Millions of life forms from one pool of goop?

[Coherentbliss]

I still find it hard to fathom the millions of life forms (plant, insect, hominid, homo sapiens etc.) that have evolved from the original bowl of soup....yes there were many different bowls of soup scattered across the globe (had to of been) but the primordial soup would have had the same or very similar ingredients.

What is the theory on how we got so many life forms from the original primordial soup?

Over time I'm sure new bowls of soup arrived starting a new life form.

Why have we not witnessed a new life form appear in the last say 500 years? Besides in the lab...

[StringJunky]

Why have we not witnessed a new life form appear in the last say 500 years? Besides in the lab...

Because all ecological niches are filled, so there's no place where abiogenesis can occur, for long enough, for a new organism to evolve that doesn't stem from existing genetic lines .

 

Your title is based on an incorrect premise as well. There's no need to be millions of life forms in one one pool to make everything we see today. There only needs to be one, which produced genetic forks over a vast period of time.

Edited July 19, 2017 by StringJunky

[Strange]

What is the theory on how we got so many life forms from the original primordial soup?

 

 

Evolution by natural selection. As identified by Wallace and Darwin, and refined since then.

Because all ecological niches are filled, so there's no place where abiogenesis can occur, for long enough, for a new organism to evolve that doesn't stem from existing genetic lines .

 

And, to make it worse, if there were an environment rich in all the chemicals for life, it would be rapidly filled by organisms feeding on that "soup" and preventing any chance of abiogenesis.

[Sensei]

Millions of life forms from one.... original primordial soup?

 

The same can be said about proton and electron,

from two initial particles,

you have 118 elements, and 3142 stable and unstable isotopes, after fusion, radioactive decay, and other nuclear transformations..

 

The same can be said about chemical compounds.

From the above 118 elements you have entire chemistry..

Edited July 19, 2017 by Sensei

[StringJunky]

And, to make it worse, if there were an environment rich in all the chemicals for life, it would be rapidly filled by organisms feeding on that "soup" and preventing any chance of abiogenesis.

Absolutely, it just can't happen now. Even in the bowels of the Earth there's extremophiles.

[Primordial Sea]

Hypothetically humans could create an environment that's suitable for this to occur.

Has life ever been made from this "soup" in the lab?

 

The building blocks of life have been made.

https://www.space.com/29057-life-building-blocks-created-nasa-lab.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/origins-life.html

Edited July 20, 2017 by Primordial Sea

[StringJunky]

Hypothetically humans could create an environment that's suitable for this to occur.

Has life ever been made from this "soup" in the lab?

 

The building blocks of life have been made.

https://www.space.com/29057-life-building-blocks-created-nasa-lab.html

That's another story. I meant without human intervention.

[zapatos]

Because all ecological niches are filled, so there's no place where abiogenesis can occur, for long enough, for a new organism to evolve that doesn't stem from existing genetic lines .

 

 

I've heard that said many times but I'd like to know why it's true. Species move to environments that are already occupied yet they thrive. Surely the environment doesn't preferentially eliminate new life while allowing existing life.

[Coherentbliss]

So in this "soup", which came first in the Genome? And what is the finding for how different genomes manifested...was it part of the evolutionary process or happened right off the bat?

[StringJunky]

 

I've heard that said many times but I'd like to know why it's true. Species move to environments that are already occupied yet they thrive. Surely the environment doesn't preferentially eliminate new life while allowing existing life.

At the abiogenesis level you are talking relatively simple biochemical systems which are very likely not fully autonomous, as plentiful or enabled to compete with organisms that have evolved over billions of years to where they now. I know it's hazy but we don't know the mechanism, do we? Also, any potential fledgling, abiogenetic entities will be resources for existing organisms.

Edited July 20, 2017 by StringJunky

[zapatos]

Also, any potential fledgling, abiogenetic entities will be resources for existing organisms.

 

And vice versa I suppose. I realize showing up in a new environment includes risks, but it happens every day with existing organisms.

[StringJunky]

 

And vice versa I suppose. I realize showing up in a new environment includes risks, but it happens every day with existing organisms.

But they have relatives in other locations that preserve the lineage. I can't see any way for a completely new organism to evolve discretely from what already exists. A bit like trying to start a cherry farm without using nets over your trees. You need some way of isolating things to get started where other things already exist

[zapatos]

But they have relatives in other locations that preserve the lineage. I can't see any way for a completely new organism to evolve discretely from what already exists. A bit like trying to start a cherry farm without using nets over your trees. You need some way of isolating things to get started where other things already exist

So if I take one bacterium and put it in an environment where it would have the resources to survive, but it is completely isolated from any other of its species, can you see no way for that bacterium to survive? Other than that bacterium being more advanced than a brand new life form, I don't see much difference in its likelihood of survival.

 

But cherry trees spread all the time with no nets on the trees. We don't need a farm; we just need it to live.

[Strange]

So if I take one bacterium and put it in an environment where it would have the resources to survive, but it is completely isolated from any other of its species, can you see no way for that bacterium to survive? Other than that bacterium being more advanced than a brand new life form, I don't see much difference in its likelihood of survival.

 

 

But that is not really what we are talking about. A single bacterium probably could survive, and even thrive, in some environments where there were no immediate predators. But something as complex as a bacterium probably required millions of years of evolution.

 

I imagine that the prebiotic "chemical evolution" that could have led to the first things that would be classified as "life" probably required a stable and very specific environment for a very long time. That cannot exist now as anything containing useful chemicals would be treated as a food source by existing biota. Anything that started to emerge as a collection of, and source of more of, those organic molecules would be even more popular as a food source.

[zapatos]

But that is not really what we are talking about. A single bacterium probably could survive, and even thrive, in some environments where there were no immediate predators. But something as complex as a bacterium probably required millions of years of evolution.

 

I imagine that the prebiotic "chemical evolution" that could have led to the first things that would be classified as "life" probably required a stable and very specific environment for a very long time. That cannot exist now as anything containing useful chemicals would be treated as a food source by existing biota. Anything that started to emerge as a collection of, and source of more of, those organic molecules would be even more popular as a food source.

I guess I don't know what you mean by a 'stable...environment for a very long time', as I imagine the earth to be filled with environments where the relative abundance of chemicals is stable, and remains that way for millions of years. Is the ocean that drastically different than it was a million years ago? Does its chemical composition swing rapidly?

 

I'm not suggesting that existing life isn't another level of complexity that new life would have to deal with. I just don't see how it is an overwhelming factor. Thus far most arguments (mine included) seem to be based on what seems likely, and not based on any real data.

Edited July 20, 2017 by zapatos

[StringJunky]

So if I take one bacterium and put it in an environment where it would have the resources to survive, but it is completely isolated from any other of its species, can you see no way for that bacterium to survive? Other than that bacterium being more advanced than a brand new life form, I don't see much difference in its likelihood of survival.

 

But cherry trees spread all the time with no nets on the trees. We don't need a farm; we just need it to live.

I'm talking about the proto-organism stages, or before, when they aren't quite fully autonomous and in sufficient numbers. I imagine their existence was pretty tenuous and probability of continuation was a lot lower than it is now for modern organisms.

 

The nets in my cherry farm analogy represented the necessary isolation for the farmer to get started until he had enough trees that predation didn't matter. Imagine they started with a single cherry stone that they had bred of a new variety and wanted to multiply it into a thriving fruit farm. This would be easy compared to what new life form trying to start now.

 

Add this to what Strange has just posted.

[Strange]

Is the ocean that drastically different than it was a million years ago?

 

 

Massively. For one thing, there was no oxygen. For all we know, that could be a requirement for life to start. (Actually, there is probably still very little oxygen at hydrothermal vents where it seems likely some components of living organisms developed.)

 

However, the evidence (e.g. all life being based on DNA with the same coding for the same amino acids) seems to suggest that life only appeared once. But I have no idea whether that means conditions are just not suitable now, or it is just very unlikely, or panspermia, or ...

[Coherentbliss]

I would say plant life had a long time to develop and grow and multiply thus creating soil because isn't soil made from partial plant life? The earth had to of been all rocks, fire/heat from volcanic reaction, water and different gases. No plant life, no life whatsoever. Ok then, if earth was just a molten sea of rock and then eventually cooled down I guess a type of soil could have developed via rock movement and wind/water/fire erosion. This soil would have been sand and powder having the elements of whatever the types of rock held, water, ash, nitrogen, argon and carbon dioxide but no methane or oxygen yet? So obviously the latter "basket of goodies" had to of created the very first plant life. I'm sure those of you much smarter than myself know the correct terms and names for the above but essentially the above scenario is about right?

 

If I missed some ingredients for that (place in time) please fill it in and then answer the question above.

 

If these set ingredients created the very first plant life then it would be astounding to know what this first plant would look like and the cells/dna picture.

 

Since it seems it would be easy to determine this very first soils elements, it also seems it would be easy to replicate it in the lab. But then again i'm sure there were different (and less) elements available back then, that we have no clue about....

 

So if we have the basic known elements from the above scenario has any lab tried to create a plant life....or "life"? Because knowing what was there at the beginning rules out much other elements that would not have been there before plant life...I am assuming plant life was the very first "life" form because from plants we got methane and oxygen right? And we needed the latter two elements to start other life forms next...right?

 

Would be nice to see an updated synopsis from the time the earth cooled until the first life form... showing the elements to that point (very first life form).

Edited July 21, 2017 by Coherentbliss

[StringJunky]

I would say plant life had a long time to develop and grow and multiply thus creating soil because isn't soil made from partial plant life? The earth had to of been all rocks, fire/heat from volcanic reaction, water and different gases. No plant life, no life whatsoever. Ok then, if earth was just a molten sea of rock and then eventually cooled down I guess a type of soil could have developed via rock movement and wind/water/fire erosion. This soil would have been sand and powder having the elements of whatever the types of rock held, water, ash, nitrogen, argon and carbon dioxide but no methane or oxygen yet? So obviously the latter "basket of goodies" had to of created the very first plant life. I'm sure those of you much smarter than myself know the correct terms and names for the above but essentially the above scenario is about right?

 

If I missed some ingredients for that (place in time) please fill it in and then answer the question above.

 

If these set ingredients created the very first plant life then it would be astounding to know what this first plant would look like and the cells/dna picture.

 

Since it seems it would be easy to determine this very first soils elements, it also seems it would be easy to replicate it in the lab. But then again i'm sure there were different (and less) elements available back then, that we have no clue about....

 

So if we have the basic known elements from the above scenario has any lab tried to create a plant life....or "life"? Because knowing what was there at the beginning rules out much other elements that would not have been there before plant life...I am assuming plant life was the very first "life" form because from plants we got methane and oxygen right? And we needed the latter two elements to start other life forms next...right?

 

Would be nice to see an updated synopsis from the time the earth cooled until the first life form... showing the elements to that point (very first life form).

Single-celled organisms, like bacteria, were the first life forms and these utilised sulphur and other compounds, of which, a later fork was oxygen-producing cyanobacteria that developed into plants. Methane was always present, emitted volcanically and hydrothermally, with other organics, during Earth's earlier formation... they had to be present first in order to have the basic building blocks to make life. The furthest scientists can go back is anoxygenic (non-oxygen producing) bacteria. Before them, only various models are currently available. They probably need to synthesise it in the lab to get an idea what happened in the earliest stages, I guess.

[Coherentbliss]

I apologize for my ignorance, I just find this topic fascinating and will do some research before I make a fool of myself again...or at least try lol.

Thanks

[StringJunky]

Here's a link on how cell membranes might have got started and the google page I got it from with links to other protocell ideas.

 

http://exploringorigins.org/fattyacids.html

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=vesicles+first+life&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB753GB753&oq=vesicles+first+life&aqs=chrome..69i57.13200j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

Abiogenesis is a wide subject and evolution even wider. Abiogenesis is the steps leading up to the first autonomous living systems and Evolution is what happens after. The former is a largely speculative subject at this point in time but the good models are rooted with sound science.. Keep asking questions but try and focus them down to specific parts.

Edited July 21, 2017 by StringJunky

[delboy]

I still find it hard to fathom the millions of life forms (plant, insect, hominid, homo sapiens etc.) that have evolved from the original bowl of soup....yes there were many different bowls of soup scattered across the globe (had to of been) but the primordial soup would have had the same or very similar ingredients.

 

 

Lets say life began 3.5 billion years ago. Now lets imagine every million years each species divides into 2 species. Now lets assume that extinctions don't happen - I know that's false but assume for the sake of this argument. So the number of species doubles every million years. I make it that after just 30 million years there would be around half a billion species. So after 3500 million years??? I don't think my calculator can handle that.

 

So obviously extinctions also have to be taken into account. But my point is that given the time span, the creation of a few million species is no problem at all.

 

This argument only considers species numbers, but the argument for diversity of form is much the same - over such a vast amount of time there is ample scope for such variety to evolve.