1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    18 Mar '15 14:04
    http://phys.org/news/2015-03-chemists-riddle-life-began-earth.html
  2. Joined
    31 Aug '06
    Moves
    40565
    19 Mar '15 07:40
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://phys.org/news/2015-03-chemists-riddle-life-began-earth.html
    Now that is exciting news. Let's see how it fares through peer-review. 🙂
  3. SubscriberPonderable
    chemist
    Linkenheim
    Joined
    22 Apr '05
    Moves
    516264
    23 Mar '15 15:34
    Originally posted by C Hess
    Now that is exciting news. Let's see how it fares through peer-review. 🙂
    It is already published in a peer-reviewed journal.
    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.
  4. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    23 Mar '15 17:051 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://phys.org/news/2015-03-chemists-riddle-life-began-earth.html
    The 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.

    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.
  5. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    24 Mar '15 06:40
    I marvel of the idea that we are all children of this very first chemical reaction...
  6. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    26 Mar '15 10:20
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    I marvel of the idea that we are all children of this very first chemical reaction...
    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.
  7. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    26 Mar '15 10:49
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    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.
    True. One of these protolives, among billions who didn't make it' changes our life to be as it is today.
Back to Top