3 ms·

>we only know of nucleoside triphosphates as compounds created by living organisms That is your claim. But the article claims, and I'm not saying it's true, I

by natch 4y ago

>we only know of nucleoside triphosphates as compounds created by living organisms That is your claim. But the article claims, and I'm not saying it's true, I also am not an expert… but it's an interesting claim: "many proposals are emerging describing how triphosphates might have been made on the Hadean Earth"

Cannabat 4y ago
Sure is an interesting claim. Key words include "proposals", "emerging", and "might" - sounds like we have not demonstrated any of those processes just yet, but the people who know what they are talking about think abiogenesis is possible.
- dylan604 4y ago
  In all scientific research someone comes up with a theory that proposes an idea as it emerges that might do something. It is science's job to the then test that theory to either prove or disprove it. The problem is that from my armchair quarterback role that these theories are getting submitted and then published in the media before any testing has been done. Which can be okay as maybe that will bring it to the attention of someone in a position to actually do the testing. However, it tends to come off sound like it is fact or widely accepted as true prematurely by some of the shoddy reporting
gus_massa 4y ago
Triphosphates are like tiny "batteries". A lot of important reactions in a cell are just moving the third phosphate to another molecule to "move" the stored energy and do something useful later, or to move the third phosphate back to charge again the "battery". So it's not expected to have a lot of charged batteries floating around. IIRC there are some non-biological process that produce triphosphates, but the amount is tiny^n. In a life-less world, is the production speed enough to make them accumulate until there the concentration is high enough for this reaction? Or they break before they can form RNA chains? Also, IIRC there are some alternative proposal for the formation of the first RNA. All are horrible slow an inefficient. Is this new method slightly less slow and slightly more efficient?

by natch 4y ago

Cannabat 4y ago

Sure is an interesting claim. Key words include "proposals", "emerging", and "might" - sounds like we have not demonstrated any of those processes just yet, but the people who know what they are talking about think abiogenesis is possible.

dylan604 4y ago
In all scientific research someone comes up with a theory that proposes an idea as it emerges that might do something. It is science's job to the then test that theory to either prove or disprove it. The problem is that from my armchair quarterback role that these theories are getting submitted and then published in the media before any testing has been done. Which can be okay as maybe that will bring it to the attention of someone in a position to actually do the testing. However, it tends to come off sound like it is fact or widely accepted as true prematurely by some of the shoddy reporting

gus_massa 4y ago

Triphosphates are like tiny "batteries". A lot of important reactions in a cell are just moving the third phosphate to another molecule to "move" the stored energy and do something useful later, or to move the third phosphate back to charge again the "battery". So it's not expected to have a lot of charged batteries floating around. IIRC there are some non-biological process that produce triphosphates, but the amount is tiny^n. In a life-less world, is the production speed enough to make them accumulate until there the concentration is high enough for this reaction? Or they break before they can form RNA chains? Also, IIRC there are some alternative proposal for the formation of the first RNA. All are horrible slow an inefficient. Is this new method slightly less slow and slightly more efficient?