SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Rutgers researchers have discovered the origins of the protein structures responsible for metabolism: simple molecules that powered early life on Earth and serve as chemical signals that NASA could use to search for life on other planets.
[...] Their study, which predicts what the earliest proteins looked like 3.5 billion to 2.5 billion years ago, is published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The scientists retraced, like a many thousand piece puzzle, the evolution of enzymes (proteins) from the present to the deep past. The solution to the puzzle required two missing pieces, and life on Earth could not exist without them. By constructing a network connected by their roles in metabolism, this team discovered the missing pieces.
"We know very little about how life started on our planet. This work allowed us to glimpse deep in time and propose the earliest metabolic proteins," said co-author Vikas Nanda, a professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and a resident faculty member at the Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine.
"Our predictions will be tested in the laboratory to better understand the origins of life on Earth and to inform how life may originate elsewhere. We are building models of proteins in the lab and testing whether they can trigger reactions critical for early metabolism."
[...] The Rutgers team focused on two protein "folds" that are likely the first structures in early metabolism. They are a ferredoxin fold that binds iron-sulfur compounds, and a "Rossmann" fold, which binds nucleotides (the building blocks of DNA and RNA). These are two pieces of the puzzle that must fit in the evolution of life.
Proteins are chains of amino acids and a chain's 3D path in space is called a fold. Ferredoxins are metals found in modern proteins and shuttle electrons around cells to promote metabolism. Electrons flow through solids, liquids and gases and power living systems, and the same electrical force must be present in any other planetary system with a chance to support life.
There is evidence the two folds may have shared a common ancestor and, if true, the ancestor may have been the first metabolic enzyme of life.
Journal. Reference:
Hagai Raanan, Saroj Poudel, Douglas H. Pike, Vikas Nanda, and Paul G. Falkowski. Small protein folds at the root of an ancient metabolic network [$], Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1914982117)
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday March 20 2020, @11:53PM (10 children)
Irreducible complexity is reduced? nice, maybe playing demi-god will teach scientist one or two things about judging a god, even if as I said, the most godlike position is as admin of a virtual world.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Saturday March 21 2020, @12:21AM (5 children)
"Irreducible complexity" was always nonsense, invented from whole cloth by creationists (a.k.a. cdesign proponentsists [ncse.ngo]) who wanted to dress up their religion in the language of science.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday March 23 2020, @09:43AM (4 children)
It is/was a good argument instead. If I say X happened because of random arrangements I have to calculate the p of the event over given time, see if it is feasible, look for simpler models or alternative explanations, regardless the argument of the skeptics.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday March 23 2020, @01:36PM (1 child)
No, it wasn't a good argument, because the things that the cdesign proponentsists argued were "irreducibly complex" weren't in fact irreducibly complex. For example, they wanted to claim that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex, except that biologists could see that exact structure in many of its more simple stages, performing useful functions at each stage. Ditto for eyes: Biologists can walk you through exactly how the eye developed into what it was, starting from simple light sensitivity and slowly but surely adding useful features like color and focus.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Saturday March 28 2020, @01:57AM
I am discussing the argument, not its applicability. If the complexity is not irreducible, then you have no problems, and you just show an example.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday March 23 2020, @03:18PM (1 child)
Your problem is the same one Plantinga commits with the evolutionary argument against naturalism: assuming every single interaction is "pure blind random chance" with no selection/retention filter. That's not how reality works. You are a liar, a deliberate one, and you will burn as per your own religion's rules on spreading false witness.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Saturday March 28 2020, @02:10AM
>assuming every single interaction is "pure blind random chance" with no selection/retention filter. That's not how reality works.
And where was it assumed? It all depends on how well you calculate the p, you have to take into account selective advantages too. "life is matter x time", I already said this in a couple SN comments at least myself, so?
Irreducible complexity anyway should be about p so low that pure blind random chance vs p increased by a process of selective pressure would be a scarcely relevant distinction.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday March 21 2020, @10:12PM (3 children)
"You can't judge, God is beyond your comprehension" is a stupid argument to make. Mostly because it cuts both ways. Grant the initial premises, and the believer can just as equally no longer make judgments--for example, "my God is good"--for the same reasons. I'm surprised any apologist still runs this weaksauce argument.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 23 2020, @09:39AM (2 children)
"my God is good" is an object of faith, and not for all faiths either, in fact. It is best formulated as "god told me he is good". Demigods will also have to define good when they cull generations of unfit/non progressing entities.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday March 23 2020, @03:16PM (1 child)
Eeee-yup. This is why the base of all these questions reduces to "could you be fooled by a being that could fool you?"
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Saturday March 28 2020, @02:16AM
Could you be fooled? sure. Does it make sense that a god adopts a human strategy like fooling? unlikely. You cannot judge a god is still a totally unrelated problem. You keep seeing it as apology, like the hypothetical god needed defenders, or treated favorably the boot lickers. OK if that's your mental model... It's like saying I prohibit you to divide by zero because I consider zero sacred and untouchable. Whatever.
Account abandoned.