abiogenesis via natural selection

[Moontanman]

Over and over we hear that evolution is not part of abiogenesis, that evolution via natural selection did not start until life had already formed. This leads to ideas that life is a very low probability occurrence, a figure 10^-41,000 of how unlikely the formation of life was is often bandied about as though it were the truth. I say that life is a natural occurrence driven by natural selection of the organic chemicals that come about naturally in the conditions of the early Earth.

 

These organic chemicals and the action of organic catalysts is what brought about life. Natural selection of the chemicals that contribute to the reactions that bring about more of themselves by acting on other chemicals being produced by various natural reactions. The synergy of catalysts that drive reactions that result in more copies of themselves coupled with the huge influx of reactants provided by a great many mechanisms that imitated metabolisms acted on by these organic catalysts results in reproducing systems of naked metabolisms, the catalysts are the basic precursors to RNA and DNA. RNA and DNA do not, as many have asserted, represent information, they represent catalysts that make better copies of themselves than other catalysts. We see them as information storage due to our own chauvinism not due to any real information content. The cells, from eubacteria to protists to elephants is just catalysts making more complex coverings to insure more copies of themselves.

 

The catalysts that make more copies tend to survive and make more copies, those that did not were over whelmed by the ones who did. RNA and DNA are just very complex catalysts competing to make more copies.

The entire process was driven by natural selection, from catalysts floating in the soup of organic chemicals to lipid bubbles full of organic chemicals. The lipid bubbles were a much more concentrated source of chemical "food' for the catalysts, those catalysts that promoted the existence of lipid bubbles tended to be more successful. No magical thinking required, just time and chemicals.

 

Here are some of the sources of organic chemicals these catalysts used.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron-sulfur_world_theory

 

http://originoflife.net/crystals/index.html

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071204102500.htm

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021204080856.htm

 

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100513143457.htm

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071204102500.htm

[Mr Skeptic]

Evolution consists of two parts:

1) Descent with modification.

2) Natural selection.

 

Without a self-replicator, you are missing the first component.

[Moontanman]

Evolution has meaning beyond that which we assign to it in regard to life. Stars evolve, the evolution of stars is a known quantity, planets evolve, anything that changes evolves. Decent is exactly what I am saying happened, organic chemicals over time became more complex due to processes that produced more and more complex chemicals due to selection that favored more complex chemicals. With out the sources of the organic chemicals this could never have happened, without the catalysts in competition with each other for these resources this could never have happened. The two processes driven toward complexity by this competition for resources resulted in life.

 

My assertion is that under the circumstances of abundant energy, abundant organic chemicals and catalysts that competed with each other for resources natural selection resulted in life....

[rigney]

Just short of putting the "Big ?" out there, I see no reason why abiogenesis wouldn't have the same chance for a beginning of life as any theory coming down the pike over the past five thousand years. Many theorize life came from, comets, solar winds, other planets and whatever. The fallacy of such a concept is that life would have had to began elsewhere in the universe, just not here on earth. But how?

So, the "where" is not nearly as important as to the "how"? Chemists have for several years tried to concoct different brews in an effort to bring about some simple form of life, but so far, no soap. But then, it's possible that roughly four billion years ago earth may have been shaken by an event unlike any other that has ever happened in the entire universe. A set of rules beyond anything concievable may have fallen into place for a brief moment that laid the ground work for life as we know it today. It may have began as something totally innocuous as only rudiments of the first organisms. The precursor to that initial spawn of life forms may have also become extinct in a matter of minutes, hours or days, leaving no sign of its ever being. Without fossolized remains of extinct prehistoric animals such as dinosaurs, we would have no idea that they existed either. good luck.

Edited August 14, 2010 by rigney

[CharonY]

Evolution consists of two parts:

1) Descent with modification.

2) Natural selection.

 

Without a self-replicator, you are missing the first component.

 

Well technically there are more mechanisms out there. This is just the very first idea as described by Darwin.However, even in the absence of natural selection other events, as e.g. stochastic ones can influence the gene pool composition, depending on the size of the population, for instance.

[Moontanman]

My assertion is that a process similar to what we describe as evolution to life took place before life as we know it existed and produced the first life forms as we define them. This chemical evolution progressed from simple carbon compounds to actual living cells via a process very similar to evolution and it happened the same way via natural selection, no original information was necessary.

[rigney]

My assertion is that a process similar to what we describe as evolution to life took place before life as we know it existed and produced the first life forms as we define them. This chemical evolution progressed from simple carbon compounds to actual living cells via a process very similar to evolution and it happened the same way via natural selection, no original information was necessary.

 

What does "similar to evolution" mean? Also, "no original" information needed? C'mon, there is something more to life forms than "I think" or "I believe". I've gotten hammered everytime I use it. I can respond out of ignorance to your assumptions as I did, but you should do a bit of explaining to passify my stupidity. Life might have began as something we may never understand, but to say that two rocks crawled out from under a third rock and because they were primarially carbon, made whoopee! and we got a fourth rock, that's B.S. I was born at night, but not last night!!

Edited August 14, 2010 by rigney

[cypress]

Over and over we hear that evolution is not part of abiogenesis, that evolution via natural selection did not start until life had already formed. This leads to ideas that life is a very low probability occurrence, a figure 10^-41,000 of how unlikely the formation of life was is often bandied about as though it were the truth. I say that life is a natural occurrence driven by natural selection of the organic chemicals that come about naturally in the conditions of the early Earth.

 

I have often heard the biological evolution has no part of abiogenesis, but I commonly hear the chemic evolution might very well have had a role. How can we get some sense of this? What role can "natural selection" have in this process?

 

Mr.Skeptic raises a good point when he suggests that natural selection cannot select for anything until some form of descent with modification is established. Some initial self-replicating system must come before that and some method of generating a self-replicating system or molecule from compounds that don't self-replicate must come before that. Talk about change over time (evolution) and selection seems a bit like getting the cart before the horse and so it is good that you described in some sense a process leading up to this. How though can we know that your idea is correct? What processes lead to derivation of self-replicating systems? These questions naturally lead to the philosophical issue of reductionism. Does the whole reduce to the sum of its parts? Conversely do the properties of the parts explain the structure, organization and function of the whole?

 

You seem to be saying the answer to this question is yes and I am interested in how you come to that conclusion and what evidence you have to support it.

[Moontanman]

One thing I'm trying to say, and this is important, is that the processes of life we see taking place inside a cell at one time took place outside the confines of a cell. The mechanisms we think of as life is really the condensation of many processes that we see now inside a simple cell that took place in many different areas, places like mica sheets, clay crystals, oceanic ridges (black smokers and cold seeps), lightning flashes, UV radiation, waves crashing on rocky beaches, upwelling of oil (yes oil existed before life), all these things contributed to the process we call life.

 

Catalysts were literally the catalyst that brought about ever increasing complexity. Catalysts are not just platinum causing hydrogen to react with oxygen and coming out the end of the reaction unchanged. Some catalysts actually produce more catalysts than you had at the start of the process. The catalysts that made more copies of themselves were selected for, these catalysts acted on the organic chemicals being produced by the above mentioned processes, the by products of the catalytic reactions went back into play and were acted on by the mica sheets etc, these chemical loops slowly brought about the increase in complexity. These processes took place over millions of years and trillions of actual reactions each year.

 

This process acting over time as the chemicals were processed by the two competing processes eventually began to come together in various ways.

 

I am still working on the details but i see RNA being produced as by the processes of ever increasing complexity of the catalysts, RNA is just a complex catalyst (in my scenario anyway) but lipid bubbles concentrating the chemicals and drifting catalysts being able to more successfully copy themselves inside the lipid bubbles figures big in my idea...

 

Rigney, it is a bit more complex that a few carbon rocks reproducing but i do see your objection and the complex organics being produced by natural means as shown in the links in my original post is my answer to your objection...

 

One thing should be added and to me this is the weakest link, I am sure there were natural processes that took place then that are not reproduced by life we have now. i am sure than once life as we know it got started the cells streamlined their reactions quickly and unnecessary reactions were trimmed away fast. i am also sure that both chemosynthesis and photosynthesis both started before there were cells and life as we know it.

Edited August 14, 2010 by Moontanman

[cypress]

One thing I'm trying to say, and this is important, is that the processes of life we see taking place inside a cell at one time took place outside the confines of a cell. The mechanisms we think of as life is really the condensation of many processes that we see now inside a simple cell that took place in many different areas, places like mica sheets, clay crystals, oceanic ridges (black smokers and cold seeps), lightning flashes, UV radiation, waves crashing on rocky beaches, upwelling of oil (yes oil existed before life), all these things contributed to the process we call life.

 

Precisely what processes currently occurring inside a cell are you referring to? Are there any experiments confirming these processes occur where you claim they occur?

 

Catalysts were literally the catalyst that brought about ever increasing complexity. Catalysts are not just platinum causing hydrogen to react with oxygen and coming out the end of the reaction unchanged. Some catalysts actually produce more catalysts than you had at the start of the process. The catalysts that made more copies of themselves were selected for, these catalysts acted on the organic chemicals being produced by the above mentioned processes, the by products of the catalytic reactions went back into play and were acted on by the mica sheets etc, these chemical loops slowly brought about the increase in complexity. These processes took place over millions of years and trillions of actual reactions each year.

 

What are these catalysts and how did they form? Given your description of all of these independent processes occurring outside a cell there would have to be hundreds of them correct? Is there any confirmation that the required diversity of biologically active catalysts form naturally?

 

This process acting over time as the chemicals were processed by the two competing processes eventually began to come together in various ways.

 

Do experiments confirm that competing processes do come together by any mechanism?

 

Rigney, it is a bit more complex that a few carbon rocks reproducing but i do see your objection and the complex organics being produced by natural means as shown in the links in my original post is my answer to your objection...

 

I read the links and may have missed reference to that which you speak. I would be very interested to see specific confirmation that individual biological building block molecules come together to form biologically active complex polymers. Can you please direct me to that literature.

 

One thing should be added and to me this is the weakest link, I am sure there were natural processes that took place then that are not reproduced by life we have now. i am sure than once life as we know it got started the cells streamlined their reactions quickly and unnecessary reactions were trimmed away fast. i am also sure that both chemosynthesis and photosynthesis both started before there were cells and life as we know it.

 

If there were natural processes such as you describe, one should have no trouble reproducing them in laboratory conditions.

[Moontanman]

Precisely what processes currently occurring inside a cell are you referring to? Are there any experiments confirming these processes occur where you claim they occur?

 

I am referring to the processes that take simple molecules and turn them into complex living molecules. It's called metabolism.

 

What are these catalysts and how did they form? Given your description of all of these independent processes occurring outside a cell there would have to be hundreds of them correct? Is there any confirmation that the required diversity of biologically active catalysts form naturally?

 

http://www.ascentofhumanity.com/chapter6-6.php

 

The key to Kauffman's account of biogenesis is the idea of an autocatalytic set. Many of the problems with the standard selfish gene theory come from the absurd unlikelihood of obtaining such a molecule from the building blocks likely to be found in the prebiotic soup. In Kauffman's theory it is not necessary for a molecule to appear that can catalyze its own formation. All that is necessary is to have a set of molecules each of which catalyze a step in the formation of one or more other molecules in the set. The final step in the formation of each molecule in the set must be catalyzed by another member of the set, a condition called catalytic closure. Based on combinatoric reasoning, Kauffman argues that the emergence of autocatalytic sets is highly probable if not inevitable when molecular diversity crosses a certain concentration threshold.

 

Do experiments confirm that competing processes do come together by any mechanism?

 

Since this is my idea or at least my take on a number of possibilities I'm not sure a proof exists

 

I read the links and may have missed reference to that which you speak. I would be very interested to see specific confirmation that individual biological building block molecules come together to form biologically active complex polymers. Can you please direct me to that literature.

 

The links I provivided exactly that.

 

 

If there were natural processes such as you describe, one should have no trouble reproducing them in laboratory conditions.

 

I see no reason why this could not be done , all you need is test tube the size of the earth and a few million years to observe....

[cypress]

I am referring to the processes that take simple molecules and turn them into complex living molecules. It's called metabolism.

 

Please list the metabolic processes that in your words, "took place outside the confines of the cell". I am anxious also for observational support that this is a true statement. Please indicate if you have evidence to offer. There are hundreds of such processes in cells, how many have support for existing outside cells?

 

http://www.ascentofhumanity.com/chapter6-6.php

 

I read the entire chapter and did not find any catalysts listed nor any description of how they were formed prior to the current biological processes in modern life. Please redirect me to this information.

 

Since this is my idea or at least my take on a number of possibilities I'm not sure a proof exists

 

Is it then accurate to describe it as a just so story?

 

The links I provivided exactly that.

 

I am nearly certain they don't. If you could indicate the exact article and paste here a line or two, that might help.

 

I see no reason why this could not be done , all you need is test tube the size of the earth and a few million years to observe....

 

Are you suggesting that the individual processes cannot be reproduced because they each take millions of years to complete? If this is not what you are saying can you be more specific about the issue.

[rigney]

I like your whole synopsis on the issue, but I'd like to get back to that "oil before life" thing you mentioned. I'ts interesting, yet vague. Can it be possible that oil is produced in the earth perpetually, and without an input? Well, I dont mean it exactly like that. Even in time this planet will be gone. But if oil is essentially a part of the continuous evolution of earth and doesn't need any biodegradable(s) to sustain it, "WOW". We've been dicked around with for ages. But since abiogenics are as yet, nothing other than theorized, I have my druthers? As I said earlier, what happened on earth billions of years ago needn't be a poser forever. But the more I read, the more I wonder? Careful Moon, you might turn me into a flippin' slip slidin', "Agnostic". Is there such a word?

[Mr Skeptic]

I would be very interested to see specific confirmation that individual biological building block molecules come together to form biologically active complex polymers. Can you please direct me to that literature.

 

It is actually fairly common. In a sense we are a sort of "protein crystal", which is an elegant solution to the necessity of self-repair. Well that's simplifying things a bit, but the point is that natural forces result in self-assembly and self-stabilizing of many of our parts. Bipolar molecules such as the phospholipids of our membrane can naturally form membranes, and once formed natural forces stabilize them. As for the "protein crystals", collagen, keratin, elastin, tubulin and fibroin self-assemble into certain shapes due to the same sort of forces that shape crystals. The beauty of this is the simplicity, so that controlling the concentration of the components can be used to grow or shrink some structures, rather than having some obscenely complicated mechanism to do so.

 

Viruses often entirely self-assemble from just their parts.

 

Life itself can be taken apart and put back together, and no one really knows exactly the dividing line between "living" and "non-living". Personally, I think no such line really exists and the meaning of these terms depends on the context.

 

Anyhow, if you want more info, search about self-assembly.

 

Please list the metabolic processes that in your words, "took place outside the confines of the cell". I am anxious also for observational support that this is a true statement. Please indicate if you have evidence to offer. There are hundreds of such processes in cells, how many have support for existing outside cells?

 

Ask a biology undergrad, odds are they have done this themselves. PCR, for example, which I have personally done several times.

 

Is it then accurate to describe it as a just so story?

 

That says nothing about reality, although from my observations it seems immensely relevant to your ego.

[D H]

Please list the metabolic processes that in your words, "took place outside the confines of the cell". I am anxious also for observational support that this is a true statement. Please indicate if you have evidence to offer. There are hundreds of such processes in cells, how many have support for existing outside cells?

 

Is this your standard MO, cypress? Picking on someone who doesn't know the right terms to use, who doesn't quite know the specifics of the subject matter, and thereby claiming victory? That is just sad, sad, sad.

 

Pretty much everyone at this site is an amateur on the subject of abiogenesis. Of the few biology experts we do have at this site, none are (as far as I know) experts on this particular subject. They are instead experts in the evolution of some particular existing set of species. So even if you did do a better job at debating us does not mean you are right. It would just mean that you did a better job than a bunch of naive ninnies.

 

Oh, one last thing: You have not done a better job than us amateurs.

[AzurePhoenix]

Please list the metabolic processes that in your words, "took place outside the confines of the cell". I am anxious also for observational support that this is a true statement. Please indicate if you have evidence to offer. There are hundreds of such processes in cells, how many have support for existing outside cells?

here's one -> http://aem.asm.org/cgi/reprint/48/4/826.pdf (please note that the article is 26 years old) Edited August 14, 2010 by AzurePhoenix

[cypress]

here's one -> http://aem.asm.org/cgi/reprint/48/4/826.pdf (please note that the article is 26 years old)

 

Montonman described these processes this way: "I am referring to the processes that take simple molecules and turn them into complex living molecules. It's called metabolism."

 

Are you suggesting that this article provides an analog of the kind of chemic process Moontonman intended?

Edited August 14, 2010 by cypress

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

It's a "metabolic process that in your words, 'took place outside the confines of the cell'".

[AzurePhoenix]

Are you suggesting that this article provides an analog of the kind of chemic process Moontonman intended?

You asked a specific question. I provided a simple response to that question. Extracellular metabolic processes are common, long-studied, and well-understood. I'm not interested in the rest at the moment. Your ability to ignore and misrepresent data and principles, cling to erroneous and falsified data and conclusions, and to warp original points to force them into unreasonable conditions makes it tough to maintain any desire to converse with you.

[cypress]

You asked a specific question. I provided a simple response to that question. Extracellular metabolic processes are common, long-studied, and well-understood. I'm not interested in the rest at the moment. Your ability to ignore and misrepresent data and principles, cling to erroneous and falsified data and conclusions, and to warp original points to force them into unreasonable conditions makes it tough to maintain any desire to converse with you.

 

OK, thanks then you did not intend that this is an example within the context of this thread and of the kind moontonman was speaking. I appreciate the clarification, it therefore requires no response.

[Moontanman]

Ok, i have intentionally not done a lot of google searches to support my idea, I wanted to give my idea in it's rawest form, and allow all of us debate the potentials, metabolism first comes closest to matching my scenario metabolism first but some recent work seems to discount this process. metabolism was not first I see no reason to try and pretend I have some special knowledge nor do i want to consistently ignore other peoples ideas against my idea. this is big part of my idea as is this More links both pro and con

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081218213634.htm

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090109173205.htm

 

My idea of a synergy between many different natural processes producing life is not unique, a short google search will confirm this but as each of the leading ideas continuously beat each other over the head i wonder if all of them could be correct but still flawed because they insist on only their idea working when a combination of many different processes is more likely to have turned the key to life as we know it....

[pioneer]

The nucleotide triphosphate are the monomers used for the genetic material. These are energy rich materials, due to the triphosphate end. Proteins can utilize this triphosphate energy, via an active group, for example to make ADP from ATP. Say we tried to feed the first replicators, its needed monomer triphosphate s, in the presence of a simple proteins with active -OH groups. That could means loss of triphosphate energy for replicator synthesis. The proteins could render the RNA monomers inactive and more difficult to react on the replicators. The proteins would have natural selection, in this triphosphate energy competition, since they form in ways replicators can't disrupt. They then flow nearby the energy source and mess up the replicators, for their own energy needs.

Edited August 15, 2010 by pioneer

[Mr Skeptic]

OK, thanks then you did not intend that this is an example within the context of this thread and of the kind moontonman was speaking. I appreciate the clarification, it therefore requires no response.

 

Oh, because he included the word "living"? Well, just because he said "living molecules" rather than "organic molecules such as those used by living organisms" doesn't mean that any half-way intelligent person can't understand it.

 

Anyhow, I can and have made DNA outside of a cell, how's that for extracellular metabolism?

[rigney]

Oh, because he included the word "living"? Well, just because he said "living molecules" rather than "organic molecules such as those used by living organisms" doesn't mean that any half-way intelligent person can't understand it.

 

Anyhow, I can and have made DNA outside of a cell, how's that for extracellular metabolism?

 

Quote: I can and have made DNA outside of a cell.

 

Fantastic! And just why are you fooling around on this forum with so much talent at your disposal? Even if a few of us were given your fortuitous brain trust, perhaps the world would be a better place in which to live. Get to using it!!

Edited August 15, 2010 by rigney

[cypress]

 

Anyhow, I can and have made DNA outside of a cell, how's that for extracellular metabolism?

 

It never ceases to surprise me what can be accomplished when a mind is the cause.