1. Comment #376871 by gurkuda on May 14, 2009 at 12:05 pm

God's gonna be livid!

Other Comments by gurkuda

2. Comment #376872 by Steve Zara on May 14, 2009 at 12:11 pm

This is great news, but I hate the title. It makes me think of a mad Frankensteinian scientist yelling "It's Aliiiiiiive!"

The article shows the opposite of the title - no spark needed - life is just chemistry.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

3. Comment #376874 by NewEnglandBob on May 14, 2009 at 12:17 pm

Carl Zimmer had a good writeup on this:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/05/13/in-the-prebiotic-kitchen/

Other Comments by NewEnglandBob

4. Comment #376877 by ColdFusionLazarus on May 14, 2009 at 12:19 pm

Very impressive. Very cool. But it doesn't matter how much you can show how complexity builds gradually to complexity, ultimately the "critics" will ask, "Yeah, but what created those simpler molecules?" All the way back to, "Yeah, but what initiated the big bang?" There's no pleasing some, but I'm very pleased to see this.

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

5. Comment #376878 by Steve Zara on May 14, 2009 at 12:20 pm

Comment #376871 by gurkuda

There is no copyright on life, and no God. So abiogenesis in the laboratory is a victimless crime (sorry decius).

Other Comments by Steve Zara

6. Comment #376882 by gurkuda on May 14, 2009 at 12:24 pm

You're right ColdFusionLazarus. The only point where they stop is God. When you ask where god came from, however, they get tilted like a pinball machine.

Other Comments by gurkuda

7. Comment #376887 by gurkuda on May 14, 2009 at 12:29 pm

SteveZara, that was a joke. Obviously, not a good one.
What I meant was that God would lose his monopoly (again, as a joke)

Other Comments by gurkuda

8. Comment #376888 by MUNRO1 on May 14, 2009 at 12:29 pm

This is great news and it can only be a matter of time before we have a complete working model. Great days indeed, when you consider that most idiot creationists consider the fact we cant show how life began as proof of how evolution is false.

Other Comments by MUNRO1

9. Comment #376889 by bendigeidfran on May 14, 2009 at 12:29 pm

I'm not sure I want chemicals in my organisms. Chemically modified organisms should be banned.

Other Comments by bendigeidfran

10. Comment #376891 by ColdFusionLazarus on May 14, 2009 at 12:32 pm

gurkuda,
What made God? That's a childish question! Or so the vicar told me.

It is amazing. I look forward to hearing more about it later.

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

11. Comment #376892 by Steve Zara on May 14, 2009 at 12:32 pm

Comment #376887 by gurkuda

I never joke. All my posts should be read with a frown in a quiet room, to get the tone right.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

12. Comment #376894 by ColdFusionLazarus on May 14, 2009 at 12:34 pm

Ha ha! We do all get a bit serious at times - ahem - except me - ahem!

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

13. Comment #376897 by Steve Zara on May 14, 2009 at 12:36 pm

I should respond even more seriously than normal. This is very exciting research. The main problem of abiogenesis has always been the formation of bio-polymers. This has been sometimes dealt with in the past using the principle of large numbers, conceding that yes, the formation is very, very unlikely, but the number of places in the universe where the chemistry is possible is very, very large, so this could have happened somewhere, eventually, after millions of years.

Instead, it seems that polymerisation of nucleotides to form RNA is going to be pretty easy, and common. This is the third mechanism I have heard for its possible formation on the early Earth.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

14. Comment #376900 by SASnSA on May 14, 2009 at 12:41 pm

Oh great, now we're going to have to put up with the Intelligent Choreographer proponents!

Other Comments by SASnSA

15. Comment #376905 by gurkuda on May 14, 2009 at 12:50 pm

Nice one Steve Zara.

Comment #376888 by MUNRO1
Since it is impossible to disprove a non-existent god, I do not see any hope in curing creationists. No matter what proof you provide, they will go on with their drivel. You might have a better chance with your cat.

Other Comments by gurkuda

16. Comment #376907 by Ipsilon on May 14, 2009 at 12:53 pm

I am sure all of this will be very easily explained by the Intelligent Ribonucleotides Design theory.

Other Comments by Ipsilon

17. Comment #376915 by bendigeidfran on May 14, 2009 at 1:12 pm

Comment #376897 by Steve Zara

Are you suggesting God has been 'putting it about a bit' rather more than he was letting on in his books?

Other Comments by bendigeidfran

18. Comment #376918 by Tezcatlipoca on May 14, 2009 at 1:20 pm

Comment #376897 by Steve Zara

Instead, it seems that polymerisation of nucleotides to form RNA is going to be pretty easy, and common.

But could it take place within say...six thousand years?

Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca

19. Comment #376930 by bendigeidfran on May 14, 2009 at 1:33 pm

Six minutes if he'd cooled it down a bit.

Other Comments by bendigeidfran

20. Comment #376960 by Colwyn Abernathy on May 14, 2009 at 2:22 pm

Didn't Sagan do this before?
EDIT:
Or, at least talk about it? Coulda sworn I read about this in COSMOS.

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

21. Comment #376961 by Liveliest Crib on May 14, 2009 at 2:32 pm

ColdFusionLazarus @ #376877:
But it doesn't matter how much you can show how complexity builds gradually to complexity, ultimately the "critics" will ask, "Yeah, but what created those simpler molecules?" All the way back to, "Yeah, but what initiated the big bang?" There's no pleasing some . . .

Ehh, those "critics" don't matter, since the purpose of such research is hardly to convince the likes of them. Their questions are rhetorical, they are not seeking answers, and their implied regress terminates without satisfactory explanation at the word "god." Whatever.

Of course, if one actually is seeking answers, "So what initiated the big bang?" is a more than decent question. Whether we'll one day have the answer that satisfactorily terminates the seemingly infinite regress I cannot say, but that I am alive to learn of events like the one described here is delightful.

Other Comments by Liveliest Crib

22. Comment #376962 by epeeist on May 14, 2009 at 2:35 pm

The next creationist plaint (taken from the comments)

This in no way goes against anything in the bible, its just a chemical reaction.

And I like the fact that all of the right wing creationists on the site who are slagging Obama off obviously don't realise that Manchester is actually in Enlgand.

Other Comments by epeeist

23. Comment #376963 by bendigeidfran on May 14, 2009 at 2:36 pm

Ceci n'est pas un chapeau

Other Comments by bendigeidfran

24. Comment #376970 by Goldy on May 14, 2009 at 2:52 pm

I liked this article - read it in the NYT and BBC. Sure, not going to change people's views of religion is they have faith - after all, what is faith but a belief in something that isn't there. But shows research is going on and answers are forthcoming and soon, hopefully, we'll know more :-)

Other Comments by Goldy

25. Comment #376979 by Fizzle on May 14, 2009 at 3:23 pm

:D

Other Comments by Fizzle

26. Comment #376998 by Sally Luxmoore on May 14, 2009 at 4:02 pm

Wot? No protoplasm?

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

27. Comment #377001 by Steve Zara on May 14, 2009 at 4:04 pm

Comment #376998 by Sally Luxmoore

That brings back memories of my favourite science encyclopaedia in the 60s... amoebas were "blobs of protopasm". Whatever happened to protoplasm, eh?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

28. Comment #377004 by Sally Luxmoore on May 14, 2009 at 4:06 pm

Gone the same way as ectoplasm, I suppose...

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

29. Comment #377005 by Steve Zara on May 14, 2009 at 4:08 pm

Comment #376960 by Colwyn Abernathy

What Sagan was probably discussing (I am too lazy to look it up) were the experiments that showed that molecules like amino acids, sugars and nucleotides could be easily formed naturally.

The real problem was how these units could polymerise into long chains such as RNA molecules.

That is what has been shown here.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

30. Comment #377006 by Sally Luxmoore on May 14, 2009 at 4:09 pm

Funnily enough, It was Richard who reminded me of protoplasm. I have just been lucky enough to attend a lecture of his today at Wolfson. He referred to it as part of the victorian idea of the first life force.

Excellent talk, by the way. Hope it was recorded and will be shown here soon.

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

31. Comment #377012 by Laurie Fraser on May 14, 2009 at 4:29 pm

On Australian commercial television news last night, after half an hour of examining the peccadilloes of a few rugby league players, the bulletin spent exactly ten seconds on this story, and mangled it even then. I've sent the station a rather terse email.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

32. Comment #377014 by Brian English on May 14, 2009 at 4:35 pm

Yeah, but c'mon Laurie, we all like a bit of titillation. We're not a country of eggheads and Dawkinites. ;)


Personally, I pull my hair out everytime the TV stations announce that study X has demonstrated conclusively that (insert attention grabbing headline). Of course you find out that they have no idea of how a study works, what it means and usually pick studies with such a small sample size, pilot studies usually, and declare that to be final result. A week later another study comes out that seems to contradict their misunderstanding and they blame science for it. Argggghghghhghghghghggh!!!!!!!!

Other Comments by Brian English

33. Comment #377016 by Goldy on May 14, 2009 at 4:38 pm

Laurie, you should check out the British news sites. Seems nothing happened recently apart from Honourable Members of Parliament being a bit free and easy with taxpayers money... A bomb could have gone off and no one would have known because the main story would be about some MP's swimming pool or something...

Other Comments by Goldy

34. Comment #377017 by Sally Luxmoore on May 14, 2009 at 4:40 pm

Goldy. Don't forget the moat and the horse manure. Important to get the priorities right.

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

35. Comment #377018 by Diacanu on May 14, 2009 at 4:40 pm

Dawkinite?

Sounds like a radioactive substance David Robertson would dearly love to forge a cross out of.

Other Comments by Diacanu

36. Comment #377020 by Sally Luxmoore on May 14, 2009 at 4:41 pm

Diacanu,

Might be dangerous to Superman, too.

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

37. Comment #377021 by Brian English on May 14, 2009 at 4:42 pm

I believe that Dawkinite is deadly to Robertson.

Other Comments by Brian English

38. Comment #377022 by Goldy on May 14, 2009 at 4:42 pm

Sally - the Daily Telegraph has a lot to answer for. It may have seemed a good idea at the time to expose grubby politicians (the porn expense claim was funny) but it's getting ridiculous now.

Anyway, back to the featured program...

Other Comments by Goldy

39. Comment #377024 by Sally Luxmoore on May 14, 2009 at 4:45 pm

Goldy : Yes and yes.
This news is actually the most exciting thing for ages. I saw it this morning and was delighted.
I am happy to be a mix of chemicals. I think it's awesome, in the genuine meaning of the word.

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

40. Comment #377026 by Diacanu on May 14, 2009 at 4:48 pm

Brian English-

I believe that Dawkinite is deadly to Robertson.

Grammatically correct, perhaps, but I much prefer the image of Roberston being the one holding the Dawkinite cross on a chain uttering the line..

"..it just stands to reason, Richard, that when it came time to cash in your chips, this.."diseased maniac",..would be your banker".

Why, he even has Luthor's pate!

Other Comments by Diacanu

41. Comment #377027 by Goldy on May 14, 2009 at 4:50 pm

If people cannot accept that we are chemicals and be awed by the "miracle" of that, there's something wrong with them! That things can happen because they can, following simple physical and chemical laws (I say simple because I can't think of the correct term!) and go on from there to produce life as we know it, that life is, ultimately, a natural result of chemistry and physics, that this, not faith, should be marvelled at because it is true and real, not imaginary - that is what inspires awe in me :-)

Other Comments by Goldy

42. Comment #377031 by FilthyWitness on May 14, 2009 at 5:00 pm

Laurie, perhaps later on down the track the two stories could somehow be combined. Obviously the choreography can result in some seriously deranged DNA, as evidenced by those League players.

Other Comments by FilthyWitness

43. Comment #377054 by bendigeidfran on May 14, 2009 at 6:54 pm

Comment #377027 by Goldy

'I find it perplexing that to some, even now, it appears that the richness of the brain's properties, properties like perceiving, remembering, acting, deciding, and inventing, cannot have emerged by itself, or that such richness cannot be the outward display of inner motivelessness. It is so important to see through the illusion of complexity into the simplicity underneath. Of course, we might not be able to trace the simple steps that constitute a perception or an opinion or precede or bring about an action; but underneath there is no doubt that they are there. Yet I would not wish this view to be taken as an elimination of the wonder of life: it should, though, redirect the wonder. What wonder there is, should, in my view, not be at the benevolence and subtlety of external intervention, for that leads to the unneccessary intrusion of a spirit and the invention of a soul. It should instead be wonder at the realization that underlying simplicity can have such glorious manifestations when elaborately coordinated, and that such coordination can grow through the selection of evolution. The only immortal soul man has is the lasting impression he makes on other men's minds.'

Katie Price 'Perfect ponies:My pony care book'

edit - ok it was P.W.Atkins

Other Comments by bendigeidfran

44. Comment #377057 by Goldy on May 14, 2009 at 7:05 pm

Comment #377054 by bendigeidfran
Yes. My words, had I thought of them first :-D Annoys me that others need to add a layer to explain life, thereby muddying the waters and adding a complexity to a picture that does not need it.

Other Comments by Goldy

45. Comment #377076 by Alternative Carpark on May 14, 2009 at 8:29 pm

It's ALIVE!!

Sagan said years ago that, as yet, nothing had ever crawled out of the bottle. Now, it sounds like it is only a matter of time.

Other Comments by Alternative Carpark

46. Comment #377077 by aquilacane on May 14, 2009 at 8:30 pm

Push them to a corner so remote and dark all they can say is yeahbut.

Other Comments by aquilacane

47. Comment #377292 by ridelo on May 15, 2009 at 8:51 am

Every time I read something like this I hear the tones of "Also sprach Zarathustra."

Other Comments by ridelo

48. Comment #377301 by Elli on May 15, 2009 at 9:15 am

Wow, an organic chemist *and* one of the greatest opera sopranos of all time

Other Comments by Elli

49. Comment #377308 by gr8hands on May 15, 2009 at 9:30 am

The article I quote reasonably often, http://discovermagazine.com/2008/feb/did-life-evolve-in-ice seems to indicate that the chemicals involved tend to always join together to form more complex combinations.

The move from pre-biotic chemicals to self-replicating RNA to self-replicating DNA appears to be less and less an impossibly improbable chance event (as Dilbert might say "one in a frooglepoopillion"). In fact, it may happen rather frequently, but only in isolated areas spread out across the vast surface of the earth, or the incredible volume of the oceans.

It may be a recipe of specific chemicals, in specific order(s), at specific temperatures/pressures, in the presence of certain other requirements -- which always works, and may be extremely common throughout the universe!

It may be that you could replicate it completely start to finish in a lab -- but you'd have to have a tank the size of an entire city to be able to observe the emergent phenomenon. (We are not able to exactly recreate plate tectonics in a lab, because no lab can keep a large object suspended in space long enough to observe the internal forces move at tectonic speeds -- yet we clearly have proof that plate tectonics is real and factual.)

I look forward to further research, because this is incredibly exciting!

Theists fear this, because no creator god is necessary. "But who created the big bang?" is their foolish final question. When I say "Who created god?" and they reply "god always was" I respond "it makes more sense to say that the universe 'always was' and not need any magical 'god' to 'poof' it into existence."

Other Comments by gr8hands

50. Comment #377313 by Steve Zara on May 15, 2009 at 9:43 am

Comment #377308 by gr8hands

Theists fear this, because no creator god is necessary. "But who created the big bang?" is their foolish final question.

I am not sure that there would be widespread fear of this, as I think the response would be obvious:

"This is yet another example of how wonderfully arranged the universe is".

If the facts of evolution and natural selection don't destroy the belief in a deity, I don't know what will.

Other Comments by Steve Zara