Clay is a way for the competing notions of abiogenesis to meet:
The hypothesized RNA-based world would have required the presence of a protected environment in which RNA, or an RNA-like molecule, could originate and express its biological activity. Recent studies have indicated that RNA molecules adsorbed/bound on clay minerals are able to persist in the presence of degrading agents, to interact with surrounding molecules, and to transmit the information contained in their nucleotide sequences. In this study, we assessed the ability of RNA molecules with catalytic activity to perform a specific reaction in a mineral environment.
For this purpose, we investigated the self-cleavage reaction of the hammerhead ribozyme of the Avocado Sun Blotch Viroid (ASBVd), both in the monomeric and in dimeric forms. The monomeric transcript was tightly bound on the clay mineral montmorillonite to form a stable complex, while the behaviour of the dimeric transcript was studied in the presence of the clay particles in the reaction mixture. The results indicated that the hammerhead ribozyme was still active when the monomeric transcript was adsorbed on the clay surface, even though its efficiency was reduced to about 20% of that in solution. Moreover, the self-cleavage of clay-adsorbed molecule was significantly enhanced ( approximately four times) by the presence of the 5′ reaction product. The self-cleavage reaction of the dimeric transcript in the presence of montmorillonite indicated that the mineral particles protected the RNA molecules against aspecific degradation and increased the rate of cleavage kinetics by about one order of magnitude.
These findings corroborate the hypothesis that clay-rich environments would have been a good habitat in which RNA or RNA-like molecules could originate, accumulate and undergo Darwinian evolutionary processes, leading to the first living cells on Earth.
Clay makes a superb cradle for the ribozymes of the RNA world hypothesis—RNA and clay, not lipid.
Jonathan,
This is a nice recovery after the stock market E/P post fiasco.
Very egghead, no one will know what the hell it’s about and sure won’t be correcting it.
You rule.
They didn’t adsorb … even if the NIH link says they did … try absorb.
But that said, the conclusion is they didn’t die, not that it was a good growing medium. But it wasn’t inhospitable, so .
Thanks for the link, but Science Direct usually has better pics.
What’s cool about Jonathan is that he’s a first-order egghead in a cutting-edge science field where reason rules, and he ventures into economics and finance.
The finance peeps are all like, “Dude, you’re so lame! You don’t even get it!”, but they are prime examples of the clear-only-if-known fallacy. Economics is weak science, liberally sprinkled with necromancy, psychology, and shibboleths. All the spouters have been drenched in the lingo and conventional wisdom since before they can remember, and they are incapable of appreciating how insane they sometimes sound.
Hat off to Jonathan for, on occasion, trying to puzzle his way through the swamp, and to lead us to firmer footing
I do also enjoy and appreciate the after-the-fact corrections and fine tuning of the financial propeller-heads.
“Adsorb” is a word, WiS, and it’s distinct from “absorb.”
2
Will,
the study is not about what a prick you are, although that is what the reader must conclude from your post.
When are you guys going to make smooches?
I don’t know, Fisti.
It’s a good question.
Hey, Will ignored his critics when he was incapable of responding to them! Imagine that!