“Life-like evolution in a test tube” is the title of an article at Cosmos Magazine that describes a potential breakthrough in Origin-of-Life (OOL) research. (HT RichardtHughes at AtBC )
For the first time, scientists have synthesized RNA enzymes – ribonucleic acid enzymes also known as ribozymes – that can replicate themselves without the help of any proteins or other cellular components.
If true, this could help shed light on the RNA-World and create many different and intriguing lines of research.
That said, there’s an obvious caveat: these RNA molecules were designed. For a purely natural RNA-World scenario to be true, scientists would have to show that a self-replicating RNA could have arisen through natural means, and last time I checked, they ain’t even close to demonstrating this.
Keep in mind I am NOT questioning whether evolutionary mechanisms exist. It is obvious that they do exist and function in nature. However, take a good look at what Dr. Joyce and his colleagues did: they took their knowledge of how living things work and change/evolve, and used it to create an RNA molecule that “evolves” (or runs under the properties of known evolutionary mechanisms). This is very similar to what engineers do, using their knowledge of the known world/universe to create an object or system to suit some predetermined function(s) or design objective(s). In essence, what Joyce et al. did was attempt to engineer life.
As if to reinforce the engineering aspect of the research, the article goes on to say:
The ultimate goal is to create genetic systems that behave like life, and are for all intents ‘life’ as we know it, but arose without using biological systems.
“The aim is to create systems that have inventive capabilities, that can develop novel solutions to challenges posed by the environment. But that we don’t have yet,” [molecular biologist Gerald Joyce] said. …
[Joyce continues] “They are synthetic genetic systems, and they are evolving. But they’re not living because they don’t yet show the capacity to invent functions out of whole cloth [independently from basic building blocks].
“The idea is to given them enough information wherewithal [build up enough genetic informaton] so they can start inventing their own solutions, rather than just optimising existing solutions,” he added.
To recap, Joyce et al. “create[d] … [synthetic] genetic systems that behave like life” (i.e. replicate and pass on genetic information – a simple design objective). Further research will have the goal of ”… creat[ing] systems that have inventive capabilities, that can develop novel solutions to challenges posed by the environment.” (i.e. predetermined function). To accomplish this, the researchers aim to “give them enough information wherewithal [build up enough genetic informaton] so they can start inventing their own solutions, rather than just optimising existing solutions…”
Golly gee! That sure sounds a lot like engineering and front-loading to me.
“Front-loading is the investment of a significant amount of information at the initial stage of evolution (the first life forms) whereby this information shapes and constrains subsequent evolution through its dissipation.”
p.147, The Design Matrix by Mike Gene
I thought FLE/design couldn’t lead to fruitful research. Silly me!
All kidding aside, this could set the stage for interesting new OOL research. Stay tuned!
February 22nd, 2010 at 4:15 pm
[...] (Cross-posted at Evolution Engineered) [...]
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:49 pm
JJS, are you saying that Joyce and Lincoln deliberately chose the specific RNA sequences that comprise their replicating RNAs? That they used design principles to deduce that a specific sequence would replicate, and then synthesized that RNA using an oligo synthesizer?
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:54 pm
Oh, and how about Brodeur? 4 goals in 22 shots? Of course, if he didn’t have Crosby deflecting in goals for USA, then …
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:11 am
Good day Art.
Are you saying it was trial and error? I haven’t read the paper the AAAS talk was based on (thanks to neddy @ TT for the source).
Even if it was T&E, the trials would’ve been based on educated “guesses” and not random tweaks and changes, so the design argument sticks.
As for Team Canada, they’ll be fine. Luongo is inbetween the pipes now since Brodeur was at fault either directly or indirectly for 2 or 3 of the 4 goals he let in. Congrats to the Americans for the win, but remember Canada outshot them by an near 2-1 margin, carried the play for most of the game. If Brodeur was the Brodeur from 2002, Canada wins that game.
Lots of hockey to be played yet. Now the U.S. has to adjust to being the favourites from being the dark horse. Expectations are higher now.
February 23rd, 2010 at 4:01 pm
JJS, what is especially problematic with your essay is the parallel you make with “FLE”. The most design-friendly description of the cited work (not entirely accurate, but about as good as we can do, I’m afraid) would hold that the researchers took a functional RNA and tweaked them to become replicators. The problem for your analogy with FLE is that the original functional RNA was not designed – indeed, of all the molecules in the lineage from the first ones to the current crop of replicators, the original ones are the furthest from a designed moiety. They were identified in a purely random mix of RNA oligomers, and absolutely no design went into the sequences of these molecules.
This is quite in contrast to “the investment of a significant amount of information at the initial stage of evolution”. In this case, there was no investment at the initial stages.
February 23rd, 2010 at 4:04 pm
I don’t think the USA can be considered favorites for the hockey gold. But Canada and the other participants must be wary, since USA may have that most feared of advantages – the hot goalie. (At the risk of betraying my age, I remember all too well Ken Dryden stealing a Stanley Cup from out of the Bruins’ grasp. The hot goalie is one of many painful memories that Bruins fans must endure.)
February 23rd, 2010 at 4:15 pm
Ah, JJS I’ll have one of those Canadian beers you recommend and prebiotic soup du jour to go with it. Thanks JJS. Art, there are no RNA molecules in my soup. Who cooked Art’s soup JJS?
February 24th, 2010 at 9:46 am
Good day Art.
Please do correct me if I’m wrong, but you say this with the self-assuredness of a
delusionalLeafs fan. The realm of OOL is so murky that no one can say with a high degree of certainty that one way is true over another – and that includes design/FLE.Unless, of course, you have
the smoking gunhard-core, unrefutable research to back up your claim. If so, please enlighten me.The U.S. is the #1 seed, so they’d better get used to the “favourite” title. But I do agree, they have a hot goalie in their favour.
Speaking of favourites, should be a dandy tonite between Canada and Russia. Canada looked good in beating the Germans last night, and should serve as a good tune-up for a faster, grittier, and more skilled Russian team. IMO, Russia can be exploited on their back end by hard, tenacious forechecking. Also, I ain’t sold on Nabokov being better than Luongo.
February 24th, 2010 at 9:47 am
Good day Bradford.
The soup nazi, of course!
I recently tried a recommendation of yours, Samuel Adams, during my family’s winter vacation. Very nice!
February 24th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
JJS, assuming that you understood that I was speaking about Joyce’s replicators and their ancestors, perhaps you can pull out, from the methods section of the paper that described the first functional RNA in the series that Joyce isolated and evolved, the statement to the effect that Joyce and coworkers deduced, from some sort of design principle, that a specific RNA sequence would possess the intended function. NOT that he selected some functional RNA, but that he deliberately designed the specific sequence that was used in future studies.
If you can’t do that, then your claim that these RNAs were designed is false.
February 24th, 2010 at 7:56 pm
The Russians didn’t look so gritty to me. They didn’t play behind their own net all night, and this kept the game in their own zone for very long periods.
February 27th, 2010 at 11:18 am
Some food for thought:
http://telicthoughts.com/self-replicating-rna-designed/#comment-253572
March 3rd, 2010 at 4:07 pm
So, JJS, have you found the methods Joyce used to deliberately and specifically engineer the exact functional sequence found in the first ligases his group isolated? Are you able to translate this approach into common engineering practice?
As an aside, I must point out that eric in the link Bradford points to is just making stuff up. I hope you are not relying on that comment to answer this question.
March 4th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Good day Art. Forgive me for the delay, but I was having too much fun debating Zach on Galileo at TT (a topic for another day).
No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die.Recalling the abstract from neddy’s link, it would appear there would be a disconnect between the actual paper and the Cosmos article. In any case, the Cosmos article would demonstrate Mike’s point of biologists almost needing the vocabulary of design to describe biologic systems.
Quite the accusation. Can you back it up?
March 4th, 2010 at 3:24 pm
As for the Russia game:
It’s so hard to be humble…
Part of that “Eurotrash” hockey that Milbury refered to: the Russians like to dish it out, but they sure can’t take it. Once Canada laid the body on Ovie and the rooskies, they folded quicker than a poker player with a crappy hand.
March 4th, 2010 at 8:14 pm
On tt, commenter eric claimed:
“the actual construction of all the sequences was done entirely by the scientists themselves using the very directed and elaborate processes required to build specific (not random) sequences of nucleotides.”
I’ve read the original paper in which the RNA ligase that was the progenitor of the replicating RNAs was isolated, and I know that eric’s claim about this paper, reproduced in italics here, is wrong. (If you don’t believe me, I invite you to read it…) eric is just making this up.
March 4th, 2010 at 8:20 pm
About Milbury, I think he took a few too many pucks to his head. I don’t think the Russian’s debacle with Canada was because of some cultural hockey differences (Russia certainly were physical in other games, and Slovakia competed quite admirably on the boards and behind the nets in the semis), but because Russia thought they could beat Canada to loose pucks coming off the boards, and out-skate them in open ice. The revelation was that Canada was as fast and skilled as Russia, and their speed sort of erased the swaths of open ice Russia expected to find.
At least that’s how the game looked to me.
March 5th, 2010 at 7:57 am
Art, with regards to eric, you may have proven error on his part, but you have to provide more evidence to demonstrate deliberate falsehood.
March 5th, 2010 at 8:01 am
Very possible. This is a guy who went into the stands at MSG and beat up a Rangers fan with a shoe! Ah the 70’s! (and no, I don’t wish we could go back to that type of hockey).
Don’t discount the effect of laying the body on Ovechkin and company. This is a tactic that worked before (2005 World Junior Hockey Championships in Fargo, ND). I expect many NHL teams to take note. Maybe if the Bruins play the Caps in the first round they’ll hit him hard and see what happens. Lucic vs Ovie: that sounds like a match-up I’d pay to watch.
March 7th, 2010 at 6:37 pm
Ah, yes, the 70’s.