Abiogenesis Questions

[leftrightleftrightleft]

This question popped into my head when I was reading through that other thread about abiogenesis. The other thread was talking about re-creating the conditions of the early Earth to mimic life.

I have a few questions:

What is it about our modern Earth that stops abiogenesis from taking place today?

Could abiogenesis still be occurring at hydrothermal vents as we speak?

Have any scientists taken samples from hydrothermal vents or other geothermal areas to see if they see proto-DNA or some other self-replicating molecule that is some precursor to life as we know it?

If abiogenesis happened in the past, it does not seem too much of a stretch to assume it could be happening in the present or that it could happen in the future, right?

 

[PsychoSarah]

The process itself just might be difficult to observe outside of a lab setting, or could be disrupted by taking samples out of the conducive environment. As for that process occurring now, it is hard to say whether or not the modern earth has the environmental conditions that would allow for it to happen, it probably does. The only thing I can imagine that might prevent it is the fact that such simple life wouldn't be able to compete with the more complex life of modern earth and develop fully. With bacteria breaking down proteins and other molecules in nature, they might be preventing it.

 

[Golden Yak]

I have a few questions:

What is it about our modern Earth that stops abiogenesis from taking place today?

As I understand it, every region capable of supporting life is already teeming with life, even if it's very simple. That life would consume any resources that might otherwise be capable of starting abiogenesis.

I imagine it'd be very difficult to locate a region that is suitable while also keeping it from being contaminated.

Could abiogenesis still be occurring at hydrothermal vents as we speak?

Pretty sure those are also already absolutely teeming with life.

Have any scientists taken samples from hydrothermal vents or other geothermal areas to see if they see proto-DNA or some other self-replicating molecule that is some precursor to life as we know it?

Couldn't tell you that.

If abiogenesis happened in the past, it does not seem too much of a stretch to assume it could be happening in the present or that it could happen in the future, right?

I'd agree with that. It just might not be able to happen on Earth anymore, since life's e'rywhere.

I also don't know what kind of time is involved in an abiogenesis event. For all I know it could take centuries of chemical reactions to produce something we'd recognize as life. Even if you could find a suitable spot in nature, watching as abiogenesis unfolds might not be feasible.

 

[ChetSinger]

I have a few questions:

What is it about our modern Earth that stops abiogenesis from taking place today?

As I see it, there are at least three requirements that must be met. A first is the presence of the proper raw materials, less contaminants that destroy them. A second is their organization into functional units that actually do something. A third is the chicken-and-egg problem regarding DNA and their proteins. And the end result has to be a functioning cell, because that's the simplest thing we call "alive". I don't see how numbers 2 and 3 can ever be solved without intelligent assistance.

Could abiogenesis still be occurring at hydrothermal vents as we speak?

I doubt it, because I think the presence of energy and raw materials is the simplest part of the problem to solve.

Have any scientists taken samples from hydrothermal vents or other geothermal areas to see if they see proto-DNA or some other self-replicating molecule that is some precursor to life as we know it?

Not that I've heard of.

If abiogenesis happened in the past, it does not seem too much of a stretch to assume it could be happening in the present or that it could happen in the future, right?

When you realize what the end product must be, I think it's very much a stretch.

 

[Loudmouth]

What is it about our modern Earth that stops abiogenesis from taking place today?

If you have ever worked in a lab, then you would understand just how important good water is. When you are working with RNA, you can't just use normal old tap water. Why? It is filled with RNases, tough little enzymes created by life that breaks down RNA. The whole planet is full of this stuff.

Over the last 3.5 billion years, evolution has honed life into the equivalent of an F1 racer. New life has as much a chance as a 3 year old on a tricycle at a drag strip.

Could abiogenesis still be occurring at hydrothermal vents as we speak?

Without being eaten by the filter feeders that swarm around them? Highly doubtful.

Have any scientists taken samples from hydrothermal vents or other geothermal areas to see if they see proto-DNA or some other self-replicating molecule that is some precursor to life as we know it?

Anywhere that we find water and conditions that DNA/RNA can survive without denaturing, we find modern life.

 

[Loudmouth]

As I see it, there are at least three requirements that must be met. A first is the presence of the proper raw materials, less contaminants that destroy them. A second is their organization into functional units that actually do something. A third is the chicken-and-egg problem regarding DNA and their proteins. And the end result has to be a functioning cell, because that's the simplest thing we call "alive". I don't see how numbers 2 and 3 can ever be solved without intelligent assistance.

First, RNA can act as both a genetic molecule and as an enzymatic catalyst, so it can fill the roles of both DNA and protein. In fact, RNA still makes protein in our cells, and the proteins that RNA makes is responsible for making DNA. We really don't even have the chicken-egg problem in modern life.

Second, your lack of imagination is not a limit for reality.

 

[[serious]]

This question popped into my head when I was reading through that other thread about abiogenesis. The other thread was talking about re-creating the conditions of the early Earth to mimic life.

I have a few questions:

What is it about our modern Earth that stops abiogenesis from taking place today?

Could abiogenesis still be occurring at hydrothermal vents as we speak?

Have any scientists taken samples from hydrothermal vents or other geothermal areas to see if they see proto-DNA or some other self-replicating molecule that is some precursor to life as we know it?

If abiogenesis happened in the past, it does not seem too much of a stretch to assume it could be happening in the present or that it could happen in the future, right?

"What is it about our modern Earth that stops abiogenesis from taking place today?"
One of the big hurdles is oxygen. Oxygen is very reactive and tends to break stuff down. This is something we use to get more energy out of stuff like carbohydrates, but it also is going to limit the amount of time that stuff is going to be floating around in some sort of present day primordial soup.

The deep sea vent thing might be a good way of side stepping this, but has it's own challenges. Around those deep sea vents there's lots of existing life fighting for access to that energy and those nutrients. A little floating self replicator is likely to quickly become food for an established life form.

 

[Dizredux]

I have seen this discussed a number of times. The general consensus seems to be is that if it is happening it would be very hard to detect.

One statement I think covers why this is so. Science has a name for new forms of life..... "food". Any new life probably would be eaten rather quickly by existing forms.


Dizredux

 

[Radagast]

What is it about our modern Earth that stops abiogenesis from taking place today?

Abiogenesis presupposes an original self-replicating molecule. No plausible hypothesis for a specific molecule has ever been proposed, but if there were, such a molecule should indeed replicate itself in the lab. In nature, on the other hand, it would just be food for life that already exists, as Dizredux pointed out.

Could abiogenesis still be occurring at hydrothermal vents as we speak?

Even there, life is already established, as Golden Yak said: Hydrothermal vent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[TheBear]

The real questions of all this are - What were the environmental conditions 3.5 billion years ago? What was the oxygen level of the atmosphere? How about nitrogen? What was the average surface temperature? What about atmospheric pressure 3.5 billion years ago?

I'm sure there are a lot more considerations.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What is it about our modern Earth that stops abiogenesis from taking place today?

First, let me say I'm not an expert at all on this subject.
But it's not clear to me that abiogenesis isn't taking place as we speak somewhere on this planet. I can imagine though that it might be very difficult to find.

Anyhow, I seem to remember having read that the presence of oxygen could be a problem. The oxygen we breath is actually produced today by plants and bacteria and such.

Having said that... if one wishes to investigate what processes in which circumstances gave rise to life on this planet, it seems kind of logical that one would try to find out what the conditions on this planet were in the time period where the formation of life most likely happened. Which is probably anywhere between 4 billion and 3.8 billion years ago.

Could abiogenesis still be occurring at hydrothermal vents as we speak?

Who knows. Could be.

Have any scientists taken samples from hydrothermal vents or other geothermal areas to see if they see proto-DNA or some other self-replicating molecule that is some precursor to life as we know it?

I'ld guess so, yes. You'ld have to look it up. I guess chances are big that some researchers investigated such places.

If abiogenesis happened in the past, it does not seem too much of a stretch to assume it could be happening in the present or that it could happen in the future, right?

Sure. However, it depends on the circumstances required for the process to take place.

If indeed there was something about early earth, which isn't present today, that made this process possible... then no.

Also, for all we know, the earth was never in a condition to make such a process happen. It could very well be that early life came to this planet through meteorites. Who knows, perhaps one day we'll find out that this process can only happen in some weird circumstances in space rocks or something.

Again, I'm no expert by any means, but I don't see how this would be impossible. Chemical reactions always require certain conditions to be in place before they can happen. Certain tempuratures, catalysts, energy sources, ... and so forth. At this time, it's a matter of finding out which those circumstantial ingredients are for that reaction to take place.

At this point, it's still unkown.

 

[Heissonear]

As I see it, there are at least three requirements that must be met. A first is the presence of the proper raw materials, less contaminants that destroy them. A second is their organization into functional units that actually do something. A third is the chicken-and-egg problem regarding DNA and their proteins. And the end result has to be a functioning cell, because that's the simplest thing we call "alive". I don't see how numbers 2 and 3 can ever be solved without intelligent assistance.


I doubt it, because I think the presence of energy and raw materials is the simplest part of the problem to solve.


Not that I've heard of.


When you realize what the end product must be, I think it's very much a stretch.

.



.

 

[Heissonear]

First, let me say I'm not an expert at all on this subject.
But it's not clear to me that abiogenesis isn't taking place as we speak somewhere on this planet. I can imagine though that it might be very difficult to find.

Anyhow, I seem to remember having read that the presence of oxygen could be a problem. The oxygen we breath is actually produced today by plants and bacteria and such.

Having said that... if one wishes to investigate what processes in which circumstances gave rise to life on this planet, it seems kind of logical that one would try to find out what the conditions on this planet were in the time period where the formation of life most likely happened. Which is probably anywhere between 4 billion and 3.8 billion years ago.





Who knows. Could be.



I'ld guess so, yes. You'ld have to look it up. I guess chances are big that some researchers investigated such places.



Sure. However, it depends on the circumstances required for the process to take place.

If indeed there was something about early earth, which isn't present today, that made this process possible... then no.

Also, for all we know, the earth was never in a condition to make such a process happen. It could very well be that early life came to this planet through meteorites. Who knows, perhaps one day we'll find out that this process can only happen in some weird circumstances in space rocks or something.

Again, I'm no expert by any means, but I don't see how this would be impossible. Chemical reactions always require certain conditions to be in place before they can happen. Certain tempuratures, catalysts, energy sources, ... and so forth. At this time, it's a matter of finding out which those circumstantial ingredients are for that reaction to take place.

At this point, it's still unkown.

.

Those biochemists who do know, and us who can comprehend the research papers they produce, understand the dilemma.

That's why they cannot do it on earth under ANY CONDITIONS. They have ability to control the atmospheric, aqueous, and substrate composition, precursor constituents, and vary the environmental conditions, BUT NO PRESTO! Nada. Not even production of one of the hundreds of catalytic enzymes required in the DNA fabrication process.

Go read your comic books and science fiction books. Keep dreaming. Keep putting your faith in natural processes, and not the Originator of earth and the physical realms natural processes.

Keep saying the color of the sky, azurite, flowers and other materials are "just so happen" than intelligently fabricated that way. The amount of water on earth, the atmospheric and ocean circulation patterns, the "just so happens" inherent fabrication capabilities and raw materials for air flight crafts, cell phones, CRT and LCD displays, and the like. No Design, no Designer, just the "happens to be" premise.

Sure.
.

 

[[serious]]

Abiogenesis presupposes an original self-replicating molecule. No plausible hypothesis for a specific molecule has ever been proposed, but if there were, such a molecule should indeed replicate itself in the lab. In nature, on the other hand, it would just be food for life that already exists, as Dizredux pointed out.



Even there, life is already established, as Golden Yak said: Hydrothermal vent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We actually do have such proposals. Here's my current favorite:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

The discussion of his proposal starts around 3:45

 

[ChetSinger]

Those biochemists who do know, and us who can comprehend the research papers they produce, understand the dilemma...

I've seen examples of that. Thinkers such as Antony Flew and Eugene Koonin gave up on the idea and turned elsewhere. Flew turned to deism and Koonin has turned to the multiverse.

 

[Michael]

Having said that... if one wishes to investigate what processes in which circumstances gave rise to life on this planet, it seems kind of logical that one would try to find out what the conditions on this planet were in the time period where the formation of life most likely happened. Which is probably anywhere between 4 billion and 3.8 billion years ago.

The problem is that just because the 'conditions were right' as you put it does not necessarily imply that life began on *this* planet. It could have been carried to Earth about 4 billion years ago on a comet or asteroid for all we know.

You're still *assuming* it 'started on Earth'. Why?

 

[Loudmouth]

I've seen examples of that. Thinkers such as Antony Flew and Eugene Koonin gave up on the idea and turned elsewhere. Flew turned to deism and Koonin has turned to the multiverse.

If we point you to christians who became atheists, will this convince you that you should be an atheist?

 

[Loudmouth]

.

Those biochemists who do know, and us who can comprehend the research papers they produce, understand the dilemma.

That's why they cannot do it on earth under ANY CONDITIONS. They have ability to control the atmospheric, aqueous, and substrate composition, precursor constituents, and vary the environmental conditions, BUT NO PRESTO! Nada. Not even production of one of the hundreds of catalytic enzymes required in the DNA fabrication process.

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."--Lord Kelvin, 1895

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

The problem is that just because the 'conditions were right' as you put it does not necessarily imply that life began on *this* planet. It could have been carried to Earth about 4 billion years ago on a comet or asteroid for all we know.

You're still *assuming* it 'started on Earth'. Why?

Did you read the rest of his post? He mentions asteroids and the like later in his post.

 

[Michael]

Did you read the rest of his post? He mentions asteroids and the like later in his post.

Doh!