[HN Gopher] New study sheds light on how amino acids "evolved"
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       New study sheds light on how amino acids "evolved"
        
       Author : Amorymeltzer
       Score  : 59 points
       Date   : 2023-04-10 15:29 UTC (7 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.salon.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.salon.com)
        
       | galaxytachyon wrote:
       | Ah the ages old debate about which was the beginning of it all:
       | DNA, RNA, or protein.
       | 
       | My favorite superhero fight, or the very first "my origin of life
       | can beat your origin of life" discussion. How fun.
        
       | singeezie wrote:
       | Man I been always so fascinated by the Miller-Urey experiment.
       | Ever since I learned about it on YouTube over a decade ago, I
       | went on a PBS binge on evolution and science shows even though I
       | have no formal education only high school. Anyways I found this
       | article fascinating.
       | 
       | It discusses the mystery of how life emerged on Earth, and how
       | scientists have some theories about how complex cellular life was
       | generated around 3.7 billion years ago. Scientists believe that
       | amino acids existed in great abundance in the Earth's early years
       | and contributed to the creation of the first cell. Experiments,
       | such as my favorite lol "Miller-Urey Experiment", simulate the
       | conditions of Earth's early atmosphere and have produced organic
       | compounds such as amino acids. Proteins are the building blocks
       | of all living organisms, and understanding how they formed is
       | crucial to understanding how life started. Although hundreds of
       | different amino acids may have been present on the early Earth,
       | all living things rely on only about 20 of these compounds. It's
       | Science man...:)
        
       | phkahler wrote:
       | So how did they replicate, and what was the selection process?
        
         | galaxytachyon wrote:
         | They stitched 25 random amino acids together and then assess
         | the resulting polymer for solubility and foldability.
         | Solubility requirement is self explanatory, can't have life
         | that is insoluble in water. Foldability is basically how likely
         | for these polymers to entangle and collapse on itself. This is
         | critical because protein folding depends on this process to
         | generate highly compact and dense atomic machineries.
         | 
         | They find out stuff that are too soluble can't fold well
         | because they prefer water over other amino acid. And that seems
         | to exert a selection pressure, ending up with a specific set of
         | amino acids that life depends on.
        
           | yyyk wrote:
           | >Solubility requirement is self explanatory, can't have life
           | that is insoluble in water. Foldability... is critical
           | because protein folding depends on this process to generate
           | highly compact and dense atomic machineries.
           | 
           | That's a teleological fallacy. Evolution doesn't have a
           | destination, therefore you can't assume the evolution
           | criteria from the end result only. Imagine looking at all of
           | life, adding a 'resulting in human life' criteria and
           | therefore completely failing to understand the evolution of
           | avians.
           | 
           | If the authors want to argue amino acids 'evolved', they need
           | criteria that make sense for amino acids in early Earth
           | environment and not assume the result.
        
             | galaxytachyon wrote:
             | Not sure what part are you arguing although I get the
             | general gist. Still, to make sure I don't misinterpret you,
             | can you expand a bit on which part of those requirements
             | are teleological fallacy?
             | 
             | The context is for life on earth. All life on earth depends
             | on proteins that are (mostly) soluble in water and almost
             | all protein requires folding to be functional. It is a
             | valid hypothesis to say solubility and foldability are
             | necessary criteria. Then they tested it and found based on
             | these criteria, the current set of amino acids is favored
             | over other sets. Look like good science to me.
        
               | yyyk wrote:
               | >It is a valid hypothesis to say solubility and
               | foldability are necessary criteria.
               | 
               | Necessary criteria for _life_ , yes. Is it neccesary for
               | _evolution_? The article 's argument is that amino acids
               | 'evolved'. Evolution needs a selection mechanism, and the
               | article does not explain why evolution would favour
               | solubility and foldability, so the article* doesn't come
               | close to proving evolution happened much less explaining
               | its details. Perhaps some other unexplained chemical
               | process favoured these acids, or it was an accident.
               | 
               | It's like looking at current status of biosphere, and
               | concluding that life optimizes for insectoids because
               | insects have the largest biomass. It's just an argument
               | that assumes the result.
               | 
               | * Perhaps the article is bad reporting and the reported
               | study had an actual argument for this.
        
               | galaxytachyon wrote:
               | I see, the actual scientific paper is always a much
               | better source for this stuff than a popsci article.
               | 
               | The term "evolution" was used very loosely in the salon
               | article. By your standard it would be more appropriate to
               | call the process "selection". The amino acids never
               | changes or evolved to become anything different, just
               | that some were chosen to become the building blocks of
               | life while others were ignored. The reasons for this
               | selection were likely the two criteria mentioned above
               | and that was backed up by the main study.
               | 
               | You will notice I never used "evolution" to describe the
               | process in my posts. I skipped the salon article entirely
               | and only used the link they provided to read the real
               | study so I didn't notice what they said in the salon
               | page. Anyway, it is just some semantic stuff.
        
           | anonymouskimmer wrote:
           | I wonder how this selection process varied as proteins
           | started mixing, or even bonding, with lipids and sugars.
           | Probably not that much, though those processes may have
           | allowed the gradual inclusion of the other amino acids.
        
         | pneumonic wrote:
         | Selection is what the article describes (solubility and
         | structure). They don't claim that they reproduced; they're just
         | talking about amino acids that come about by non-reproductive
         | chemical processes.
        
         | jonnycat wrote:
         | Forgive the plug, but I just wrote up a post[1] on simulating
         | Hypercycles, which are a model showing how self-replication
         | behaviors can emerge through the interactions of simple
         | molecules. Not to say that they are _the_ mechanism, but are an
         | interesting model for exploring emergent behaviors and the
         | conditions under which self-replicating systems can arise.
         | 
         | [1] https://blog.devgenius.io/origins-of-life-building-a-
         | hypercy...
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-04-10 23:01 UTC)