3 ms·

I got extremely excited when I read the headline. Finally!, I thought. Then I read the first part: > Carell, an organic chemist, and his collaborators have now

I got extremely excited when I read the headline. Finally!, I thought. Then I read the first part: > Carell, an organic chemist, and his collaborators have now demonstrated a chemical pathway that — in principle — could have made A, U, C and G in principle, what? No! The headline implies that actual RNA had formed, spontaneously. Not in principal. Going back to arguing with Creationists.

mannykannot 7y ago
It says RNA bases right in the title, though one has to know something about RNA's structure to appreciate its limited relevance - see aazaa's comment. The article claims the synthesis has been demonstrated, so I think that in principle is there because we do not actually know if this particular process occurred in nature.
- surfsvammel 7y ago
  Ok. My RNA/DNA knowledge is quite limited. But I still don’t get it. Did they come up with a way it could happen, or did they actually make it happen out of the “soup”. To me—as someone who knows little about it, except for the fact that having RNA/DNA spontaneously form under these conditions would be be awesome for our understanding of our origins, and would make a killer argument when talking to creationists—the difference between the two is very significant.
  - mannykannot 7y ago
    The article shows that RNA bases were actually created in the lab. Furthermore, this is not the first time, but it is the first time they have all been produced by one process: Now, Carell’s team has shown how all nucleobases could form under one set of conditions: two separate ponds that cycle through the seasons, going from wet to dry, from hot to cold, and from acidic to basic, and with chemicals occasionally flowing from one pond to the other. The researchers first let simple molecules react in hot water and then allowed the resulting mix to cool down and dry up, forming a residue at the bottom that contained crystals of two organic compounds. They then added water back, and one of the compounds dissolved and was washed away into another reservoir. The absence of that water-soluble molecule allowed the other compound to undergo further reactions. The researchers then mixed the products again, and their reactions formed the nucleobases. This is progress (especially as the yield is apparently quite high), but as both azaa and the last paragraph of the article point out, we are still lacking the ribose backbone of the RNA molecule. I don't think it is possible to have a killer argument against determined creationists, as they do not regard evidence in the same way as you and I do. Any discusion with them will take the form of a whack-a-mole game.

mannykannot 7y ago

It says RNA bases right in the title, though one has to know something about RNA's structure to appreciate its limited relevance - see aazaa's comment. The article claims the synthesis has been demonstrated, so I think that in principle is there because we do not actually know if this particular process occurred in nature.

surfsvammel 7y ago
Ok. My RNA/DNA knowledge is quite limited. But I still don’t get it. Did they come up with a way it could happen, or did they actually make it happen out of the “soup”. To me—as someone who knows little about it, except for the fact that having RNA/DNA spontaneously form under these conditions would be be awesome for our understanding of our origins, and would make a killer argument when talking to creationists—the difference between the two is very significant.
- mannykannot 7y ago
  The article shows that RNA bases were actually created in the lab. Furthermore, this is not the first time, but it is the first time they have all been produced by one process: Now, Carell’s team has shown how all nucleobases could form under one set of conditions: two separate ponds that cycle through the seasons, going from wet to dry, from hot to cold, and from acidic to basic, and with chemicals occasionally flowing from one pond to the other. The researchers first let simple molecules react in hot water and then allowed the resulting mix to cool down and dry up, forming a residue at the bottom that contained crystals of two organic compounds. They then added water back, and one of the compounds dissolved and was washed away into another reservoir. The absence of that water-soluble molecule allowed the other compound to undergo further reactions. The researchers then mixed the products again, and their reactions formed the nucleobases. This is progress (especially as the yield is apparently quite high), but as both azaa and the last paragraph of the article point out, we are still lacking the ribose backbone of the RNA molecule. I don't think it is possible to have a killer argument against determined creationists, as they do not regard evidence in the same way as you and I do. Any discusion with them will take the form of a whack-a-mole game.