Study Suggests Life Sprang From Clay

[Lionel]

Science backed up religion this week in a study that suggests life may have indeed sprung from clay -- just as many faiths teach. A team at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston said they had shown materials in clay were key to some of the initial processes in forming life. Specifically, a clay mixture called montmorillonite not only helps form little bags of fat and liquid but helps cells use genetic material called RNA. That, in turn, is one of the key processes of life. Jack Szostak, Martin Hanczyc and Shelly Fujikawa were building on earlier work that found clays could catalyze the chemical reactions needed to make RNA from building blocks called nucleotides. They found the clay sped along the process by which fatty acids formed little bag-like structures called vesicles. The clay also carried RNA into those vesicles. A cell is, in essence, a complex bag of liquidy compounds.

"Thus, we have demonstrated that not only can clay and other mineral surfaces accelerate vesicle assembly, but assuming that the clay ends up inside at least some of the time, this provides a pathway by which RNA could get into vesicles," Szostak said in a statement Thursday.

View: Full Article | Source: CNN

[AncientLight]

Hmmm , so do they mean we formed inside a lump of clay underground and then just started crawling out of the ground ??

[Engulf]

.......can we then form a pot out of ourselves??

[gonzowalker]

.......can we then form a pot out of ourselves??

[Anirbas]

Right on!!! It's about time they believed!

[weridstuffgirl22]

So they finally believe what the bible says! As it says in Genesis 2 7:8

"And the Lord God formed a man's body from the dust of the ground and

breathed into it the breath of life. And the man became a living person."

So ha ha we are finally starting to accept the bible! God Bless!

[Seraphina]

It's been observed that some of the substances in clay can help cell functions, not create cells itself Don't get too excited yet people. From what I'm reading up there, they're saying it's a natural catalyst, not a building block.

[soulfire78]

It's been observed that some of the substances in clay can help cell functions, not create cells itself  Don't get too excited yet people. From what I'm reading up there, they're saying it's a natural catalyst, not a building block.

Very true. However, it depends on how you look at the old testament. Originally Judaism was an oral tradition, much like many older religions. The old testament was written down after much later than its origins. That means that there may have been mistakes. Especially since it was written down by people.

If you take into account that our human ancestors wouldn't have had any idea that cells were neccessary for life, then it is possible to see how it might be misconstrued that "life came from clay", or that humans were shaped from it. I've read quite a bit on this site alone about genetic memory. Maybe (this is ony a theory) our ancestors--who didn't have the chance to write things down--inherited the memory of life starting as low as clay. Is it probable? who knows? But it is a possibility.

Native american culture--different tribes--have beliefs that they were born of the red clay of the earth. There are even tribes (Navajo or Shoshone?) that don't believe this is the first, or even the second "earth". For them this is either the third or fourth that has come into being, earlier versions having been destroyed because evil people over ran them.

[Seraphina]

lol...genetic memory...please, not this again...

Memory is stored in the brain...not in the genes, not in the cells, and certainly not in prokaryotic cells, which didn't even have a nucliod. Organisms that do not have a brain (ie: single celled organisms) do not have memory (or consciousness for that matter). Nothing can be 'passed on'.

The idea that life began from clay most likely comes from the fact that clay was one of the first substances we humans used to build things. It seems quite logical that they'd come to the conclusion that some kind of divine sculpturer would have created them in the same way they did a statue.

[Kryso]

lol...genetic memory...please, not this again...

Memory is stored in the brain...not in the genes, not in the cells, and certainly not in prokaryotic cells, which didn't even have a nucliod.

If nothing can be passed on, how do you explain incest’s and other animals, that never met their parents (some even die providing new life) and yet these small insects, or animals copy the same traits as their parents, and all other creatures of their kind, who they have never met or leant from.

Example:

The cuckoo - every cuckoo that hatches (without being taught) pushes the other eggs from the nest!

Spiders - when they are born, most instantly flee, to grow up and defend for themselves. Who taught them how to make intricate complicated web designs. Most species of spiders have their particular design, that was never taught, but they copy it (even when never seeing the design before) right down to a perfect replica.

Fish - salmon for example, never meet their parents, are squirted onto a rock or waterweed, then fertilised. Their parents die before they are even born. So how do they know what to do? Never being taught they return once again, at the exact time required to continue the race.

Birds – make long complicated migrations without being taught the journey, and never shown the way.

So I’m afraid (No offence) that I beg to differ.

I studied Zoology for 4 years, and have gone over this topic many times, and I’m afraid your logic has a hole in it – and nature can prove that hole exists.

[Seraphina]

I studied Zoology for 4 years, and have gone over this topic many times, and I’m afraid your logic has a hole in it – and nature can prove that hole exists.

Study harder

We know that genetic information passed on in the genes includes sequences to induce responces to certain situations. It has absolutely nothing to do with memory. Memory is independant from an animal's genes, only affecting them AFTER they have developed. In order for 'memory' to be transfered, the genes of an animal would have to literaly changd with each and every single experience a creature has, not to mention the fact that each and every one of its offspring would be inheriting a different set of 'instructions' as new experiences were had between births.

You can argue the hole in my arguement if you like...however I think you'll find that the sheer lunacy of claiming memory can somehow be magically passed on from parent to child is so illogical, I struggle to understand what you were being taught for those four years

Inborn instincts such as these are passed on just like physical traits from parent to child. Back in the sands of time, certain animals who's brains were wired (due to genetic configuration) to behave in a particular way were better suited to survival than those who were note wired in such a way...as a result, the genes giving these genetic marching orders were passed on, while the creatures that didn't have them were gradualy eliminated.

'Memory' has absolutely nothing to do with it.

[Kryso]

We know that genetic information passed on in the genes includes sequences to induce responces to certain situations. It has absolutely nothing to do with memory.

When you say WE, who is the we?

I studied 4 years and this is what is being taught to future Dr’s in the Zoology field. Maybe you should become a lecturer or teacher, because you seem to know more than all the professors that taught me!

You say the information is passed on in the genes, but surely it would need translating through the brain, or is there another means of controlling a body that we don’t know about? So, the genes to control the future insect (or whatever) is held in the foot? Arm? Or does it hold it in the brain? So, if its genetic, surely it has to originate in the brain, hence, called a memory? Correct me if I’m wrong, I’m sure you will…

Just wondering what you do for a living? Or do you read a lot of journals?

[Seraphina]

I'm a biology student

Basically, what you studied was the live performance of inherited characteristics...I study the 'factory floor' on how they come about, and are passed on.

Correct me if I’m wrong, I’m sure you will…

Gladly But only because you asked so nicely...

So, the genes to control the future insect (or whatever) is held in the foot? Arm? Or does it hold it in the brain?

Every cell in the body of any living creature has the exact same chromosomes as the origonal zygote. The type of cell created is determined by a process that 'activates' genes within a cell, that essentially tell it whether or not to make a liver cell, a brain cell, a skin cell and so on and so forth. Every cell in your body contains these inbuilt traits that cause you to behave in whatever way, they're just only activated in certain centres of the brain. They're there to start with, your brain doesn't add to them.

The sex cells have nothing to do with the brain...unless you think there's a gland in your head producing sperm after loading it up with little tapes of all your life memories They're produced in the testes or ovaries, and contain only half the compliment of chromosomes (the other half being donated by the cell they'll join with to form the zygote).

The genes, except through random mutation that sometimes occurs during cell division (e.g. a mole is caused by mutated skin cells), the genetic information in the origonal zygote is not altered...memory can no more be passed on from parent to child than an amputed arm or a missing tooth you lost in a punch up.

[soulfire78]

Memory is stored in the brain...not in the genes, not in the cells, and certainly not in prokaryotic cells, which didn't even have a nucliod. Organisms that do not have a brain (ie: single celled organisms) do not have memory (or consciousness for that matter). Nothing can be 'passed on'.

If this is completely 100% the case, then how do you explain medical reports of people born without brains? The ones that have IQ's of over 120, that have attended college, and that otherwise live normal lives? The article was posted in the Mind space and time forum. Here's the link LInk Do you have an explanation for this? How were these people able to function at such a high level of education--to which memory would be necessary--if they possessed no brain? Where would their memories be stored?

The truth is, the more we find out about nature, science, and specifically biology, the more we realize we know nothing. We only see the pieces.

[Kryso]

To state what does, or does not originate inside a new beings brain, is pure speculation, and individual interpretation (chromosomes, or not). Because correct me if I’m wrong, but no one can read the electric pulses of the neurons of the brain, and what they hold. (Unless biology has taken a huge step forward since we started this conversation?) So to say that a insect , or human, or anything living that was born, hasn’t got information in their brains (upon birth) is impossible. The brain is one of the most complicated issues still unknown to man. For you to simply state this and that, is pure speculation.

Yes man knows all the names for the different sections of the cells that makes up every living being. But they are no closer to understanding every part those cells play!

And we can argue all night about both our personal interpretations. The only difference is I spent 4 years studying what I call my interpretation, that was taught to myself by numerous professors who excel in their fields. And I have earned the Dr. that comes before my name! With hard research, study and field experience. Which is slightly different from simply reading it from a book, or having a quick look at a site on the web about genes includes sequences, or being a biology STUDENT. (And I also studied biology as part of my course).

So how long have you been studying? And how long have you left?

And quite frankly, when you say study harder, (joke or not) I take offence at that. Maybe you should read more, or study harder. Or if you're stuck, put your hand up and ask the professor a question (not that you give professors much credit!) And I become even more incensed when I notice that I’m being lectured and told to study harder (after I have achieved become a Dr) by a 19 year old! In collage or not!

So you will excuse me but I don’t want to get in trouble with the Moderators, because some teenager winds me up by quoting long paragraphs and using long words to impress me!

[Kryso]

The truth is, the more we find out about nature, science, and specifically biology, the more we realize we know nothing. We only see the pieces.

You couldn’t of hit the nail more on the head, if you ran over it with a steamroller. We can give things long complicated names, but what it comes down to is we know partially nothing about them.

[soulfire78]

<student with an open mind.

One thing to remember in all your studies...everything is based on hypothesis--educated guesses. Theories are specifically meant to be revisited and tested again and again.

Even cellular biology is based in cell theory .

[Seraphina]

I'm not trying to impress you at all, I've just giving my own veiw point in my usual tongue in cheek manner. If your responce is to get huffy and puffy about it, then...Doctor...I shall allow you to live in your short tempered world

While it is true that everything I've said is based on theory...granted, theory based on the most logical and thought out probabilities...yours are the exact same thing. Perhaps you think it's more likely that some magical force allows me to remember experiences the first bacteria had...might be useful

not that you give professors much credit!

You're right, I don't give zoology lecturers much credit if they're telling students something about genetics altogether different from what the genetics lecturers are teaching

If you're going to get angry about it, I won't argue with you. I'm not going to change the world by correcting you, or wondering why a 'doctor' is getting flustered and angry at a mere 'student'. I'm not even going to point out that I'm in University...so please don't degrade me by saying I'm in college, I find THAT insulting

[soulfire78]

I'm not even going to point out that I'm in University...so please don't degrade me by saying I'm in college, I find THAT insulting 

I am in college...so sorry that you find education to be settled into aristocratic domains and that being a "college student " would be considered beneath you.

[Seraphina]

You're in the US, where I don't think there's a difference. Over here, University and college are very different in the level of education, volume of courses, and level of degree you get at the end of them. Don't worry, I wasn't knocking ya From what I can tell, the two are interchangable over there.

[Kryso]

The only thing that flusters me is your attitude, and the way you ‘speak’ as if always talking down to people. And I’m not getting angry, if you interpret my words in that manner, that’s your responsibility.

And yes, my views are also pure speculation, such as those who taught me. But it’s the manner in which you express yourself. If you personally don’t agree with something, you blow it off, and give you high attitude view. You give the impression that your always looking down your nose at people!

And I’m sorry if I have insulted you, it seems only you are allowed that privilege, to insulting others!

[Samarai_Squarepants]

welll...... I' ve always wanted to be a peice of clay

[Seraphina]

And I’m sorry if I have insulted you, it seems only you are allowed that privilege, to insulting others!

Perhaps you're reading a different topic than I am...as I seem to recall, the first direct insult was thrown in by you. True, I was sarcastic...but then again I make a babit of doing so, as I tend to get very bored if all I'm doing it quoting an endless stream of facts.

You also accuse me of being high and mightly, and looking down my nose at people, shortly after using the excuse that you are a doctor, and I am a student, to somehow dismiss my arguement

This began when you threw down a gauntlet...you asked how I explain certain things, I replied...that felt the need to challenge me again, and I replied...and that's when you started yelling

[Kryso]

Perhaps you're reading a different topic than I am...

I don’t remember yelling, only caps Locking one word, to prove a point!

And sarcasm is the lowest from of being insulting. And stating I was a doctor was making a point, not being degrading. I was stating you are still learning, and have much still ahead of you (not meant offensively).

And I don’t believe I was challenging you, simply asking questions, to which you supplied the answers, so how was that challenging?

And the quote I pasted from you, just proves my point – you are condescending and rude!

[Seraphina]

Dude, just look at what it says on my sig, that's the nature of the beast

And if you're not trying to yell, perhaps you could explain the dramatic rise in the number of exclaimation marks in your last few posts?

Which is slightly different from simply reading it from a book, or having a quick look at a site on the web about genes includes sequences, or being a biology STUDENT.

So that's you not trying to degrade me in some kind of high and mighty way? I'm glad we cleared that up

You're looking for reasons to attack me, and obviously not thinking them through very well. For whatever reason, the fact that this mere student (of biology and genetics) is not throwing herself at the feet of a doctor (of zoology) and not giving in to his theory (on genetics) has struck a rather sensative nerve