Abiogenesis solved?

[max-greece]

Its funny that a discussion with a YEC, which appears to be a pointless exercise can still yield some interesting thought processes.

Of all of the issues that an Atheist (well me to be honest) faces the issue of abiogenesis was always the most difficult.

As I saw it we need, at a minimum, the simplest form of life we can imagine (RNA plus proteins) that can replicate.

The replication part is the hardest to explain.

How could something that is able to reproduce itself form in the first-place?

It implies that we have a simple structure that forms in one way (through a natural process) but then produces progeny that are formed in a different way - reproduction.

I had never been able to address that and, therefore, in the way that people do I put it to the back of mind and ignored it, whilst every so often it would rear its head and make me uncomfortable.

Yesterday, however, I saw something during the argument with Grace that didn't initially strike me as that important but now just hit me upside the head.

This was a quote that I found online:

"The components of simple viruses such as TMV, which consists of a single RNA molecule and one protein species, undergo self-assembly if they are mixed in solution. "

From http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21523/

TMV sounds like just about the sort of thing one might expect to kick off life itself.

Self-assembly explains its first existence. What I didn't realize till this morning is that means its replicating by default:

TMV forms in solution. Exists for a while. Breaks back down to its component parts - AND THEN REFORMS just as it did the first time.

Obviously in that first population we have, for a very short period, TMV forming from components that have never been part of it but thereafter it is constantly re-using components from previous incarnations.

This solves the problem. I had been working with the idea that initial formation and subsequent reproduction were different. They are not.

Not sure this will mean anything to anyone else - but it just made my day.

[Kayenneh]

"The components of simple viruses such as TMV, which consists of a single RNA molecule and one protein species, undergo self-assembly if they are mixed in solution. "

And here lies the heart of the matter (for me), are viruses living things or not? My class and professor didn't come to a definitive conclusion, but the general consensus was that the virus itself is not a living thing, but the genetic material it carries is. Kind of like people still being living things, even though they use a car to get around.
Nevertheless, fascinating subject. Thanks for sharing, Max!

[bladevalant546]

If I remember correctly, there was an experiment where they were able to get 2 of the 4 nucleoid acids of DNA/RNA to form on their own. I wished I can remember the documentary that was in. However, I will research and see if I can try to find it and post is here.

[Minimalist]

See, I am perfectly content to say "I don't know how life started, yet." Some day science will figure it out.

I sure as hell don't need to invent some fucking "god" to play in the dirt!

Tales for children.

[max-greece]

See, I am perfectly content to say "I don't know how life started, yet." Some day science will figure it out.

I sure as hell don't need to invent some fucking "god" to play in the dirt!

Tales for children.

I get that, I really do, and I am not pretending that this IS the answer for a moment, but it is, perhaps, a possible answer.

The important thing, to me, is that abiogenesis always appeared to be insoluble. I could not see how something created one way would reproduce another. This just might give a clue to the answer - if initial creation and further reproduction use the exact same mechanism then its possible and I get to sleep at night.

There's a slew of things I am happy to say - we don't know yet, science will probably figure it out eventually, but with this I know just enough biology to know it couldn't be done.

Its a sort of eureka moment for me and I just wanted to share.

[Bad Writer]

To think that there could only be one way that life started might not even be accurate. Who knows if there is simply one or actually thousands of routes that abiogenesis can take in order to create a spark of life? Just knowing it's possible is enough for me to say that a creator is unnecessary. We may never know how life on our planet began, but we may also never need to.

[Cyberman]

To me, issues like this concerning gaps in our knowledge are akin to a jigsaw puzzle with several missing pieces. Given enough of the pieces that we do have, we can make an educated guess as to what the picture might be; but just as important we can determine what the missing pieces ought to look like. So when a new piece comes along that either fits a gap but contradicts what we have as the picture, or else doesn't fit at all, we can be reasonably sure it's nothing to do with the puzzle.

And as Min said, we certainly don't need to pretend we have pieces to fit the gaps, just because we find the gaps uncomfortable.

[Doubting Thomas]

Like I've pointed out recently, being able to say "We don't know yet" is not a fault of science, it's one of its biggest drivers. It's perfectly OK to say "We don't know" which helps us search for answers, and little by little we find them.

Unfortunately Christians think that "we don't know" means that science has failed so they get to shove God into those gaps. Not that it's logical to say "If science doesn't know, then Goddidit."

[Cyberman]

Absolutely. Given a choice between "I don't know, so it must be magic" and "I don't know - let's find out", I know which one my money's on.

[Minimalist]

I get that, I really do, and I am not pretending that this IS the answer for a moment, but it is, perhaps, a possible answer.

Well...."god" playing in the dirt is a possible answer. It is simply the stupidest possible answer imaginable.