Origins Of Life Clues Revealed By Sugar Study

How did life originate from lifeless matter? It's a question that has long puzzled scientists - and fueled the doubts of those who question the overwhelming scientific evidence that evolutionary processes explain the origins of life. But chemists at England's University of York and University of Nottingham are reporting what they call a significant advance toward our understanding of the chemistry of a pair of sugar molecules that are essential for life.

Their research, published in Organic & Biomolecular Chemistry, essentially recreates the process that may have led to the formation of two sugars, threose and erythrose.

"There are a lot of fundamental questions about the origins of life and many people think they are questions about biology," University of York researcher Dr. Paul Clarke said in a written statement. "But for life to have evolved, you have to have a moment when non-living things become living - everything up to that point is chemistry."

Biologists have long known that the sugar molecules in living organisms occur in the so-called "right-handed" form. Paradoxically, the amino acids that make up proteins - another major building block of life - are "left-handed." But the chemists found that left-handed amino acids could be used to prompt the formation of right-handed sugars. The finding seems to explain how the sugars originated and why only the right-handed forms dominate in nature.

"What we have achieved is the first step on that pathway to show how the simple sugars threose and erythrose originated," Clarke said in the statement. "We generated these sugars from a very simple set of materials that most scientists believe were around at the time that life began."

The study is reminiscent of the landmark Miller-Urey study, which showed that the building blocks of life can form from simple chemical reactions. The 1952 study simulated the hypothetical conditions of early Earth, showing that electrical activity like that associated with lightning can prompt the formation of amino acids.

Comments

[Rabbi420]

11:53 AM on 01/30/2012

You're only HALF right, CR...

A "Creative Source" doesn't negate the possibility of the Big Bang, Abiogensis, or Evolution!

It does not even necessarily imply a omniscient, omnipotent and supernaturally metaphysical "deity"!!

It ONLY requires a "creative component"

The ONLY truly creative component in this universe that we know of is... CONSCIOUSNESS...

But consciousn­ess requires NO component of Self-Consc­iousness to operate. Non-living matter simply reacts to the environmen­t around it based on known principles of Physics - no decision making by the unit in question, itself, is necessary.

As matter aggregates into living material, the role of Self-Consc­iousness grows larger and allows for more choices to be made. As the complexity of life increases and the choices expand exponentia­lly, a growing Self-Consc­iousness becomes NECESSARY!

And this is clearly seen in the Animal Kingdom!!

The idea that Humans are the only Self-Consc­ious animals has been thoroughly debunked, as studies involving Dolphins, Chimps, and Elephants have proven.

However, I think you ARE on the right path.

Until Physics can account for Consciousn­ess, there will never be a unified theory!

Because the overwhelmi­ng paradigm of our universe is that consciousn­ess imprints itself on matter over time and evolves into self-consc­iousness.

That much should be pretty self-evident... LOL!!

[monther]

02:22 PM on 02/03/2012

There is one truth all reseaches are proving that there is no random rules everything respects rules. Every atheist should then answer this question: who set these miraculously accurate rules?

[Rabbi420]

05:13 PM on 02/06/2012

You've, rather obviously, NEVER studied Quantum Mechanics, have you?!? LOL!!

If you had, you would know that random probabilistic fluctuations lie as the very BASE for how matter interacts on the most simple levels.

That matter follows those rules does NOT, automatically, imply any necessary "rule setter"...

And it is beyond logic to claim that such a "rule setter" MUST, in any way, shape or form, conform to your limited perspective of who or what that "rule setter" actually is...

Remember you're only reading what other MEN thought, 3,000 years ago, without the benefit of the knowledge of even the most basic scientific realities...

Hardly a rational proposition to base reality upon... ROFLOL!

[CannabisRex]

04:06 PM on 01/29/2012

Unreal. Anyone that will accept odds so vast as to believe that something came from nothing, and then something developed from chemicals into sentient self aware beings would make a horrible gambler. Science cannot and will not accept the belief in a creative source that cannot be observed plainly or measured accurately, and so they begin their quest for origins with the unscientific basis that only one possibility exists:

If there is no creative source, then evolution is the only logical answer, despite the lac of what should be countless examples of not only intermediarte but staged species, and an answer to the many " inexplicable anomlies" that exist in archaeology and paleontology archives but which are shunned by academics because they prove that evolution, not adaptation but pond scum ( with sugar) to monkey to man, and that we crawled from caves very recently and somehow managed to erect massive complex intricate stone megaliths all over the world while relaxing from cave man duties.

The answer, my friend..is blowing in the wind.

[Rus Viking]

11:45 PM on 01/29/2012

Well done.

Inference, is not Science.

[lcr999]

05:59 PM on 02/02/2012

No, science is all about inference.

[taoistpunk]

05:39 AM on 01/30/2012

can't tell if you need more cannabis or less.

does your bookie take odds on the possibility of gods popping in out of nowhere? are they the type that tilt the odds towards the sudden existence of superman from nothing rather than his slow evolution in a coherent system?

and what's this?:
"..quest for origins with the unscientific basis that only one possibility exists"

sure, it's a nice story for children, but a quick look in the field shows how much the field has changed over time, and how readily better information replaced the old.

many things are unknown, but calling them "inexplicable" implies that no one is out their piecing the puzzle together. the very building blocks of life were "inexplicable" before we figured out genes.

and there are countless examples of intermediate stages. every stage is intermediate. evolution is a process. like walking, it takes many steps to get from one town to the next, and the town after that is always on the horizon.

your answers, my friend, are blowing in the wind.. but they smell kind of skunky..

[Gmasters]

02:41 PM on 01/29/2012

My favorite question for the Dogmatic Anti-Scientists is simple. And almost guaranteed to visibly raise their blood pressure.

Are you saying that GOD is Too Stupid to play with Legos?

It applies equally well to Chemical processes and to Genetic processes.

[Rus Viking]

11:48 PM on 01/29/2012

9 hours and no replies from "the Dogmatic Anti-Scien­tists."

Maybe, it's 'your' belief that needs changing.

Personally, I've yet to met one of these alleged "Dogmatic Anti-Scien­tists."

[ManhattanMC]

02:58 PM on 01/31/2012

"Keep your lamps trimmed and burning for that Golden Calf
called... 'Science'!"

Sorry-science is not a religion no matter how good that would make you feel about your own beliefs without evidence.

"Some day you'll have your 'Evidence,­' "

Ya think? Or ya know? If you know, how do you know?

"....you Scientific Method~ist Evangelica­ls!"

When scientists start proselytizing door to door I won't laugh at that statement any longer.

[ManhattanMC]

09:25 AM on 02/02/2012

"Personally­, I've yet to met one of these alleged "Dogmatic Anti-Scien­­tists."

Look in the mirror guy.

[czs5056]

11:00 AM on 01/29/2012

This article brought to you by the space pope.

[angry pancho]

01:16 AM on 01/29/2012

Evolution would LIKE to have something to say about the origins of life itself; unfortunately, it doesn't. That theory has not yet taken form.

[Mediorite]

09:25 AM on 01/29/2012

Evolution explains the diversity of life, not the origin of life. Theories involving the origin of life fall under the science of abiogenesis.

[jr3k]

01:50 PM on 01/28/2012

Eh, really? That headline is blowing the whole thing out of proportion. Simmer down ppl, simmer down, lol.

[Matthew Scott Musser]

07:59 PM on 01/28/2012

I agree. "Origin of Life Clues Revealed?". Kind of overstates things a bit. But hey that is journalism for you. If they titled it properly "We have figured out part of how simple sugars were first made...oh yeah and they are important for life"...it would not have anyone reading it. I personally love how on every science article like this seems to set off the whole creation v.s. evolution discussion. Simmer down people. It's just a little peak into how things are put together. God could have made it work that if he/she exists and wanted to. I think atheism is getting to be a freaking religion too. The dogma it spews is as bad as orthodox religion.

[Mediorite]

10:32 PM on 01/28/2012

Please give an example of atheist dogma.

[jr3k]

10:23 AM on 01/30/2012

I couldnt agree more. I really dont understand why people automatically think creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive. I am a Catholic myself and quite honestly I dont recall the bible discussing how God created the earth, life etc. Perhaps he used the process of evolution? Same goes for the 7 days... who is to say that 1 day to God is not like 7 million years to us? lol, just food for thought.

[Ronnie Avatar Dixon]

08:14 PM on 01/27/2012

Chemical compounds can be "left-handed" and "right-handed"? o.O

[yintwin]

01:06 AM on 01/28/2012

that's right, the way things are attached to the carbon atom in a molecule, make the molecule rather like a puzzle piece. If all 4 pieces that attach to the carbon are different, then the way they are attached, in 3D, will create 2 different molecules structurally, even if they are made up of exactly the same components. The term used is 'chirality', and they are typically designated as left or right handed. I hope that explanation helps a little bit....not sure if it was clear enough.

[Mediorite]

10:29 AM on 01/28/2012

I learned that from Breaking Bad...

[toxhazzard]

12:40 PM on 01/28/2012

Excellent response-you can also use the concept of right and left hands. Better living through chemistry.

[czs5056]

10:58 AM on 01/29/2012

chirality

[Arlon]

05:48 PM on 01/27/2012

Attention Mediorite! You asked about my biology textbook, but your question lacked a "reply" button. The reply buttons stop after a certain level. The latest biology textbook in my "vast personal library" is "Biology 5th Edition" Campbell, Reece and Mitchell, which I recommend. The graphics are clear that life is complex. It does not take on the polemics of what that means. I do that.

And on the topic here generally, it would be nice to believe people kept up well with things in their fields, it does remain true that many do not keep up well and get stuck in old habits.

[Mediorite]

07:49 PM on 01/27/2012

"The graphics are clear that life is complex. It does not take on the polemics of what that means. I do that."

No offense intended, but you don't do it very well.

[Arlon]

09:22 PM on 01/27/2012

No offense taken. How might I do better? Who does better?

My web sites have "stats" pages that show how many unique visitors there were and that sort of thing. I was wondering what was the big surge in "The Town Voice" in June 2011. I now believe it was the article "Breakdown of the atheist dialectic" on
Examiner.com. Have you read that one?

You never heard of Examiner.com, Have you?

My big surge on Examiner.com came in August 2011 with the article, "Gay rights activists split." Scroll back far enough and you can read it.

[taoistpunk]

05:56 AM on 01/30/2012

"I believe the Intelligen­t Design movement is perfectly scientific­".

and i believe that a statement like this pretty much says as much as you need to know.

[Arlon]

06:31 AM on 01/30/2012

And I believe a statement like yours pretty much says you didn't read page B20.

Did I get that much right?

[drbillybob]

03:31 PM on 01/27/2012

Sorry ... but I don't find this observation to be all that significant. Interesting in its catalytic platform theory ... but most likely not in creating self-replicating life forms.

Almost all pre-biotic evolutionary scientists are looking at nucleic acid templates as the first self-replicating molecules. I'm with them ...

[Mediorite]

04:15 PM on 01/27/2012

Yeah, but there's a good chance that any self-replicating molecules rely on sugars in order to be able to self-replicate.

[DakkonA]

07:29 PM on 01/27/2012

You don't think its an important question as to why one type of sugar is used and not another?

[FreeThinker in AZ]

03:15 PM on 01/27/2012

Science uncovers questions that may never be answered.....

Religion is based on answers that may never be questioned.....

There is nothing wrong with this article not one word..

Science does not attack religion or God...nor does this article...

The bible thumpers are attacking Science...

[Billy2]

04:27 PM on 01/27/2012

Absolutely. And to use a play out of their book: it's completely disrespectful of those people to disparage the work that these scientists have done.

[toxhazzard]

12:42 PM on 01/28/2012

Science is seen as evil by most thumpers and universally ignored-hence their closed minds and voting habits.

[CarmanC]

03:01 PM on 01/27/2012

Still stretching it

Under controlled conditions ...

try near absolute zero of space as one of those conditions ...

and the speed of light at near absolute zero - you can out walk light. So how old is the universe?

[DakkonA]

07:30 PM on 01/27/2012

wtf? Light doesn't slow down with temperature. Given that it is a vacuum, the temperature will be very low anyway. What are you talking about?

[CarmanC]

08:25 AM on 02/01/2012

Time and light operates quite differently than would be supposed by a person in a gravity well that has a certain temperature range.

Be careful on the Constant - light is constant in a straight line under optimal conditions

[toxhazzard]

12:42 PM on 01/28/2012

At last someone who knows physics-NOT

[Qnir]

02:26 PM on 01/27/2012

And the God-Of-The-Gaps has to squeeze into a smaller space. Again. As usual.

[gcomeau]

01:45 PM on 01/27/2012

And knowledge of our world and how it came to be the way it is gets advanced yet another step.

Science: 10,785,982 and counting...
Religion: 0.

Religion can have some respect when it puts one up on the board.

[GirlUsingBrain]

12:34 PM on 01/27/2012

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/642103-doonesbury-sunday-10-july

[HarleyOpenRoad]

12:46 PM on 01/27/2012

Even though I am a Christian, I found that hilarious.

Religion should only be mentioned in public school in a purely historical context. Else we would have teachers who have no clue about spirituality explaining the Bible's Message in those ridiculous terms.

[CanadianSkeptic]

03:54 PM on 01/27/2012

If only all Christians held your enlightened point of view on the subject of religious education.

[wisdom4you]

08:30 AM on 01/28/2012

Harley, you know, I keep telling you, both, that you most certainly are NOT a so called 'christian', and in fact, you do not have the slighest clue where your, what you call a religion, actually comes from, and or for that matter, 'who' actually had started it.

To which you, as all so called 'christians' have not, and, will ever respond to.

Other than you, as all so called 'christians', refuse to admit that you are in fact jews, as all so called christians are. Your buddy there, jc, if he ever did exist, had been a jewish/hebrew rabi, therefore, when you adapt the teaching of a rabi, you are in fact a jew/hebrew; christians are no more than another sect of the hebrews' so called religions beliefs. You so called christians are only arguing with other hebrews, doing, as all so called 'christians' do, being quite determined that everyone should believe your form of judism, thereby, ending the hebrew religion, which is okay if you happen to be a hebrew to start with, but is not okay for us pagans who do not believe in the hebrew, so called, 'religion' to start with.

So would you kindly, and, all of your so called hebrew buddies, STOP TRYING TO CONVERT ME INTO BEING A HEBREW. Or MYB, MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS.

[TheEmptyMonty]

01:00 PM on 01/27/2012

That is so great!

[WestCoastLib]

12:27 PM on 01/27/2012

The Miller-Urey study has been broken down, not by religious crazies but by other scientist seeking to prove life came through the evolutionary process, and called out for its inaccuracies (lets start with the atmospheric conditions of early earth for kicks) and useless findings. So to reference it, and for individuals to act like its a catalyst to build upon, sets science back.

[Mediorite]

12:46 PM on 01/27/2012

The author referenced it, calling the current experiments "reminiscent of" Miller-Urey. There's no indication these researchers are relying on the hypothetical conditions postulated by Miller-Urey.

[McKayla]

02:49 PM on 01/27/2012

Referencing the Miller-Urey while describing scientific advancement is like referring to the world's best new luxury cruise liner's maiden voyage as reminiscent of the Titanic's.

[dstarke61]

02:53 AM on 01/30/2012

The Miller-Urey study show how easy it is to create amino acids out of simple chemicals in conditions they thought existed on the primitive Earth. Since then we have a better idea of what the primitive Earth was like, and it turns out its easy to create amino acids under those conditions as well. Later, it was shown how clay minerals could catalyze DNA formation and how some RNA molecules could reproduce themselves. Subsequent did build upon the Miller-Urey result, transcended that result, and continues in the spirit in which the experiment was done.