Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Fake Banner
By Michael Windelspecht | January 15th 2009 07:25 PM | 5 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
.

More Ricochet Science articles

All

About Michael Windelspecht

I am a science writer for Ricochet Productions LLC and the author of several books on the history of science, the human body, and genetics.

Visit


... Full Bio

While the scientific community, and most of the intelligent world, has widely accepted that the theory of natural selection is underlying mechanism of organic evolution, until recently our studies of evolutionary processes have been confined to the examples from a small plant orbiting an insignificant star in a mid-sized galaxy. From this limited viewpoint we know that evolution is intimately connected with life... but as scientists, we would love to expand the reaches of our database.

The study of synthetic biology was until recently a theoretical science. Engineers, biochemists, and geneticists proposed mechanisms by which molecules and cells could evolve the basic characteristics of life through pathways other than those found on Earth. However, in recent the study of synthetic biology has progressed from a theoretical to an applied science. For example, we already know that it is possible to change the structure of the genetic code in the laboratory (see "Synthetic Life Makes Synthetic Proteins").

Now, researchers at the Scripps Research Institute have demonstrated that RNA molecules can evolve the ability to increase replication efficiency in the lab (see "Artificial Molecules Evolve in the Lab"). Each of these steps brings us one step closer to truly understanding life.

There is little doubt that the work of the researchers at the Scripps Research Institute demonstrates an evolutionary process. However, some will still argue that this is just another lab-based example of evolution, and that we don't really know for sure that the system demonstrated in the lab would work in the "natural" environment.

The true test of whether synthetic biology is a viable demonstration of natural selection will only come when we finally get a glimpse of proto-life on other planets and moons. Europa, Titan, maybe even Mars, may hold "snapshots" of how early chemical evolution occurred.

For too long biologists have focused simply on life on this planet. If we truly want to understand evolution and life, we need to start expanding our horizons.

Comments

adaptivecomplexity's picture
However, some will still argue that this is just another lab-based example of evolution,

That argument will ring hollow once researchers can generate live cells de novo from non-living components. Self-replicating RNA and Jack Szostak's proto-cells don't quite make that step, obviously. Once that step is made, it will be much harder for people to argue that life can't evolve from non-life. If it can happen in the lab, then it can happen under the right conditions in nature.

But I agree with you that the searching for life on other planets could be interesting (if it's successful), and it has the potential to test the generality of some of our ideas about evolution.


ricochet17's picture
I agree completely Michael, I see no problem in using lab based simulations to predict evolutionary trends, but then again my work was on the evolutionary genetics of Drosophila, so I am somewhat biased! So what we need is undeniable evidence, and that, I believe, can only be found elsewhere in the solar system.

Lab models surely can give some insights into how evolution has worked over billions of year. For that matter, I even think computer simulations can give considerable insight to natural evolution (check out "Artificial Life" by Steven Levy, amazing book). The simple explanation of completely random mutations and simple "survival of the fittest" never seemed like the best way to characterize evolution to me, and it should be obvious that something much more complex is going on in terms of how it actually works.

On the topic of alien life, I see it as unlikely for us to find life so close to home given the restrictions on its origins. While evolution allows life to adapt to many harsh conditions (mind you, "harsh" is a very subjective term, relative to a species' experience), the constraints on the origin of life seem to be great.

ricochet17's picture
good points. I never meant it to sounds as if I don't agree with lab-based simulations of evolution - the majority of my own research has been lab-based. My point was meant to be that critics of evolution have often pointed at lab versus natural models (not that this is a valid point!).

As for alien life... I believe that we should be looking for proto-life .... examples of evolutionary processes frozen in time on some of the moons of the solar system. These discoveries would really assist in the development of robust evolutionary studies.


Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.