Scientists Say We May Have Been Wrong About the Origin of Life
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
S Science shared this topic
-
This post did not contain any content.
Downvoted.
This article points to another article:
The origin of genetic code: Study finds textbook version needs revision
Despite awe-inspiring diversity, nearly every lifeform—from bacteria to blue whales—shares the same genetic code. How and when this code came about has been the subject of much scientific controversy.
(phys.org)
And this article points to the study:
The phys.org article is decent, unlike the one linked in the OP, but the information isn’t as huge as the title would suggest. The core of it is basically these two paragraphs:
The study revealed that early life preferred smaller amino acid molecules over larger and more complex ones, which were added later, while amino acids that bind to metals joined in much earlier than previously thought. Finally, the team discovered that today’s genetic code likely came after other codes that have since gone extinct.
The authors argue that the current understanding of how the code evolved is flawed because it relies on misleading laboratory experiments rather than evolutionary evidence
I think most modern biologists would agree this was probable even if it wasn’t codified yet
-
Downvoted.
This article points to another article:
The origin of genetic code: Study finds textbook version needs revision
Despite awe-inspiring diversity, nearly every lifeform—from bacteria to blue whales—shares the same genetic code. How and when this code came about has been the subject of much scientific controversy.
(phys.org)
And this article points to the study:
The phys.org article is decent, unlike the one linked in the OP, but the information isn’t as huge as the title would suggest. The core of it is basically these two paragraphs:
The study revealed that early life preferred smaller amino acid molecules over larger and more complex ones, which were added later, while amino acids that bind to metals joined in much earlier than previously thought. Finally, the team discovered that today’s genetic code likely came after other codes that have since gone extinct.
The authors argue that the current understanding of how the code evolved is flawed because it relies on misleading laboratory experiments rather than evolutionary evidence
I think most modern biologists would agree this was probable even if it wasn’t codified yet
The paper and the phys.org article are a year old (which is maybe why it doesn’t seem so unexpected)—any guess why Popular Mechanics is only reporting on it now?
-
The paper and the phys.org article are a year old (which is maybe why it doesn’t seem so unexpected)—any guess why Popular Mechanics is only reporting on it now?
I would guess that either the author at popular mechanics just found it / just dug it out of their reading list or one of the authors of the paper reached out as part of promoting their research?
I think a year ago as someone learning biology from Khan Academy and reading about endosymbiosis and reading what I could about LUCA theories with some chemistry background then whats written here just seems like a likely possibility. The paper doesn’t seem like strong evidence and it seems like there is a lot of guess work for early life. The teams making artificial cells are doing interesting, scary work there.
But I’m no expert here, I was just pointing out the source material and a summary
-
Downvoted.
This article points to another article:
The origin of genetic code: Study finds textbook version needs revision
Despite awe-inspiring diversity, nearly every lifeform—from bacteria to blue whales—shares the same genetic code. How and when this code came about has been the subject of much scientific controversy.
(phys.org)
And this article points to the study:
The phys.org article is decent, unlike the one linked in the OP, but the information isn’t as huge as the title would suggest. The core of it is basically these two paragraphs:
The study revealed that early life preferred smaller amino acid molecules over larger and more complex ones, which were added later, while amino acids that bind to metals joined in much earlier than previously thought. Finally, the team discovered that today’s genetic code likely came after other codes that have since gone extinct.
The authors argue that the current understanding of how the code evolved is flawed because it relies on misleading laboratory experiments rather than evolutionary evidence
I think most modern biologists would agree this was probable even if it wasn’t codified yet
The title is also weirdly phrased to make it sound like science was wrong. Of course science was wrong. The whole process is based on realizing that our past assumptions were wrong. Every time scientists discover something new, it replaces an old incorrect assumption. These sorts of titles are how you get to the “Mainstream media/science is bogus” track.
-
The title is also weirdly phrased to make it sound like science was wrong. Of course science was wrong. The whole process is based on realizing that our past assumptions were wrong. Every time scientists discover something new, it replaces an old incorrect assumption. These sorts of titles are how you get to the “Mainstream media/science is bogus” track.
The whole process is based on realizing that our past assumptions were wrong.
Well… or simply improving the understanding. AFAIK good science doesn’t actually assert “rightness” or “wrongness;” rather, it proposes ‘this theory seems the best working fit,’ with the understanding and open-endedness that it can always be improved, tweaked, or even completely replaced by a better theory.
