Originally posted by C HessIt is already published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Now that is exciting news. Let's see how it fares through peer-review. 🙂
Read the full paper here: http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nchem.2202.html
In fact the authors show how the building blocks could be made using in general one pathway. How to make a living ceel from that is a completely different challenge.
Lets see what the future will bring us in that respect.
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseThe link says they believe "they have solved the mystery of how it was possible for life to begin on Earth" but then explains how the chemical building blocks formed known to be essential for modern life, which is not necessarily those that would be essential for the every first life to form and use. What is the justification for the assumption that the two must necessarily be one and the same thing? Why can't the very first life credibly used different chemical building blocks and only later evolved to use and depend on the chemical building blocks of modern life? I personally see no reason.
http://phys.org/news/2015-03-chemists-riddle-life-began-earth.html
For example, the very first life might not have used either RNA nor DNA but rather just used a RNA-like substance but made of different chemical building blocks from modern RNA. I see no special reason to exclude the possibility.
Originally posted by FabianFnasYes, but remember, it wasn't just one reaction, there were literally trillions of reactions going on at the same time. The 'right one' probably came about a few billion times around the planet.
I marvel of the idea that we are all children of this very first chemical reaction...
Originally posted by sonhouseTrue. One of these protolives, among billions who didn't make it' changes our life to be as it is today.
Yes, but remember, it wasn't just one reaction, there were literally trillions of reactions going on at the same time. The 'right one' probably came about a few billion times around the planet.