Microbes First

[foodchain]

I think a modern confusion over origin of life studies is perspective. I mean a small perspective. Microbes are not bony creatures, they do leave behind evidence but you have to remember the timeline you are looking for such combined with the fact similar behavior to what you are looking for very well may have eaten such evidence literally.

 

Microbial life, its so tiny that getting much farther away from it can give you the title of not even being alive in the case of the virus. Giving the concept of evolution, time and of course natural selection it might be safe to assume that primordial life may have been not much more the viral like clusters of matter, to much most anything. When thinking of origin of life microbial life is the closest link we have to such, beyond that trying to go from origin of life to say human I think is almost a quantum leap that leaves out the middle and lessens the reality of the beginning with the microbe when thinking about such a question.

[ecoli]

What's the point of this thread?

 

beyond that trying to go from origin of life to say human I think is almost a quantum leap

Evolution is not quantized, however... I don't think even the punctuated equilibriumists would go that far.

[foodchain]

What's the point of this thread?

 

 

Evolution is not quantized, however... I don't think even the punctuated equilibriumists would go that far.

 

Quanta are discrete units of energy of specific values. So in regards to the thread basically to go from origin to life to human being, or using the human being as your prime target I guess for trying to explain life or the origin of such I think only degrades such a process when in all reality I don’t think a person should really go past microbes.

 

So the point of the thread to me, I think is that using microbes is a better conceptual framework then trying to use just humans. I think it ignores evolution, and I think it misses really the reality of microbes.

 

So if the use of words confused you, sorry, it was just figurative speaking really.

[ecoli]

Quanta are discrete units of energy of specific values. So in regards to the thread basically to go from origin to life to human being, or using the human being as your prime target I guess for trying to explain life or the origin of such I think only degrades such a process when in all reality I don’t think a person should really go past microbes.

What do you mean by "prime target" and "go past"?

 

The reason why humans are the 'target' in a lot of studies is because studying humans is directly relevant to things like medicine.

However, this is not meant to suggest that we think that evolution has 'stopped' with humans. We are constantly evolving and these changes are measurable.

 

So the point of the thread to me, I think is that using microbes is a better conceptual framework then trying to use just humans. I think it ignores evolution, and I think it misses really the reality of microbes.

Evolution of microbes is a strongly emerging field in the study of medicine, but there are still applications for studying evolution in different model organisms...

For example, studying a bacteria isn't going to tell us much about the common ancestor of chimps and humans.

[foodchain]

What do you mean by "prime target" and "go past"?

 

The reason why humans are the 'target' in a lot of studies is because studying humans is directly relevant to things like medicine.

However, this is not meant to suggest that we think that evolution has 'stopped' with humans. We are constantly evolving and these changes are measurable.

 

 

Evolution of microbes is a strongly emerging field in the study of medicine, but there are still applications for studying evolution in different model organisms...

For example, studying a bacteria isn't going to tell us much about the common ancestor of chimps and humans.

 

You are right on about the medical application of microbes, but they hold so much other promise in many other areas also, such as bioremediation to bioengineering really. I think microbes also hold promise for the application of physical science to biology more so then other biological systems, plus you don’t have some of the more common ethical issues such as blasting some animal in a cage with a concentrated gas to see if it dies or gets cancer or what not.

 

I don’t want to get off on the wrong foot thought in regards to microbes. I am not saying just study them in regards to evolution, but I do think that they are the first line in trying to study origin of life questions using biological organisms, that is all.

[iNow]

I don’t want to get off on the wrong foot thought in regards to microbes. I am not saying just study them in regards to evolution, but I do think that they are the first line in trying to study origin of life questions using biological organisms, that is all.

 

If you really want to understand the orgins of life in biological organisms, you should probably instead become a chemist.

[foodchain]

I don’t think so.

 

I think you could just as easily as say become a geologist, or a physicist. Origin of life does imply life, while a microbe would imply chemistry its hardly just a redox reaction or what not. That’s sort of like saying well if you want to study chemistry, you should become a biologist, I just don’t buy it. Plus giving evolution in which natural selection and such would at some point become intertwined with whatever other physical mechanism that lead to life in the first place. You have to be able to apply or look for the biological aspect even if its precursors looked nothing like it.

 

I mean what lead to life might have been certain inorganic clusters of materials at a certain depth or pressure or what not in the earths crust? So really to me using basic evolutionary thinking and going along on a history or timeline approach the microbe to me is the closest living relative to origin of life if not it in of course an evolved form like every other living thing, so to me the ecology of origin of life should satisfy using microbes.

[iNow]

So, basically... you have set some arbitrary goal post for the spot where life began, and you're calling that the microbe. Okay. Whatever works for you.

[foodchain]

So, basically... you have set some arbitrary goal post for the spot where life began, and you're calling that the microbe. Okay. Whatever works for you.

 

Well I don’t know if it were truly first thing to qualify under the current definitions of life. I do think again that its the closest living ancestor of such. More so with the prokaryote or bacteria. I think its the most bare organism for study with physical science alone if you will, or if that’s not a good way of looking at it, I think it at least has less overhead compared to say a much larger multicellular organism.

 

Maybe its just human vanity perhaps that reduces the role of the microbe in the world, I don’t know really.

[DrDNA]

I think a modern confusion over origin of life studies is perspective. I mean a small perspective. Microbes are not bony creatures, they do leave behind evidence but you have to remember the timeline you are looking for such combined with the fact similar behavior to what you are looking for very well may have eaten such evidence literally.

.

I doubt that most people would ever confuse primordial life forms with bony creatures. Who are you saying is confused?

Scientists? Actors that play scientists on TV?

 

Microbial life, its so tiny that getting much farther away from it can give you the title of not even being alive in the case of the virus. Giving the concept of evolution, time and of course natural selection it might be safe to assume that primordial life may have been not much more the viral like clusters of matter, to much most anything.

Your analogy to viruses would require a host which shouldn't yet exist.

The simplicity of viruses rests in their reliance on hosts to perform metabolic processes and reproduce (for example). So, as houses made from bricks and mortar do not come before the people, viruses probably did not come first.

Take away a host and the virus would have to get real complicated real quick or die.

 

 

When thinking of origin of life microbial life is the closest link we have to such, beyond that trying to go from origin of life to say human I think is almost a quantum leap that leaves out the middle and lessens the reality of the beginning with the microbe when thinking about such a question.

 

Unless this is just a way to take a jab at creationists, I think you will have a hard time finding anyone to disagree with your statement.

 

I think you could just as easily as say become a geologist, or a physicist. Origin of life does imply life, while a microbe would imply chemistry its hardly just a redox reaction or what not. That’s sort of like saying well if you want to study chemistry, you should become a biologist, I just don’t buy it. Plus giving evolution in which natural selection and such would at some point become intertwined with whatever other physical mechanism that lead to life in the first place. You have to be able to apply or look for the biological aspect even if its precursors looked nothing like it.

 

"A redox reaction or what not"? Wow.

That's sort of like saying the big bang was just a few atoms moving away from each other.

Redox reactions too boring for you? OK. Just ignore them and make up something else.

 

The primordial chemical reactions that took place would probably be best understood by a good understanding of organic and bioorganic chemistry and even some physical and inorganic chemistry. It was and is chemistry. That is certain.

 

Not to minimize the value of Geology or Physics, but please.

Geology ? that would be like studying a road map to try and understand how roads are built.

Physics? Too many trees to study the forests based on each individual tree at the current time. Maybe when computers become REALLY big and REALLY fast, physics and chemistry will become one. But not in our lifetimes probably.

 

Are you just trying to stir up commotion or do you really believe these things?

[Psycho]

I don't really see the point in this thread, how can you look for evolution when you are defining millions of species as "microbes", you just seem to be talking about how you love microbes with no relevance to anything.

 

I mean your first post is just a statement that looks like it has been taken from a text book, it doesn't have any questions or really anything to even talk about, it doesn't even mention evolution, you are just stating stuff that is true.

 

Who tries to explain how life started from human beings?

 

Origin of life does imply life, while a microbe would imply chemistry its hardly just a redox reaction or what not.

All it is is a series of reactions that happened to create more stable structures because the right conditions occurred, for all intensive purposes it is just a series of chemical reactions that is what life is.

 

That’s sort of like saying well if you want to study chemistry, you should become a biologist, I just don’t buy it.

If you want to understand biology become a chemist, if you want to understand chemistry become a physicist and if you want to understand physics become a mathematician, cause that is what it call comes down too.

 

timeline approach the microbe to me is the closest living relative to origin of life

Astounding, I think anyone who has studied evolution or biology and even just general science could have told you that.

 

More so with the prokaryote or bacteria.

So you are defining all organisms into 1 or 2 groups, you do realise that most phylogenetic trees would class Eukarya such as Giardia as closers to the universal ancestor than say Proteobacteria.

 

Maybe its just human vanity perhaps that reduces the role of the microbe in the world, I don’t know really.

Reduces it in what way, most of the biochemical pathways were discovered using bacteria, then there is drug creation from them, not even mentioning there numerous uses to industry such as the creation of Xanthan gum.

[DrDNA]

Reduces it in what way, most of the biochemical pathways were discovered using bacteria, then there is drug creation from them, not even mentioning there numerous uses to industry such as the creation of Xanthan gum.

And the 5 most critical applications of microbes to life and civilization: beer, the atmosphere, wine, bread and beer.

[foodchain]

The point of the thread is that microbes are the closest living ancestor we have to whatever primordial life was in regards to origin of life, which origin of life implies biological system. As far as particular microbes go prokaryotic life arose before eukaryotic life, this can be evidence on a molecular level I believe with studies using horizontal gene shift, of course that’s not the only way.

 

Also for what its worth the amount of life in the earths crust is to be a far larger amount of biomass then what is on the surface or oceans for instance. I would imagine that such also has its own unique biomes though I don’t know if you can apply such a word to it. I mean microbes are being found that are becoming increasingly different the common or known species. Plus the relationship between microbial life and flora is also very interesting to me.

 

Tardigrada for instance is very unique. Not only in bauplan but in ability to survive extremes of radiation, temp, and basically I think it can survive in the vacuum of space. The reality of cryptobiosis is very interesting to me more so in an evolutionary sense of why it has come about through natural selection. Basically I think going past microbes really in questions regarding origin of life is somewhat pointless really.

[ecoli]

but microbes have not remained static since the 4 billion years they've existed... IIRC they have a slower rate of evolution than animals, but have a much shorter generation time.

You wouldn't really say that e. coli has always existed in it's present form, for example.