And on the 1,643,625,000,000th day…
Jack Szostak created …
Biologists on the Verge of Creating New Form of Life
A Harvard team of biologists and chemists have created protocells from fatty molecules. These protocells meet almost all criteria for life, the exception being they don’t replicate completely on their own. They still need a little nudge.
One of the biggest arguments against evolution made by Fundies is “Life must have been created”. Of course evidence is never presented. Positions with out evidence, simply stating something “must have…”, are always a poor arguments. What’s even worse is abiogenesis, has absolutely nothing to do with the mounds of evidence supporting evolution.
But since creationists and ID proponents still insist that abiogenesis could not have happened, and therefore evolution could not have happened. This development brings us one step closer to understanding the natural formation of life.
September 11th, 2008 at 7:33 am
These are truly fascinating developments. Whether or not they represent how life began on Earth, they certainly show one (of many) possible pathways. So it supports the idea that life is probably common in the Universe.
But the Creationists won’t be convinced. In fact, they may use this result to support their own beliefs that “intelligent design” is required to make life. That’s what happened here, after all.
Creationists will point out that this was a carefully controlled environment, with just the right choices of fatty acids, and just the right selection of (pre-existing) RNA strands. In other words, they’ll say it took lots of very intelligent people to make this happen, so it didn’t happen “spontaneously”.
It’s similar to their arguments against evolution based on the fact that no one was there to witness it, so there’s no real proof it happened. How can anyone argue with that logic? ;-)
September 11th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Well that kinda cancels itself out because we have no way of directly observing that evolution *did* happen. So it’s a blank test either way.
The issue isn’t just about whether a self-replicating strand of RNA could be made out of primordial soup and lightning, either. Crystals self-replicate, for what it’s worth, and D/RNA is basically a macro-molecule version of a crystal. We knew this already.
Also, for what it’s worth, it *is* intelligent people doing this. I’m not saying that applies in every case like this, but if they’re making it out of pre-existing RNA, it means it’s a test that can’t be replicated on a lifeless planet. You can’t build RNA out of RNA if there’s no RNA to start with. Basically, if they’re using pre-built materials, I think it’s a pretty pointless experiment.
Either way . . . I will be watching closely. On a more concrete foundation, this will certainly be an advancement in creating microorganisms that do tasks humans and machines can’t, like energy production or chemical synthesis.
September 11th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
But they’re not making it out of existing RNA…
And haven’t researches shown at one point or another that nucleic acids could form in conditions that were present on prehistoric earth? I recall reading something about that, but I can’t find any sources. Sorry.
I think a big issue here is that the controlled setting is necessary because we don’t have millions or billions of years to wait around and see if these things can actually happen. Not to mention that the only way to duplicate prehistoric conditions is in a controlled environment in the first place.
Also one must keep in mind that these creation acts did not require divine intervention. Nothing had to come from outside the universe to make them occur. No physical laws had to be violated and these molecules are forming under the “normal” rules of chemical reactions. The only thing that had to happen is the right batch of molecules were in the right place at the right time. With the scale of the universe, it’s no stretch of the imagination to believe that these conditions would have occurred somewhere at some time.
September 11th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
I guess my parody of a Creationist argument wasn’t sarcastic enough.
Just because these experiments used selected strands of RNA, that doesn’t invalidate them. Like Yourself said, it’s already been established that RNA forms spontaneously from certain nucleic acids. And those acids have been shown to form spontaneously from the basic chemicals in the “primordial soup”.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
“Well that kinda cancels itself out because we have no way of directly observing that evolution *did* happen.”
Evolution has been observed, though at the very micro level.
Direct observation, is not always necessary to determine if somethings have happened or not. The prisons systems are full of murderers and other felons, for crimes for which their was no direct observation.
I would guess that anyone who believes that without direct observation, one can’t support that position that something is likely to be true, should be outraged that our prisons are so full.
Ironically, the few times innocent people are put away, it’s not because the evidence is incorrect, it’s because evidence is disregarded in lieu of people who claim direct observation.
September 12th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
No, evolution at microscopic level isn’t really evolution. Natural selection - yes. Also, microorganisms are generally so robust that doubling their plasmid length inside of six generations isn’t that big of a deal for the bacteria. Bacteria are not so much structures as they are factories that will do whatever they’re told. However, their required organelle sub-structures - ribosomes, vacuoles, chlorophyll, etc - must remain the same, or the cell doesn’t work.
kc lc: Nucleic and amino acids have been made - but that doesn’t mean they’re alive. An amino acid is simply another monomer, not an organism. That, of course, will probably lead to a discussion of where the line between macro-molecule and organism is, but I’ll ignore that for the moment. Did the acids self-replicate? Moreover, were they able to form themselves into correct polymers without the assistance of ribosomes or polymerase? Not just strands (a standard property for RNA), but serious structures? Cells can only be made by other cells. Even RNA virii, although incredibly simple by comparison, require a host cell to reproduce.
September 14th, 2008 at 6:57 am
“kc lc: Nucleic and amino acids have been made - but that doesn’t mean they’re alive. ” — Soleil
Of course they’re not alive. Who suggested they were? But the RNA *did* self-replicate. The whole point of the article is to show how proto-cells could provide the environment for replication — one of the requirements for life (follow the link to the original article in Nature).
True… the replication was simple, and it required a pre-fabricated environment. No one here is claiming otherwise. We’re simply pointing out that it pushes the boundary towards creating life. No one is claiming they created life.
I believe very soon scientists WILL create life, and they’ll show how it could happen spontaneously in the wild. The Creationists will still claim that God created it first. And that’s fine. Science’s goal isn’t to crush religious faith. It’s goal is to provide alternatives for people who are willing to consider them.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Whoever said evolution hasn’t been obeserved on the macro level, I have a few examples:
1) Spotted moths. In like 7th grade I learned about these white spotted moths during the industrial revolution in Europe. Coal and dust would cover areas surrounding factories. Over the course of about a hundred years, these white moths gained an adaptation that turned them dark gray/black, and the original species died off because birds could see them too easily, and chomp ‘em down. Natural selection took hold and kept the better adaptation.
2) Viruses/bacteria/insects. My current Bio teacher brought this to my attention, that these are also evidence of evolution. Bacteria are constantly changing to resist medicine, and adapt to survive. If a1/100 bacteria in a certain situation dies from an antibiotic, that last one that survived would reproduce rather fast with the better genes. Also, with insects such as ants, they grow resistant against insecticides that would have killed off their ancestors. Same concept: random adaptation keeps them alive.
3) Dogs/Cats. This is an interesting one, that my same Bio teacher told us about. Dogs and cats are examples of “artificial selection” so to speak, where direct human contact and selective breeding picked their traits and gave us our Pomeranian or Mastiff, all through a few thousand years and a few species of wolf or wild cat. Even though their traits were selected by people, it still proves that evolution and random adaptations do exist.
September 16th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
“In like 7th grade” - JishHD
What are you in now? 8th?
All the points you mentioned are examples of natural selection and adaptation, not evolution. Anything from having a 5-legged horse to a black moth is merely a matter of switching around a few alleles on the chromosome, or introducing a simple mutation. Evolution requires that entire gene structures are capable of repeatedly changing for the better, which is not exactly common in modern observation, to say the least. Adaptation != evolution, although biology class does try to link seamlessly from one to the other. That’s a common error, but still, the difference between changing *genes* and changing *gene structures* is rather considerable. It’s like repainting your car and then using it as proof that you could turn a Model T into a VW Bug with a license plate that says “FEATURE”. It’s proof that things can change, but not proof that things can change so drastically.
September 16th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Um actually I’m in 10th =P
I guess my understanding of evolution is off a bit then.
My thoughts are that if even a little change can occur, why can’t a bigger one occur if you give it a bit more time?
If I’m wrong then correct me, because I’d like to know more about the subject.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
“Um actually I’m in 10th =P
I guess my understanding of evolution is off a bit then.
My thoughts are that if even a little change can occur, why can’t a bigger one occur if you give it a bit more time?
If I’m wrong then correct me, because I’d like to know more about the subject.” — JishHD
No JishHD. Your understanding of evolution is not off. Natural Selection and Adaptation are components of Evolution.
If you really want to learn more about evolution, then I suggest the newsgroup talk.origins, and the website http://talkorigins.org/. As much as Soleil likes to appear authoritative on the subject, he is not.
These two sites are heavily populated, by scientists and experts in various disciplines. I guarantee that if Soleil posted his nonsense there he would have his ass handed to him so quickly he wouldn’t fell it being torn off.
What Soleil and others don’t understand is the Scientific process. For theories to be widely accepted by the Scientific community, there has to huge amounts of data and evidence that support the theory. The methodology also insists that hypothesis, evidence, procedure, theory, data, be published in peer reviewed journals. At this point it is replicated, scrutinised , validated, possibly falsified, by other experts in the discipline.
The fact of the matter is evolution is arguably the most attacked theory that exists. But in the 150 years since Darwin published Origins, and in the thousands of peer reviewed articles and thesis, not once has it been falsified.
Creationists have got full opportunity to write peer reviewed articles and publish them so long as they meet the Scientific Methodology and produce their data and evidence. They have full privileges to publish their disputes in the peer reviewed journals. They don’t.
Instead they package and sell their crap to their minions at $19.99 + $3.00 for shipping, and on their web-pages, where they can say anything they want.
Evolutions is accepted as fact by virtually all of the scientific community in dozens of disciplines. It is rejected by those who are not experts and with little to no formal education training and experience, and always believe in religion that also rejects it.
Start at this entry:
http://blog.nakedpaultoast.com/2008/06/science-made-easy/
September 16th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
“No JishHD. Your understanding of evolution is not off. Natural Selection and Adaptation are components of Evolution. ”
Components of the theory, but not evolution in and of themselves, which was what I just noted.
And, way to categorize me into your neat little box of “people who don’t understand science”. As if I haven’t heard the scientific data, method, etc over and over again, and as if I’m not a scientific minded person myself. I study quantum and theoretical physics in my free time, and I’m well aware of the historical holes in almost all areas of science. Your ad hominem attacks are not helping science along in any way, shape, or form.
Furthermore, if YOU’RE so knowledgeable, why don’t you post something helpful instead of consistently mudslinging? You ignore what I say, cherry-pick from the sidelines, and generally make the process of debate look silly. I’d like to see you stop deferring to others and start doing the reasoning yourself.
September 17th, 2008 at 1:04 am
“I’d like to see you stop deferring to others and start doing the reasoning yourself.”
Because anyone can sit down and become an expert in an a field in an afternoon? I firmly believe that that’s beyond the capacity of any human being.
September 17th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Thanks for the links NPT, I just bookmarked them so I can check them out later.
I’m not religious or anything, but I think it’s fine for people to believe what they want, as long as they don’t force it on other people. Everybody’s got their own views about the world and the way things work, and its pointless trying to make everyone “knowledgable” about one certain subject. I think the concept of evolution is more easily percieved by people with an open , THOUGHTFUL mind, unlike most Christians etc that think it’s a “test of their faith.” (just felt like saying that)
So, Soleil, obviously you and NPT have different views. That doesn’t mean neither of you are wrong. Jeez, we don’t need a whole fight just about evolution. It’s meant to be discussed, not to bicker about who’s “more correct.”
Sigh…I guess I’m just in a debating mood today =D.
September 17th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
If there’s a fight, it certainly won’t be your fault. Check some of the recent archives. :/
Most evolutionists are about as willing to accept religion as Christians are to accept evolution. I think I’m fairly well situated in the middle, as I understand both topics to the best of my ability, despite the fact that I disagree with one of them. I also disagree with many Christian ideas . . . so it goes both ways.
September 18th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
I like being neutral on topics such as these. I disagree with a LOT of the crap that’s thrown at you in a Christian church (messiahs, sins, creation) that are completely irrelevent to modern life. Although, there are some aspects a can agree with, like teaching about love and peace, while a BIT over rated, still has some worth in todays society.
Basically I just hate ignorance in people, where they don’t want to open up to other views (ex: Christians and evolution). I mean what’s so wrong about saying “Well, lets say God created everything…why couldn’t they have evolved from their original ‘creation’?”
I guess I’m sorta one of those “why can’t we all just get along” people, but it’s hard to maintain that view when ignorance and egos run amuck (talking in general here…I got nothin’ against you guys) And yeah, Soleil, I saw some of the other blog posts and how you and NPT seem to have a history :D.