Theoretical origin of life: Miller-Urey redone (Introduction)

by David Turell , Thursday, October 08, 2015, 14:13 (3115 days ago) @ David Turell

Still with lots of lab manipulation a minor success with E. coli growth. How that helps origin-of-life theories is not obvious:-http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2015/10/05/the_primordial_soup_was_edible_109402.html-"Back in 2005, when I was a first-year microbiology graduate student, I enrolled in a course on bacterial physiology. One of our guest lecturers, Dr. Franklin Harold, was an esteemed researcher in bioenergetics, a field that examines how cells derive and utilize energy. One evening, outside of class, I happened upon Dr. Harold at a seminar, and I asked him a question: "What is your opinion on origin of life research?"-"He responded, "It has been an abject failure."
 
"Ten years later, it is still difficult to argue with him. A brief survey of the Wikipedia entry on abiogenesis reveals about 20 different theories and explanations for how non-living matter can evolve into metabolizing lifeforms, ranging from the plausible (RNA World) to the patently ridiculous (panspermia). Put simply, a field with so many different interpretations is wandering lost in the long grass. Any sort of hint at the truth, therefore, is a welcome discovery. Such a hint, albeit a small one, may have been uncovered by new research that has been published in Scientific Reports.-"Their finding definitely supports the notion that the Miller-Urey gunk can support life. But, there are three major caveats:-"First, the researchers still had to add inorganic salts (containing ions such as potassium, magnesium, and calcium) in order for the bacteria to grow. Second, it is debatable whether removing toxic molecules, such as cyanide, is legitimate. Finally, their experiment does nothing to solve the biggest questions of all: How did complex molecules form (e.g., DNA), and how did life evolve?-"The answers to those questions remain as murky as the Miller-Urey goo."