Notices
Results 1 to 30 of 30

Thread: The origon of life

  1. #1 The origon of life 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    213
    If you rewind evolution everything origonates from bacteria. Many would ask then how did bacteria come about? What are your thoughts.


    I would say genetic material came from space, via metiorite, etc.

    Nongenetic material was formed into genetic material by outside physical forces acting with pure chance through thousands of years of oppurtunity. As in the right chemicals coming together at the right place at the right time and chemically bonding to make genetic material.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    Fail.

    Not everything originates from bacteria.


    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore schiz0yd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Warwick, RI
    Posts
    171
    from what i learned in my bio II class, life is a result of a chemistry 'accident' that created what we know as metabolism: a process that takes in matter, breaks it down and gives off waste and began repeating itself by chance through the life-supporting relationship of fats, carbs and amino acids. however, even getting to that stage is through evolution, as a metabolism must first evolve enzymes and harness the ingredients for polymers (dna, protein) to work right. it is broken down into catabolism, the process that breaks down matter and converts it to energy, and anabolism, the part that uses resources from food to create things such as proteins and other building blocks of the body. from there, single-celled organisms came about by sustaining their existence through feeding off of what the metabolism broke down from its 'food'. in a sense you could look at most of your body as a collection of symbiotic life forms, reproducing every time a human does. our life form is really only our brain, and every other cell in the body is a symbiotic life form under the umbrella of our control. anyway, the metabolism process could have been initially caused by undersea vents, mixing high-energy chemicals with water (the main ingredient in life) and coming out with, in simple terms, a chemical reaction that causes a chain reaction. every time life reproduces is a repetition of the same chemical reaction that first started it all, but with whatever modifications made them more dominant and 'fit' ('fitness' is actually a species ability to reproduce, not exercise).

    metabolism is all well and great, but to continue to answer your question, where did metabolism come from? the 'primordial soup' theory is that after oceans developed on earth, the atmosphere was a 'redox' atmosphere, meaning that the random energies of wind and gravity and other various sources of energy caused the elements in the atmosphere to combine and make organic compounds, or monomers (monomor: compound that can join with others of its kind ot create polymers like protein. e.g. amino acids). these monomers weighed themselves down into the ocean and through a long period of time and energies (likely including the super-heat of undersea vents) mixing these monomers with the additional compounds of the primordial soup created random chemical reactions that involved polymers until finally, one of them (metabolism) harnessed the ability for polymers, which are naturally patterned and repetetive, to create a pattern that would cause a chain of reactions to happen the same way every time, otherwise known today as DNA. DNA is reactive with RNA, and the patterned structure of DNA causes RNA to have the same reaction every time it encounters the same DNA (transcription). in a cell, the DNA congregates naturally into chromosomes, made of chromatin. eventually, as life was still finding its bearings, cells mutated to cause chomatin to condense under certain circumstances. when this happens, transcription is no longer possible as they are now too compacted to act as accessable information, and instead gained the function of compact transportation of information. in this compact form, evolution continued until a mutation caused two of them to form a four-armed structure, making them chromatids. continued mutation resulted in microtubules connecting to the center, or the centromere, and slowly yanking the structure apart, turning the chromatids into 'daughter chromosomes' which have now each received one set of chromatids from the other. this is the mixing and division of DNA, and soon after the entire cells follow suit and divide as the individual sets of DNA begin direction of polymers in construction of their own respective single-cells.

    single cells went on to form communities, mutating and growing unimaginable 'bodies' from random mutation. eventually a cell mutation that caused the growth of the nucleus was able to reproduce effectively, and the continued process of that mutation resulted the advancement of intelligence(or recognition of patterns), and coupled with billions of years of random physical mutation, you have today's life forms. metabolisms allianced with polymers and suited with the most useful genetic mutations that allowed them to reproduce up to this point.

    great scott. forgive me, i'm on adderall. i hope i answered your question somewhere.
    I prefer to use my right brain to study the universe rather than my left brain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Junior newnothing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    226
    Everything started from the Big Bang. What, where, when and how the Big Bang happened no one can answer. So you're here now and wondering how you became what you are today. We're just an insignificant particle of the universe. So what is the purpose of life? It maybe just pure accident like what schiz0yd mentioned. Or maybe there is a reason to be here.
    ~ One’s ultimate perfection depends on the development of all the members of society ~ Kabbalah
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by newnothing
    Everything started from the Big Bang. What, where, when and how the Big Bang happened no one can answer. So you're here now and wondering how you became what you are today. We're just an insignificant particle of the universe. So what is the purpose of life? It maybe just pure accident like what schiz0yd mentioned. Or maybe there is a reason to be here.
    You don't need to invoke the big bang to explain where life came from any more than you need it to explain any other chemical reaction. As to the what, where how and when of the big bang, you're quite incorrect. We know when it happened (about 14 billion years ago) and what it was (a rapid expansion of all known matter from a single point). The how is a bit fuzzier but not beyond our ability to explain and the where is not really relevant by our current understanding of the event.

    As to life being an accident, that word in itself suggests the potential for intent or purpose absent in this event. Chemical reactions happen in a manner consistent with the laws of nature. Those laws are purposeless and so accident cannot occur. Meaning and purpose as we conventionally use them are not concepts applicable to abiogenesis or other reactions as they imply the presence of a conscious agent capable of having such purpose or meaning.

    The exact origin of life is not conclusively known but there are a number of very plausible hypotheses which are subject to research. One good general hypothesis is explained neatly in this YouTube video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYT...D7AADB&index=3

    There are others of course, but this is the best explained example I've seen to date.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman dickies994's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    31
    It is a pretty tough story to follow there are a lot of ideas suggesting that we are ourselves may be alien brought here from somewhere else through series of cosmic events. Possibly the building blocks where already present on earth when it formed. In part it comes down to how far do you want to dig back? You could go back all the way to stars creating all the elements that are needed as a byproduct of fusion. There really is no solid concrete answer, all we can do is to try and understand all the possibilities better to see how they interact with one another and which ones are not relevant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by dickies994
    It is a pretty tough story to follow there are a lot of ideas suggesting that we are ourselves may be alien brought here from somewhere else through series of cosmic events. Possibly the building blocks where already present on earth when it formed. In part it comes down to how far do you want to dig back? You could go back all the way to stars creating all the elements that are needed as a byproduct of fusion. There really is no solid concrete answer, all we can do is to try and understand all the possibilities better to see how they interact with one another and which ones are not relevant.
    I think the case for abiogenesis on Earth is fairly strong. We don't have a definite answer, but it's not beyond our grasp and it certainly won't require that we go as far as the big bang to verify or falsify that hypothesis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    180
    The case is not strong biologista. There is no well accepted theory among scientists for the initiation of life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge1907
    The case is not strong biologista. There is no well accepted theory among scientists for the initiation of life.
    There are several plausible hypotheses, as I've said. There doesn't seem to be any particular need to invoke panspermia or the like for the time being. Earth had the materials and the time, so abiogenesis on Earth (albeit without a specific mechanism) is considered by biologists to be by far the most likely origin of life. Other ideas might gain more acceptance if the Earth-based hypotheses are falsified.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    213
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    Fail.

    Not everything originates from bacteria.


    Ignorant nonsensible correction robots like you hold science back.

    READ THE POST FIRST! That was not what we would call the "main idea" it is like back in 3rd grade, you know when everyone surpassed you because they possed common sense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Raymond K
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    Fail.

    Not everything originates from bacteria.


    Ignorant nonsensible correction robots like you hold science back.

    READ THE POST FIRST! That was not what we would call the "main idea" it is like back in 3rd grade, you know when everyone surpassed you because they possed common sense.
    Raymond, one of the few rules I'm a stickler about is no personal comments in discussion threads. If Spurious was wrong about what you stated then explain to him how he was wrong, don't resort to insults. And I have to point out, the very first sentence in your OP was:

    Quote Originally Posted by Raymond K
    If you rewind evolution everything origonates from bacteria.
    If that is not what you meant, then explain what you did mean.

    /moderator mode
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman dickies994's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge1907
    The case is not strong biologista. There is no well accepted theory among scientists for the initiation of life.
    It is def the strongest one that we have to go with at the time being
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Raymond K
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    Fail.

    Not everything originates from bacteria.


    Ignorant nonsensible correction robots like you hold science back.

    READ THE POST FIRST! That was not what we would call the "main idea" it is like back in 3rd grade, you know when everyone surpassed you because they possed common sense.
    Thank you very much for your insight.

    Anyhoo, bacteria is just one group of prokaryotes.

    Everything originated from LUCA.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    180
    Wrong biologista.
    Plausible? A highly subjective determination on your part and hardly sufficent to limit potentail explanations.
    Bottom line - as i said - there is no well accepted theory for the origin of life. A Millerite explanation has no more justiifcation than aliens at this point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    Define well accepted.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    if i throw a stone in a well, then it is well-accepted, unless the well spits it out again
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    What if the stone sinks into the abyss?
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge1907
    Wrong biologista.
    Plausible? A highly subjective determination on your part and hardly sufficent to limit potentail explanations.
    Bottom line - as i said - there is no well accepted theory for the origin of life. A Millerite explanation has no more justiifcation than aliens at this point.
    Did you do a poll of biologists or something? Again, I'm not arguing that there's a "well accepted theory", though mostly because theory would be the wrong word. Whenever I talk to my colleagues about the origin of life, they invariably talk about hypotheses like the RNA world hypothesis and other variants of Earth-based abiogenesis. Panspermia is certainly possible, but not our first consideration by a long shot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    If it is any help; I have accepted the 'theories'.

    I am a biologist.


    (Accepted in a scientific manner of course)
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    If it is any help; I have accepted the 'theories'.

    I am a biologist.


    (Accepted in a scientific manner of course)
    Not good enough. I want you to believe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    If it is any help; I have accepted the 'theories'.

    I am a biologist.
    Well, well, well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    You have to realize of course that as a biologist I am willing to throw out any baby, with the arrival of a new baby that smells better..
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman dickies994's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    31
    abiogenesis and the ideas of primordial soup may not be accepted by all scientist but i think that it is the most widely taught explanation at the moment which says something for it. It is a work in progress and it is our job to work towards understanding it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    180
    Widely taught - to that extent, it's because there's not a better explanation. Doesn't mean anything about it's accuracy. This is science is an experimental process, not one of "it's the best idea I could come up with so it must be true."
    Be happy to see the data being developed for your alleged "work in progress." Your job - so what are you doing for your job, dickies?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge1907
    Widely taught - to that extent, it's because there's not a better explanation. Doesn't mean anything about it's accuracy.
    Sure, but that's not being dismissed in our acceptance of Earth based abiogenesis as the most plausible working hypothesis. We know it's not theory- it's just the most plausible model we currently have. Which is what I was saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge1907
    This is science is an experimental process, not one of "it's the best idea I could come up with so it must be true."
    Who here is claiming it to be true?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge1907
    Be happy to see the data being developed for your alleged "work in progress." Your job - so what are you doing for your job, dickies?
    If he works as a janitor, will that make you right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Jorge, dickies' job is not important to this discussion. No personal stuff, please. Stay on topic.
    /moderator mode
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    An apparently belligerent remark from jorges
    Quote Originally Posted by jorges
    Your job - so what are you doing for your job, dickies?
    Was interepreted as such by two forum notables
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    Jorge, dickies' job is not important to this discussion.
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    If he works as a janitor, will that make you right?
    Yet is was simply a reasonable request to dickies original statement.
    Quote Originally Posted by dickies994
    It is a work in progress and it is our job to work towards understanding it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    An apparently belligerent remark from jorges
    Quote Originally Posted by jorges
    Your job - so what are you doing for your job, dickies?
    Was interepreted as such by two forum notables
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    Jorge, dickies' job is not important to this discussion.
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    If he works as a janitor, will that make you right?
    Yet is was simply a reasonable request to dickies original statement.
    Quote Originally Posted by dickies994
    It is a work in progress and it is our job to work towards understanding it better.
    An interesting point, John, but if we were to jump down the throats of every member on this forum who said "we" or "us" or "our" when referring to scientific advancement in general, we would be interrogating a lot of people about what their jobs actually are. Again, let's please go back to the topic at hand. Any further comments in this vein will be removed.
    /moderator mode
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Off-topic content removed.
    Paralith


    On topic, the late John Maynard Smith gave a really interesting take on the origin of life in a lecture called (of course) Origin of Life. It's about an hour long and is probably on YouTube, but I won't link it here as I'm not certain of its copyright status. He introduces the concept of reproduction in chemical reactions and explains how life differs from reactions which merely spread or catalyse more reactions. He also touches on how information theory meets genetics. Smith has a very engaging presentation style, though his choice of intro music left a lot to be desired
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Off-topic content removed.
    Paralith
    Oops. Sorry boss
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •