Thoughts on Abiogenesis

[Occams Barber]

Thoughts on Abiogenesis

Abiogenesis is the process whereby life first came into existence from non-life. Along with the beginning of the Universe (aka The Big Bang) and evolution, it’s one of the three processes which make up the scientific version of what fundamentalist Christians refer to as ‘Origins’.

While evolution and the Big Bang are considered to be well-established scientific Theories, abiogenesis still has the status of a Hypothesis since science has yet to flesh out the detail of how it occurred.

One of the problems with accepting abiogenesis is its’ counter intuitive nature.

How could life have come from non-life?​

I would argue that not only is abiogenesis a reality, it’s something which we see around us, in a different form, every day.

Think of a seed from a tree, preferably a big tree. When that seed comes in contact with water and the right soil minerals it sprouts and begins to grow. In order to grow it takes in sunlight, carbon dioxide, water and soil minerals and chemically converts them to tree stuff. As the tree grows the tree’s cells continue the process until, eventually the tree may be millions of times more massive than the original seed.

The sunlight, water, CO2 and minerals used by the tree to build itself are all forms of non-life. Through a natural process, non-life (sunlight, water, minerals, CO2) has been converted to a life form (the tree). Even the original seed is itself constructed, by its parent tree, from non-living materials.

While science cannot (yet) duplicate the process of tree growth it’s well understood and we have yet to find any part of the process which can’t be understood through physics or organic chemistry or other related sciences.


If a tree, or any other living thing, is built from natural processes acting on non-living materials, then it’s entirely feasible for the first form(s) of life to have originated from natural processes acting on non-living materials. The initial materials may differ, as will the process, but the event need only occur once to kick start life and the lifeform need not be anywhere near as complex as a tree.

Abiogenesis is not just the process where life first came into existence. The creation of life from non-life appears to be a normal part of everyday living.


OB

 

[SelfSim]

Abiogenesis is not just the process where life first came into existence. The creation of life from non-life appears to be a normal part of everyday living.

Organic chemistry covers most of modern-day biological processes.

Abiogenesis describes how inorganic chemistry proceeds onto prebiotic organic chemistry and then onto molecular self replication.

The repeating regular patterns and replication of modern-day RNA/DNA's base constituents, really render the Abiogenesis process quite redundant as far as the progression of modern-day life is concerned.
Once the fidelity of RNA/DNA's replication becomes optimal, it dominates and Abiogenesis processes, (whatever they were), along with Abiogenesis's constituents, theoretically, then become consumables in more complex biological organic processes.
I'm not so convinced Abiogenesis processes would be distinguishable in a modern-day biosphere, once the above optimality occurs(?)

 

[Occams Barber]

Organic chemistry covers most of modern-day biological processes.

Abiogenesis describes how inorganic chemistry proceeds onto prebiotic organic chemistry and then onto molecular self replication.

The repeating regular patterns and replication of modern-day RNA/DNA's base constituents, really render the Abiogenesis process quite redundant as far as the progression of modern-day life is concerned.
Once the fidelity of RNA/DNA's replication becomes optimal, it dominates and Abiogenesis processes, (whatever they were), along with Abiogenesis's constituents, theoretically, then become consumables in more complex biological organic processes.
I'm not so convinced Abiogenesis processes would be distinguishable in a modern-day biosphere, once the above optimality occurs(?)

You may well be right @SelfSim. I have no competence in organic chemistry.

This post isn't a technical argument. Its aimed at those who may have difficulty in conceiving how life can come from non-life. It's intentionally kept at an understandable level. I tend to operate on the principle of catering to your audience's needs.

The point being made is that a natural process can cause what we understand as life, and life from non-life is not as impossible as it sounds.

Remember your audience @SelfSim. Always remember your audience.

OB

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

In the old days belief in abiogenesis was widespread and taken for granted. It was called Spontaneous Generation, of how maggots and oysters just came to be from mud or rot by process or bubbling or what have you. Then people started investigating it more thoroughly, and slowly but surely Spontaneous Generators were wittled down as larvae or eggs were found, until the maxim became that life arose from life. Only one specific instance of Spontaneous Generation has remained, the one that says that the first simplest life must have come to be at some distant point in the past, under very specific circumstances that no longer exist (as we have no examples of such Spontaneous Generation). This we have renamed Abiogenesis, so that its association with the discredited notion of Spontaneous Generation - in both form and function - can be forgotten. It is however not based on empiric observation which argues the opposite, but only on an a priori assumption that non-life had to have preceded life in a developmental model, based on the lack of presence of life and then its abundance in geological records. It is thus very much akin to Aristotle looking at mud and seeing shellfish, and assuming that they arose spontaneously therein.

Whether it is accepted or not, it is a pre-scientific mode of thought in character, no matter how much we dress it up. The metaphor of dead seeds giving living trees is not the equivalent.

 

[Shemjaza]

In the old days belief in abiogenesis was widespread and taken for granted. It was called Spontaneous Generation, of how maggots and oysters just came to be from mud or rot by process or bubbling or what have you. Then people started investigating it more thoroughly, and slowly but surely Spontaneous Generators were wittled down as larvae or eggs were found, until the maxim became that life arose from life. Only one specific instance of Spontaneous Generation has remained, the one that says that the first simplest life must have come to be at some distant point in the past, under very specific circumstances that no longer exist (as we have no examples of such Spontaneous Generation). This we have renamed Abiogenesis, so that its association with the discredited notion of Spontaneous Generation - in both form and function - can be forgotten. It is however not based on empiric observation which argues the opposite, but only on an a priori assumption that non-life had to have preceded life in a developmental model, based on the lack of presence of life and then its abundance in geological records. It is thus very much akin to Aristotle looking at mud and seeing shellfish, and assuming that they arose spontaneously therein.

Whether it is accepted or not, it is a pre-scientific mode of thought in character, no matter how much we dress it up. The metaphor of dead seeds giving living trees is not the equivalent.

Except the precursors to life do form naturally and are found throughout the universe.

Organic chemistry, polymerisation and the formation of amino acids have been observed to happen without life already being present.

I'm not saying we have an actual explanation for the final step to abiogenesis, but it is a far cry from salamanders emerging from burning logs or spoiled meat becoming flys.

 

[SelfSim]

The point being made is that a natural process can cause what we understand as life, and life from non-life is not as impossible as it sounds.

Remember your audience @SelfSim. Always remember your audience.

That some people have a blockage (deliberate or otherwise) when it comes to understanding the technical aspects of abiogenesis, is surely no reason to not discuss it?
If we continually yield to ignorance .. ignorance succeeds ..

(With that off my chest, I do understand and support the battle to alleviate ignorance).

Cheers

 

[SelfSim]

It is however not based on empiric observation ..

It is based on empirical laws, which then form the basis of testable models.

.. but only on an a priori assumption that non-life had to have preceded life in a developmental model, based on the lack of presence of life and then its abundance in geological records.

Any already tested 'assumptions' forming the basis of abiogenesis models, are not held as simply being 'logically true' .. they were tested, so they are already true results in objective reality. The geological evidence is corroborating.

Whether it is accepted or not, it is a pre-scientific mode of thought in character, no matter how much we dress it up. The metaphor of dead seeds giving living trees is not the equivalent.

How about long dormant seeds?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I'm not saying we have an actual explanation for the final step to abiogenesis, but it is a far cry from salamanders emerging from burning logs or spoiled meat becoming flys.

Not really. Aristotle said that if you place seawater and earthy material in a hollow with sufficient 'pneuma' or life-force or alternately the sun, it would foam and a putrified residue would form - this was the crude oyster shell. Again the final step is not observed (though again, people collecting mud or oysters formed in pots were normal anecdotal evidence till the 19th century for Spontaneous Generation). Based on the whole theory of elements and kindly inclining, it is natural to reach it. It is not really that different. Both are mythopoiec, rather than empiric as such. We like to pretend it differs, or at least differs by degree.

It is based on empirical laws, which then form the basis of testable models.

The only empiric law we can deduce from evidence is that life arises from life. It is not based on empicism, but contrary to what we currently empirically observe. We are simply assuming a developmental model as life appears in the geological record, not empirically deriving it either. It may be true, and you can certainly derive testable hypotheses from it - but empiric it certainly isn't. It is as empiric as Ymir arising from the mingling frosts of Niflheim and heat of Muspelheim.

Any already tested 'assumptions' forming the basis of abiogenesis models, are not held as simply being 'logically true' .. they were tested, so they are already true results in objective reality. The geological evidence is corroborating.

I made no claim to veridicality at all. The fact is that we are assuming life must have arisen from non-life and then set out to try and find a way for it to do so - suitably placed in a distant past where we can tweak or assume conditions to fit whatever we need, as we have nowhere been able to find an example. The geologic evidence is not corroborating but the problem to solve, as the assumption is for conditions to have been present to explain the appearance of life, so perhaps even an obstacle as when we started to doubt the beloved soup of primordial times, say.

How about long dormant seeds?

Dormant is not not-living. Living things arising from the non-living only happens in mythologies and this one sole remaining instance in certain views of the scientific cosmologic model.

 

[Bradskii]

Just to raise a point that is often overlooked. I don't think that it is was likely that something emerged from a warm pond (or whatever) that could have been considered life and that there was a fine dividing line between life and non life. As if something happened at 3:32pm 4.2 billion years ago next Tuesday. And then all of a sudden we were off and running.

There are quite a few characteristics that define life and some argument as to how many of those you need to be classed as alive. So I think that there gradually emerged various 'entities' that had one or two of the characteristics and that the number was built upon gradually. And there never was a specific point at which life began. Just as there was no specific moment when Homo sapien arrived on the scene.

Consequently, looking for a point where life began is looking for a point that doesn't exist. It's like looking for the moment when a conglomeration of material becomes a planet. There is no point. What we're looking for is a process that might result in some characteristics of what we describe as life.

 

[Walk together]

One day mankind may work out how life began even find a way to create life. However, I know someone that worked all that out around six thousand years ago.

 

[stevil]

One of the problems with accepting abiogenesis is its’ counter intuitive nature.

How could life have come from non-life?​

The very definition of "life" is complicated having many characteristics, and has fuzzy edges.

It if very likely that "life" didn't spring forward from non life out of the blue. But was probably a process (unintentional) of replicating structures slowly acquiring those combination of characteristics over a very long period. Perhaps 100s, 1,000s or millions of years.

​

 

[AV1611VET]

Thoughts on Abiogenesis

Abiogenesis is a term that was given to mankind when reverse-engineering evolution hit a brick wall.

Basically the term means: "Just take it for granted it happened."

 

[Astrid]

In the old days belief in abiogenesis was widespread and taken for granted. It was called Spontaneous Generation, of how maggots and oysters just came to be from mud or rot by process or bubbling or what have you. Then people started investigating it more thoroughly, and slowly but surely Spontaneous Generators were wittled down as larvae or eggs were found, until the maxim became that life arose from life. Only one specific instance of Spontaneous Generation has remained, the one that says that the first simplest life must have come to be at some distant point in the past, under very specific circumstances that no longer exist (as we have no examples of such Spontaneous Generation). This we have renamed Abiogenesis, so that its association with the discredited notion of Spontaneous Generation - in both form and function - can be forgotten. It is however not based on empiric observation which argues the opposite, but only on an a priori assumption that non-life had to have preceded life in a developmental model, based on the lack of presence of life and then its abundance in geological records. It is thus very much akin to Aristotle looking at mud and seeing shellfish, and assuming that they arose spontaneously therein.

Whether it is accepted or not, it is a pre-scientific mode of thought in character, no matter how much we dress it up. The metaphor of dead seeds giving living trees is not the equivalent.

You were doing OK till the ' akin to Aridtotle" etc.
Maybe think that thru a bit.

You did make a partial comeback noting that
growth of living things is not abio, even if you
relapsed somewhat with " dead seeds".

We all know about spontaneous generation, btw,
no need for a treatise.

 

[Occams Barber]

Just to raise a point that is often overlooked. I don't think that it is was likely that something emerged from a warm pond (or whatever) that could have been considered life and that there was a fine dividing line between life and non life. As if something happened at 3:32pm 4.2 billion years ago next Tuesday. And then all of a sudden we were off and running.

There are quite a few characteristics that define life and some argument as to how many of those you need to be classed as alive. So I think that there gradually emerged various 'entities' that had one or two of the characteristics and that the number was built upon gradually. And there never was a specific point at which life began. Just as there was no specific moment when Homo sapien arrived on the scene.

Consequently, looking for a point where life began is looking for a point that doesn't exist. It's like looking for the moment when a conglomeration of material becomes a planet. There is no point. What we're looking for is a process that might result in some characteristics of what we describe as life.

The very definition of "life" is complicated having many characteristics, and has fuzzy edges.

It if very likely that "life" didn't spring forward from non life out of the blue. But was probably a process (unintentional) of replicating structures slowly acquiring those combination of characteristics over a very long period. Perhaps 100s, 1,000s or millions of years.

@stevil , @Bradskii

When I wrote the piece I very intentionally avoided the problem of the definition of life - a question which is actually a significant issue relative to abiogenesis. I avoided it to avoid complicating an already complex question.

Like both of you I can imagine a period of 'in-between' where structures come and go and fall into a space somewhere between life and not-life.

As I wrote earlier the target audience is those who struggle (legitimately) to conceive of a transition between life and not life. My main aim was to find a simple illustration of the possibility of non-life becoming life.

OB

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

That some people have a blockage (deliberate or otherwise) when it comes to understanding the technical aspects of abiogenesis, is surely no reason to not discuss it?
If we continually yield to ignorance .. ignorance succeeds ..

(With that off my chest, I do understand and support the battle to alleviate ignorance).

Cheers

The danger is in being overly technical. We're not all organic chemists and we all have areas where we're quite legitimately short on knowledge. Assuming people should know stuff because you do inevitably means your arguments will not cut through.

OB

 

[Astrid]

Xx

 

[That Guy 11200]

Abiogenesis is just a term we use to make our categorisations of the natural world seem more important than they actually are. The difference between the first lifeform and the thing that immediately preceded it would have been minimal. It just happened to fit a certain set of criteria that we require things to have to be called 'alive'.

That not-quite-life would have done most of the same things that life did/does, but one or two processes would have been farmed out to its environment, including to other collections of self-perpetuating chemical reactions that, like itself, weren't quite life either.

 

[Ophiolite]

Abiogenesis is just a term we use to make our categorisations of the natural world seem more important than they actually are. The difference between the first lifeform and the thing that immediately preceded it would have been minimal. It just happened to fit a certain set of criteria that we require things to have to be called 'alive'.

That not-quite-life would have done most of the same things that life did/does, but one or two processes would have been farmed out to its environment, including to other collections of self-perpetuating chemical reactions that, like itself, weren't quite life either.

I would agree with you on the continuity of spectrum from non-life to life, but disagree as to the motivation.

We classify to aid discussion and understanding. It is convenient to distinguish between evolution, when we mean Darwinian style evolution and whatever went before. For we have a detailed and off-tested grasp of Darwinian theory, whereas the mechanisms that preceded it are still uncertain and subject to research in even in a general sense.

Researchers in abiogenesis reflect this when they speak of pre-Darwinian evolution, or biocehmical evolution, etc.

 

[Astrid]

I would agree with you on the continuity of spectrum from non-life to life, but disagree as to the motivation.

We classify to aid discussion and understanding. It is convenient to distinguish between evolution, when we mean Darwinian style evolution and whatever went before. For we have a detailed and off-tested grasp of Darwinian theory, whereas the mechanisms that preceded it are still uncertain and subject to research in even in a general sense.

Researchers in abiogenesis reflect this when they speak of pre-Darwinian evolution, or biocehmical evolution, etc.

Similarly the exact origin of the universe being unknown
does not hinder or invalidate astronomy.

 

[That Guy 11200]

I would agree with you on the continuity of spectrum from non-life to life, but disagree as to the motivation.

We classify to aid discussion and understanding. It is convenient to distinguish between evolution, when we mean Darwinian style evolution and whatever went before. For we have a detailed and off-tested grasp of Darwinian theory, whereas the mechanisms that preceded it are still uncertain and subject to research in even in a general sense.

Researchers in abiogenesis reflect this when they speak of pre-Darwinian evolution, or biocehmical evolution, etc.

I was being a bit flippant with that first sentence.