Abiogenesis (life from non-life) duplicated in lab.

[westerby]

The biology teacher has a point, Uncle Tilo. If this discovery is that good, we may see it as a contender for a Nobel prize.

[Roy]

Tilo, how do you think people that do not work in the field, such as myself, found out about this?
Maybe internet and TV??? And you may note I made a post regarding this on another thread well before Michael C started this one.
As for the Noble Prize, I would be surprised if its not the winner.
What does the Biology Teacher want, a full grown chimp from a lump of sugar in 5 minutes? David Copperfield might be able to do but it took nature 4 billion years!

[Laan Yaa Mo]

Khun Roy, I was not aware that you had started a thread about this previously, consequently, I have been only responding to what was posted here.

MC stated something along the lines of 'today...blah blah blah...' thus, I checked the local newspaper and found no mention of the study, which seemed odd.

I asked the biology teacher because I do not know much about science, but was intrigued by the thread title and the substance of MC's arguments.

The biology teacher pointed out that the discovery was important; however, it was about the creation of an RNA molecule, not the creation of life from non-life although it was a step toward that goal.

Therefore, the title of the thread seems to be wrong which lends some credence to BKKSTAN's remarks.

The biology teacher was expecting nothing like 'instant life' except news of what I had told him the day before - that men of science had discovered how to duplicate life from non-life. He was surprised and asked to see the article, which I showed him today. This is when he pointed out the heading was wrong.

I will repeat the point the biology teacher made, an RNA molecule was duplicated, not life. What does the title of the thread say?

That's it.

[Michael C]

The earlier two posts with abstracts and accompanying news stories fit together in the explanation of the thread title. The second post: self-sustaining replication of an RNA enzyme, is the actual life within RNA enzymes, which was important but meaningless in the explanation of abiogenesis without the first post: synthesis of RNA molecules. Life was actually synthesised in the lab in the second post, but it was unknown concerning what chemical reactions had taken place in order for RNA to come into existence in the first place (explained in the original post). Both of these important discoveries were made this year within months of each other. In the original post we have the first important step in life and in the second post is life itself. Now all the steps are in place to give us the complete explanation of life. That does not mean there is much more to learn about it, but makes this explanation of Abiogenesis more than a mere hypothesis.

Hope that this now explains the title of the thread; although, maybe I should have put the two items together for greater clarity in the original post instead of adding it the next day, because the second post actually fits the thread title better. The date on the New York Times article was 13 May 2009, under science.

[westerby]

That does not mean there is much more to learn about it, but makes this explanation of Abiogenesis more than a mere hypothesis.

I see, what your saying is that it's just the next step. Science rarely has light bulb illuminating discoveries (Fleming and penicillin), rather discoveries are cracked a bit at a time until the whole picture emerges.