Tks
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2019
- Messages
- 3,221
- Likes
- 5,500
One thing that science struggles to answer is how the first self-perpetuating organism came into existence. If formation of life was purely a material affair, there must have been some self-assembly process that took place during the formation of the first organism.
Scientists pursue this question/answer in a number of ways. One approach is to take a very simple organism known and starting deleting its genes. Soon you'll get to point where you've identified genes absolutely essential for the survival and perpetuation of that organism. The hope is one day you'll get to a point where you've recreated the ground zero organism. Then maybe you could possibly replicate the conditions required for abiogenesis.
Right now, the simplest organism still has at least 400 genes. This is an incredibly complex organism and cannot be explained by any self-assembly mechanism we currently know. Moreover, a self-replicating organism requires both genetic material (DNA) and molecular machinery (proteins) in order to replicate the genetic material. As far as we know, DNA and proteins are inextricably tied. DNA encodes proteins but proteins are required for DNA replication. It becomes a chicken or the egg type of dilemma.
That's why there are many scientists who believe the first biopolymer was RNA. RNA can store genetic information like DNA but can also catalyze reactions like proteins. To my knowledge, no self-replicating RNA has been discovered.
Disregarding the non addressing of my request for the Nobel Prize winners in question..
I don't understand what it is you're trying to imply here. There are multiple theories because no one is 100% sure without a shadow of a doubt, yes that is the current standing situation..
I don't understand either what defintion of "self replicating organism" you're actually using, as nothing in of itself is "self replicating" in a vacuum. There need not be any of the modern day notions of "self replication" because even this replication we see today is highly dependent on many external factors. Likewise with the replication of RNA, it need not have been strictly an interaction as you would imagine today, multiple hypothesis exist that have merit as pointed out in the link I provided. Also, we already have replicated the creation of RNA from simply chemicals in a lab, to which very few contest would be impossible on Earth naturally. But there are multiple hypothesis as I've said, and you can read about in that link if it's to your fancy that address the whole "self replication" ordeal you're concerned with.
One thing that gave me pause though.. is your statement with the following wording though:
"If formation of life was purely a material affair"
I just have to ask.. as opposed to what if it weren't a material affair? What competing hypothesis is more sound than any of the material ones? Or better yet, what event in reality has ever been scientifically demonstrated to be the case outside of "material affair"?
I understand there aren't answers to some things in the current world we live in. But that is a far cry from what your first post was stating.