Dan Quayl.

Did I confuse you – so sorry – you seemed to know what I meant in spite of my spell checker being broken.

So, it’s not surprising that modern genes could code for more amino acids than the first ones.

Did I ever say they couldn’t? I admitted genes can mutate…
what’s your REAL point?

I restored the context you deleted. Hope you don’t mind.

Yes, I do mind, I notice you left out the part where I explained what I meant by “essential amino acids” – it was you who brought up the “eukaryote” et. all. not me.

And BTW, read up why feeding rats D-form amino acids won’t kill them.

Well I hardly think the first life form was a rat – like humans they too have adaptations that the first organism could not have had. It’s not a reasonable comparison.


#11

Out of curiosity – is there any reason you posted a link to a wikipedia article which concludes that the meteorite you mention has data which is ambiguous – and which does not settle the issue of whether or not the meteor is contaminated?

I would think you would want an article which at least defends the meteor…


#12

genes are made of DNA – RNA and DNA are made of Nucleic acid sequences. They are what hold the code for the synthesis of amino acids.

No. They code for the synthesis of proteins not amino acids. They code for proteins, by means of ribosomes that read messenger RNA, which then assemble proteins one amino acid at a time. Amino acids are the monomers that make up the protein polymer.

By the way, my dad has a PHd in botany, and I took an honors course in genetic enginnering. I passed too – with way above average grades…

Nevertheless, nucleic acids code for proteins, not amino acids.

http://cellbio.utmb.edu/cellbio/DNA-RNA.jpg

Regarless of the first life form(s) TODAY nucleic acids form the very pattern used to MAKE both ENZYMES AND AMINO ACIDS

No. In mammals, ten amino acids are “essential”, i.e. they must be obtained in our diet. Ten others are “nonessential” and can be synthesized. None, however, are produced by nucleic acids. Learn about it here:
rpi.edu/dept/bcbp/molbiochem/BiochSci/sbello/new_page_2.htm

Barbarian observes:
Read up a little astronomy. It’s there.

From astronomy, circularly polarized light is from stars over 100 parsecs away so it is SWAMPED by light from stars less than that distance away… secondly the degree of polarization is very small – on the order of 1.5%. Even so, I granted your argument. But if you insist on rubbing non-arguments in – there is also a distinction between the degree of circular polarization and the percentage of the light which is polarized BOTH of which can reduce its specific chemical activity.
Since unpolarized light can be used in the decomposition of left handed amino acids I would expect (wrong or right) that this is a loosing battle. Only a VERY SLIGHT excess of any kind of amino acid. vs. the poisonous versions would exist in my estimation, and that would be counterbalanced by the bad effects of the other kinds of acids.

And yet, there it is, in the meteorite. Reality trumps anyone’s judgement.

My question is DO YOU KNOW WHICH AMINO ACIDS WERE USED IN THE FIRST LIFE FORM

The evidence suggests that there were 11 to 15, including most that were synthesized in Miller-Urey.

If you knew, then I could look up the poisonous/plugging effects of the optical isomer, and the possibility could be analyzed.

As you saw, D-forms don’t do much of anything.

Barbarian observes:
Just an observation that L-form dominate amino acids form naturally.

“Poison” seems to be something you imagined.

In the original 1954 experiment to recreate early earth conditions which were known to exist --> L forms did not dominate in any significant amount.

However, it was found that naturally occurring abiotic amino acids can have an excess of L-forms, as in the Murchison meteorite.

(Most people think of dominate as having a clear majority – as in annihilating the competition.

Two different things, those.

LD 50/50 is very easy to achieve in a bacteria where is’s metabolic pathways are plugged by indigestable food and proteins and amino acids – in fact many anti-biotics are just that — food that a bactera can eat, but not digest. If 50% of the food is unexcretable and indigestable – the bacteria is WAY beyond the death point…)

So, which D-form can you actually show to be poisonous? As you saw, the first one I checked, wasn’t.

Human kidneys contain enzymes that can break down D-amino acids, essentially removing them from the body to prevent them having a deleterious effect
Like the rat, humans have the advantage of “evolution” to produce enzymes to break down and remove poisons from the body.

Because, no doubt, they once existed. But now, they don’t, except in very exceptional cases.

Where did the first organism get these without RNA or DNA since it had not time to “evolve”?

Amino acids, as you learned, can form abiotically.

Shallow research on your side. Show me that of the original amino acid set (whatever it reasonably was), could have gotten rid of right handed aminos which were undigestable (reasonably) since it had not time to evolve both the food digesting and D-amino breaking down enzymes simultaneously.

Or just excreted it. Or never took it up in the first place. You have no idea.

Barbarian observes:
The plural of “hypothesis” is “hypotheses.” Perhaps if you knew a little more science, it would help.

Fungus / Fungi not (funguses). :rolleyes

Wrong suffix. Here:
dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypothesis

potato potatoe and Dan Quayl.

Quayle.

Did I confuse you – so sorry – you seemed to know what I meant in spite of my spell checker being broken.

I’m a terrible speller myself, being slightly dyslexic, and confusing letters. But you misspelled it twice, which suggested that you didn’t know how to spell it.

Barbarian observes:
I restored the context you deleted. Hope you don’t mind.

Yes, I do mind, I notice you left out the part where I explained what I meant by “essential amino acids”

As you learned, there are only ten (12 if you count derivatives) essential amino acids.

Barbarian observes:
And BTW, read up why feeding rats D-form amino acids won’t kill them.

Well I hardly think the first life form was a rat

Likely so. Prokaryotes tend to be tougher and more tolerant of variations than eukaryotes.


#13

They code for both – I quoted a reputable college, with a reputable explanation.
The enzymes which are involved (usually three or more) in the synthesis OF AMINO ACIDS are built by instructions found in the genetic code. Whether the genetic code does the act directly or indirectly is irrelevant – it does it in some way.

No nucleaic acid sequences = no enzymes AND no enzymes = no production of even “non-essential” amino acids, no production of NON-ESSENTIAL amino acids means all amino acids must be obtained externally – and with no genetic code yet formed – any poisons gotten rid of… WOW – and by the way, D amino acids arent the only possible poisons in a watery soup. You seem to think nothing can poison these first critters which had no time to evolve any defence mechanisms at all…

All proteins are built out of amino acids. No amino acids means no proteins. = DEAD organism. All these extra steps just make the problem WORSE not better for you – why are you expanding the argument into needless areas that make your position harder to prove?

No. In mammals, ten amino acids are “essential”, i.e. they must be obtained in our diet. Ten others are “nonessential” and can be synthesized. None, however, are produced by nucleic acids.

You must be seriously bored.

Interesting that you keep digging up facts associated with organisms which are far more advanced than any possible FIRST ORGANISM and attribute their advanced abilities to a simple organism which had no time to evolve all these refinements.

And yet, there it is, in the meteorite. Reality trumps anyone’s judgement.

And yet you quote an article which disputes the validity of that assesment ?!
Are you feeling ok?

The evidence suggests that there were 11 to 15, including most that were synthesized in Miller-Urey.

As you saw, D-forms don’t do much of anything.

In rat perhaps – but in the line I quoted you, clearly even in an ADVANCED HUMAN quite a few D-forms are poisonous. That’s why our kidneys break them down to get rid of them – But kidneys are made by genetic code which the original life form didn’t have? So it stands to reason that no less D forms were poisonous – but only more of them.

So, which D-form can you actually show to be poisonous? As you saw, the first one I checked, wasn’t.

Obviously at least one is poisonous or the citation I gave couldn’t have said so.
Since all life works quite hard to get RID of the vast majority of D forms – there must be a reason it is bad to have them around. life doesn’t waste large amounts of energy solving problems which don’t need to be solved.

Remember I am accusing you of imagining this first creature – I don’t have to know what is in it – you do if there is any hope of a theory which is at all complete. And that is all I have said – there is not even a collection of these theories which could produce a valid life form which would not be poisoned by its environment. You simply need to show a SINGLE COUNTER EXAMPLE. that’s all – just one.

Because, no doubt, they once existed. But now, they don’t, except in very exceptional cases.

Hello? what once existed but now does not? and if there are rare cases, bingo – one of those should provide the evidence you need and I’ll have to capitulate.

Amino acids, as you learned, can form abiotically.

No, I always knew they formed abiotically. That’s not the problem with the snowjob argument you have pursued. The problem is that the bad forms are nearly equal to the good forms. How then did the first life form simultaneously come up with multiple amino acid handling mechanisms ? The more that are required – the more impossible the task becomes.

Or just excreted it. Or never took it up in the first place. You have no idea.

Uh – yeah – I do. The good forms SPONTANEOUSLY convert to the bad forms over time. So if the bacteria did not have the genes to produce the enzymes to get rid of the bad forms…

And since life does not generally tolerate D-aminos there must be either an unusual “SIMPLE” life form preserved somewhere capable of operating in at least a 50/50 mixture of these amino acids (no matter how inefficiently) or someone has a big imagination. Can you name any such life form where all amino acids in it are nominally at a 50/50 mixture of R and D forms – yet it still lives?
(It is a simple matter to remove the genetic code for producing certain D destroying enzymes in bacteria… some experiments along this line have been done. I seem to remember amylase or something like that in yeast – there are probably other experiments…)

As you learned, there are only ten (12 if you count derivatives) essential amino acids.

in mammals yes, I already knew that. Comes from raising rabbits and having to make sure they have what they need in the feed. However, I repeat, we’re not talking about mammals here – they weren’t the first to “evolve” in ANYONE’S credible theory.

And I already pointed out even in mammals some D forms are in fact poisons – although mammals have advanced organs to get rid of poisons. Proving it not true in higher life forms is irrelivant.

Likely so. Prokaryotes tend to be tougher and more tolerant of variations than eukaryotes.

Great, since I was never thinking of eukaryotes in the first place…


#14

Yes, I think. Some primitive RNA or something was made in a ‘vat of chemicals with electricity’.
A lipid layer was also created in a different ‘vat of chemicals’.
But never the twain did meet.
The chemical environments needed to produce both substances were not just different but incompatable.
RNA, or whatever it was, could not survive in the chemical envirnonment needed to produce lipids, the RNA dissolved.
Lipids could not be produced in the chemicals needed to produce RNA.
And RNA could not survive without a lipid protective wall…:shrug:


#15

They code for both –

No, they code for proteins. They never code for amino acids.

I quoted a reputable college, with a reputable explanation.

Reality trumps any authority.

The enzymes which are involved (usually three or more) in the synthesis OF AMINO ACIDS are built by instructions found in the genetic code. Whether the genetic code does the act directly or indirectly is irrelevant – it does it in some way.

Most organisms, there are required amino acids that cannot be produced by the organism. Amino acids are not made by nucleic acids, and as you learned, there was no need for nucleic acids to make them in abiogenesis, since they can form abiotically.

and by the way, D amino acids aren’t the only possible poisons in a watery soup.

You still have to show us that they are poisons at all.

You seem to think nothing can poison these first critters which had no time to evolve any defence mechanisms at all…

I already told you oxygen could poison them. We have evidence for that. All we have is your imagination for D-forms.

All proteins are built out of amino acids. No amino acids means no proteins. = DEAD organism. All these extra steps just make the problem WORSE not better for you

Biochemists don’t think so. They think that this breakthrough was an important step in understanding abiogenesis. But then, they actually do biochemistry.

Barbarian observes:
No. In mammals, ten amino acids are “essential”, i.e. they must be obtained in our diet. Ten others are “nonessential” and can be synthesized. None, however, are produced by nucleic acids.

Interesting that you keep digging up facts associated with organisms which are far more advanced than any possible FIRST ORGANISM

Refinements in organisms tend to make them more fragile and less adaptable.

Barbarian on the abiotic formation of amino acids:
And yet, there it is, in the meteorite. Reality trumps anyone’s judgement.

And yet you quote an article which disputes the validity of that assesment ?!

No. Why would I do that?

Barbarian on the first amino acids used by living things:
The evidence suggests that there were 11 to 15, including most that were synthesized in Miller-Urey.

And yet they are nameless,

No.

and their quantities unknown?

Could you give me “quantities” for all the amino acids existing today? No?

Barbarian observes:
As you saw, D-forms don’t do much of anything.

In rat perhaps – but in the line I quoted you, clearly even in an ADVANCED HUMAN quite a few D-forms are poisonous. That’s why our kidneys break them down to get rid of them

Kidneys? You mean liver? Kidneys filter out things, but don’t really detoxify anything I know of. Which D-forms poison humans?

But kidneys are made by genetic code which the original life form didn’t have? So it stands to reason that no less D forms were poisonous

So, which D-form can you actually show to be poisonous? As you saw, the first one I checked, wasn’t.

Obviously at least one is poisonous

But you don’t know of any?

Since all life works quite hard to get RID of the vast majority of D forms – there must be a reason it is bad to have them around.

You’re still assuming what you intended to prove.

Remember I am accusing you of imagining this first creature

Then you’ve jumped over what I said, to what you’ve imagined I said.

I don’t have to know what is in it –

Or even know which D-form amino acids (if any) are poisonous.

– there is not even a collection of these theories which could produce a valid life form which would not be poisoned by its environment.

The banded iron formations clearly show that very early organisms were frequently poisoned by their environment.

Human kidneys contain enzymes that can break down D-amino acids, essentially removing them from the body

Barbarian observes:
Because, no doubt, they once existed. But now, they don’t, except in very exceptional cases.

Hello? what once existed but now does not?

I restored the context you deleted. I hope you don’t mind.

Barbarian observes:
Amino acids, as you learned, can form abiotically.

No, I always knew they formed abiotically.

If so, you seemed remarkably reluctant to admit it.

That’s not the problem with the snowjob argument you have pursued. The problem is that the bad forms are nearly equal to the good forms. How then did the first life form simultaneously come up with multiple amino acid handling mechanisms ?

How did they take up nutrients and not things that weren’t nutritious? Maybe some did. They died, and didn’t leave descendants.

Barbarian on how organisms dealt with things that weren’t nutrients:
Or just excreted it. Or never took it up in the first place. You have no idea.

Uh – yeah – I do. The good forms SPONTANEOUSLY convert to the bad forms over time.

Don’t see that in the literature.

And since life does not generally tolerate D-aminos

I know you want us to believe it, but you can’t even show us one example.

(It is a simple matter to remove the genetic code for producing certain D destroying enzymes in bacteria… some experiments along this line have been done. I seem to remember amylase or something like that in yeast – there are probably other experiments…)

Amylase is an enzyme that breaks down starch. No amino acids there.

And how much d-form amino acid do you think there is?

And I already pointed out even in mammals some D forms are in fact poisons

But you couldn’t name even one? What makes you think they exist?


#16

I never said they did directly, I said they DO indirectly for at least some of them.

From:
unews.utah.edu/p/?r=090706-12

May 23, 2002 – Scientists once believed the genetic code of living organisms carried the blueprint for making only 20 amino acids, the building blocks of proteins that carry out the functions of every living cell. But a 21st amino acid was identified in 1986. And in the May 24, 2002 issue of the journal Science, scientists report discovering a 22nd amino acid.

Reality trumps any authority.

Prove 14:3 In the mouth of the foolish is a rod of pride: but the lips of the wise shall preserve them.

Most organisms, there are required amino acids that cannot be produced by the organism. Amino acids are not made by nucleic acids, and as you learned, there was no need for nucleic acids to make them in abiogenesis, since they can form abiotically.

As I already knew – as I was the one who posted the link to the original abiogenisis experiment of 1954 – the miller urey experiment – in the third post of this thread. Or did you read that post? see – I am the one who linked to the miller urey experment explanation page in the first place.

You still have to show us that they are poisons at all.

You have yet to tell me which set of amino acids were definitely used in the FIRST organisms. Since poison is organism dependent (your objection), it is required to have an organism to determine for certain which amino acids are under discussion.
If no plausible organism can be proffered – or is “Not discernable” – then my case is already proven by default because that is the whole of my argument – the incompleteness of the theories posited so far.

I already told you oxygen could poison them. We have evidence for that. All we have is your imagination for D-forms.

No, we have evidence that oxygen can poison SOME life forms. anaerobic ones.
You have not shown that OXYGEN is poisonous to the very first organism – because you have not said which organism was first – specifically.
Some early organisms are definitely poisoned by oxygen but no proof that all are posisoned this way exists.

Biochemists don’t think so. They think that this breakthrough was an important step in understanding abiogenesis. But then, they actually do biochemistry.

And colleges and universities and Oregon Health Sciences University don’t do biochemistry? yet they all support what I have said, saying it in the same way for press releases &c.

more…


#17

Barbarian observes:
No. In mammals, ten amino acids are “essential”, i.e. they must be obtained in our diet. Ten others are “nonessential” and can be synthesized. None, however, are produced by nucleic acids.

What you are saying is a trick statement, and pointless. nucleic acids can produce amino acids indirectly. A farmer does not produce grain directly – yet it is perfectly legitimate to say he does, when in fact the sun light and many other things do the actual production…

Refinements in organisms tend to make them more fragile and less adaptable.

non sequiter.

Barbarian on the abiotic formation of amino acids:
And yet, there it is, in the meteorite. Reality trumps anyone’s judgement.

No. Why would I do that?

Obviously because you don’t even understand what you yourself wrote.

Sure:
Murchison Meteorite:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murchison_meteorite

so, is the meteor a reliable piece of evidence according to this article?
The article itself says:

According to Engel, several lines of evidence indicate that the interior portions of well-preserved fragments from Murchison are pristine. Engel points to the array of amino acids Murchison contains and to isotope studies to bolster his position. **Other scientists are equally convinced that the evidence proves the opposite: that Murchison is now thoroughly contaminated by terrestrial organic material.

Indeed, the results of various experiments performed on Murchison are a bit of a head-scratcher - and a good window into how science works when data are ambiguous.**

In other words your meteorite proves nothing according to the article you cited becase the data are ambiguous – which means that it produced NO DEFINITE results.
God bless you.


#18

As to one D form of an amino acid that is poisonous to some mammals – humans.
There is a genetic deficiency in some people to make the enzyme to break down D-alanine. The condition is popularly called PKU – the D form of alanine is quite poisonous in that case…

In other words, without the right gene – alanine is a poison.


#19

Barbarian on nucleic acids:
No, they code for proteins. They never code for amino acids.

They don’t code for amino acids at all. Nucleic acids code for proteins. Some enzymes do produce or modify them. But DNA doesn’t code for any amino acid. It might be good to just admit you made a mistake and go on.

Barbarian observes:
Most organisms, there are required amino acids that cannot be produced by the organism. Amino acids are not made by nucleic acids, and as you learned, there was no need for nucleic acids to make them in abiogenesis, since they can form abiotically.

(claims of “already knowing it”)

(assertions that D-amino acids are poisons)

Barbarian suggests:
You still have to show us that they are poisons at all.

(Declines to do it)

Yep. We kinda expected that.

[quote]You have yet to tell me which set of amino acids were definitely used in the FIRST organisms.

Never claimed to know. Sorry. I’m only responsible for substantiating claims I actually made.

Since poison is organism dependent (your objection), it is required to have an organism to determine for certain which amino acids are under discussion.

Fine. Pick one and tell us which D-amino acids are poisonous.

Barbarian observes:
I already told you oxygen could poison them. We have evidence for that. All we have is your imagination for D-forms.

No, we have evidence that oxygen can poison SOME life forms. anaerobic ones.

The right concentration will poison you. But you were going to show us which D-amino acids are poisons.

You have not shown that OXYGEN is poisonous to the very first organism – because you have not said which organism was first – specifically.

The evidence clearly indicates that it was. The reduced iron deposits from the early Earth shows that there was a low oxygen tension (otherwise iron would not be soluble in water). The banded iron deposits show that the earliest organisms we know about were poisioned by oxygen.

Biochemists don’t think so. They think that this breakthrough was an important step in understanding abiogenesis. But then, they actually do biochemistry.

Oregon Health Sciences University don’t do biochemistry? yet they all support what I have said, saying it in the same way for press releases &c.

So far, we haven’t seen that.
[/quote]


#20

As to one D form of an amino acid that is poisonous to some mammals – humans.
There is a genetic deficiency in some people to make the enzyme to break down D-alanine. The condition is popularly called PKU – the D form of alanine is quite poisonous in that case…

In other words, without the right gene – alanine is a poison.

And so is sugar - if the right gene is missing. So you’re now claiming sugar is poisonous? :eek:


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.