@sonhouse saidATP synthase is a massive, 5,000 amino acid protein complex. In order to make it, cells need DNA and all the transcriptional machinery, an ER/Golgi, membranes, lots of ATP etc. I didn't read the scientific publication, but it seems impossible as described in this article.
https://scitechdaily.com/origin-of-ion-pumping-proteins-could-explain-how-life-began/
Am I missing something?
As always with the sites that try to break down science to the ordinary person vastly overstating headlines are made.
The research is about one step of a working cell, namely the expelling of Sodium ions. It has nothing to do with a first enzyme that make ATP from ADP (which also has to be created somehow).
Anyway that is how science works: making ony tiny step after another.
@Ponderable saidI'm more confused after reading the original article, because that deals with heteroplasmy, the co-existence of multiple versions of mitochondrial DNA in a single cell, not origin of life. There's some unclear mechanism where cells can segregate different versions into different tissues over time, to avoid unpredictable changes to metabolism caused by random mutations over a lifetime.
As always with the sites that try to break down science to the ordinary person vastly overstating headlines are made.
The research is about one step of a working cell, namely the expelling of Sodium ions. It has nothing to do with a first enzyme that make ATP from ADP (which also has to be created somehow).
Anyway that is how science works: making ony tiny step after another.
It's very cool science, but apparently nothing to do with the PopScience article.
My conclusion is that we need better pop science writers.
@wildgrass saidThe problem with popscience writers is that they normally don't ask scientists to review their writing. Of course some scientists would not be helpful. BUt they could at least see if the writere got the main point correctly.
I'm more confused after reading the original article, because that deals with heteroplasmy, the co-existence of multiple versions of mitochondrial DNA in a single cell, not origin of life. There's some unclear mechanism where cells can segregate different versions into different tissues over time, to avoid unpredictable changes to metabolism caused by random mutations over ...[text shortened]... hing to do with the PopScience article.
My conclusion is that we need better pop science writers.
@Ponderable saidOr the writer referenced the wrong article, I suppose. It does measure rates of ATP synthesis but that is tangential to the purpose of the science. Nothing in the introduction or conclusions even mentions the implications on origin of life questions.
The problem with popscience writers is that they normally don't ask scientists to review their writing. Of course some scientists would not be helpful. BUt they could at least see if the writere got the main point correctly.
@wildgrass saidIndeed. It looks like the reference has moved. I am totally flabbergasted, since I do remember reading an article about a ion-gradient enabling protein like the one I link here:
Or the writer referenced the wrong article, I suppose. It does measure rates of ATP synthesis but that is tangential to the purpose of the science. Nothing in the introduction or conclusions even mentions the implications on origin of life questions.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1885257/
But what is linked now is totally different.
@Ponderable saidThat's also a cool paper, but it deals with rhodopsin as a "habitat adaptation" gene which is late-stage evolution. Evolutionary theory only makes sense in the presence of inheritable DNA that recombines as a product of reproduction, which is an amazingly complex event.
Indeed. It looks like the reference has moved. I am totally flabbergasted, since I do remember reading an article about a ion-gradient enabling protein like the one I link here:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1885257/
But what is linked now is totally different.