TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Is abiogenesis still occuring?
Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Is abiogenesis still occuring?
Hopefully this'll be an interesting discussion. So how did life start? The preeminent theory is the primordial soup of organic compounds. If that is true, shouldn't life be constantly sprouting? I don't see it happening which leads me to believe life was somehow seeded onto the planet.
obama
I just got up and am eating a bowl of strawberries for breakfast, which are apparently more intelligent than you.
he makes $1000 an hour, he's smarter than an artificial procreation between adam smith and john nash.
Lets get one thing straight; abiogenesis is a chemical evolution right? This is happening 24/7 due to cosmic rays hitting the earth. A chemical evolution of the atmosphere on the earth; which further causes particles to become ions to form in the upper levels of the atmosphere; from there these ionized particles are capable of avalanching towards earth creating plasma or lightning bolts.
After a lightning bolt fuse particles together; and there are multiple strikes on one path; maybe two depending on the branching of the step structure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment
Past that new particles are being created daily by lightning bolts hitting the earth; On an atomic scale new molecules and particles are formed daily.
Think of a liquid which is capable of growing crystals which has perpetual motion of particles at 10^13 collisions a second. Given an extend amount of time on earth crystals were capable of growing out of a primordial soup. Crystals are arranged in the lowest energy states, so with a bunch of time and trial and error of having particles collide with the structure crystals form. Crystals are not biological, but they are new chemical structures which form.
To try and even being say biological life is gonna be chemically evolving is gonna take extended amounts of time; unless you look at how humans are genetically engineering mice to glow in the dark; or using vaccines to cure cancer.
So it just takes time for abiogenesis to take place. In other words Chemicals evolve over time; with out time there is just a chemical; nothing takes place;
Also check out:
Horizontal gene transfer (HGT)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer
Horizontal gene transfer (HGT), also Lateral gene transfer (LGT), is any process in which an organism incorporates genetic material from another organism without being the offspring of that organism.
Right there we have abiogenesis based upon the building blocks of previous events.
Past that earth also got impregnated by lots of metaphorical sperm aka asteroids and meteorites. They don't call it mother earth with out reason.
Re: Is abiogenesis still occuring?
Fuck head, would you mind not posting 16MB pictures?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton Hopefully this'll be an interesting discussion. So how did life start? The preeminent theory is the primordial soup of organic compounds. If that is true, shouldn't life be constantly sprouting? I don't see it happening which leads me to believe life was somehow seeded onto the planet. |
I'm just thinking that if life spontaneously sprouted once, it should sprout multiple times, in locations such as Yellowstone or underwater volcano vents. I would think this would be something scientists would be trying to observe in nature. But then again, if it happens, it's on an extremely small scale...
Conditions today aren't similar to the ones when life began on earth. We were a big rock covered in puddles of burning hot lava & acids 4 billion years ago with lightning striking everywhere all the time. Those are the conditions when the first amino acids formed and they were much more extreme than Yellowstone park, so I really doubt new life is being formed today. We have created amino acids from non-living matter in laboratories though (by duplicating early earth conditions)..but we haven't successfully made a stable form that could evolve into something else..yet.
Aliens came here looking for something and obviously didn't find it. Their skin cells remained here and changed the environment forever.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton I'm just thinking that if life spontaneously sprouted once, it should sprout multiple times, in locations such as Yellowstone or underwater volcano vents. I would think this would be something scientists would be trying to observe in nature. But then again, if it happens, it's on an extremely small scale... |
dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Capitalizt |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton I'm just thinking that if life spontaneously sprouted once, it should sprout multiple times, in locations such as Yellowstone or underwater volcano vents. I would think this would be something scientists would be trying to observe in nature. But then again, if it happens, it's on an extremely small scale... |
Re: Is abiogenesis still occuring?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton Hopefully this'll be an interesting discussion. So how did life start? The preeminent theory is the primordial soup of organic compounds. If that is true, shouldn't life be constantly sprouting? I don't see it happening which leads me to believe life was somehow seeded onto the planet. |
Re: Re: Is abiogenesis still occuring?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Domesticated 4. Conditions on Earth were a lot different millions of years ago. There was more oxygen in the air and it was warmer. This was more conducive to new life: "Towards the end of the Carboniferous era (about 300 million years ago) atmospheric O2 levels reached a maximum of 35% by volume, which may have contributed to the large size of insects and amphibians at this time." |
Because you don't see it happening doesn't mean it isn't. The primordial soup theory is what i was taught in my univ. bio class. The key to everything was the creation of amino acids, they are the sole component of polypeptides, without polypeptides, cells would not even exist. Lastly, without nucleic acids, deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and ribonucleic acid (RNA), would not exist.
So, the question is not whether life should be sprouting.. The most basic life form (prokaryote) has been formed 3.5 billion years ago [if i remember correctly].. So the "basics" have already been formed, I don't think we'll be seeing a single celled organism any time soon. However, I do believe new life is sprouting. In remote, diverse and untouched by mankind areas, such as the Amazon, or as you mentioned, the deep sea water vents, there are different life forms being discovered. You won't see a new zebra pop up, however, you will see several bugs/amphibians that still have not been classified in the Amazon, or small organisms that have adapted and can live without any source of sunlight at the bottom of the ocean, and the high levels of sulfide from the vents which would be highly toxic to almost any other animal.
Over 300 new species have been discovered at hydrothermal vents, many of them "sister species" to others found in geographically separated vent areas. It has been proposed that before the North American plate overrode the mid-ocean ridge, there was a single biogeographic vent region found in the eastern Pacific.[10] The subsequent barrier to travel began the evolutionary divergence of species in different locations. The examples of convergent evolution seen between distinct hydrothermal vents is seen as major support for the theory of natural selection and evolution as a whole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrot..._origin_of_life
Anyway, I'm not too interested about the creation of any new species/organisms..
What I want to know is HOW the amino acids came to be...
I know our universe/earth was based off of CHON (Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen), but imo, the structure of an amino acid is a lot more complicated, the amino group & the carboxyl group.. what I find interesting is that without the R group (side chain), the molecule is just CHON on it's own.. I doubt CHON can help create cells & metabolisms.. So unless it spontaneously {which im not refuting the theory either because it took SEVERAL years to get to that point, but still don't find it reasonable} happened, I want to know how the amino acid, apart from the CHON structure, was formed?
My teacher & i once were talking about this, and we were talking about another option.. could Earth have received the amino acid?.. As far as i know, another galaxy (or in our own) could have a planet far more developed than ours, and as our planet had still not developed, a meteorite could have hit our planet [which was very common in that time period] containing amino acids or at least the right components for creating one..
I just found this article, it's different theory but it mentions amino acids coming to Earth through meteorites..
The results, published in the March 28 Nature, suggest that some amino acids could have formed in giant clouds of icy particles and then hitched rides on comets and asteroids to planets throughout the universe, says Max Bernstein of NASA'S Ames Research Center in Mountain View, Calif.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/...61/ai_84804464/
Anyway, that's probably the most reliable theory i can think of how amino acids got here, i find it hard to believe they just formed because just putting all the components together doesn't create an amino acid. But i do want to hear other peoples' theories! 
No one has mentioned the possibility that life was transported here by celestial bodies, a theory that will hold more weight if we find life on mars that shares most of our DNA.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by iTranscendence No one has mentioned the possibility that life was transported here by celestial bodies, a theory that will hold more weight if we find life on mars that shares most of our DNA. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by yukii Do you mean fully-functioning organisms or amino acids being transported here? Because that's how I said amino acids (theoretically) got here [my previous post].. I don't think organisms were transported though, realistically.. |
Okay, let me rephrase, what i meant to say is, i don't think an organism more than a single celled organism, i.e. 'water bears' would have realistically been transported to Earth, I'm not saying it's not possible.. but that organism is highly more developed than a prokaryote, hence, if you're saying that those kind of highly developed organisms were transported to Earth & the first organsms to be here, then we're skipping entire phases of evolution.. Evolution would not go backwards & the existence of a single celled organism would not be necessary.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by yukii Okay, let me rephrase, what i meant to say is, i don't think an organism more than a single celled organism, i.e. 'water bears' would have realistically been transported to Earth, I'm not saying it's not possible.. but that organism is highly more developed than a prokaryote, hence, if you're saying that those kind of highly developed organisms were transported to Earth & the first organsms to be here, then we're skipping entire phases of evolution.. Evolution would not go backwards & the existence of a single celled organism would not be necessary. |
Yeah, that's another good point, thanks for pointing that out. Anything less though, like DNA, RNA, amino acid, etc, I do find probable of having been able to land on Earth..
If amino acids were transported to Earth via collisions, meteorites, etc- I'd like to know from WHERE.
I'm not saying that I'm saying if there are organism like the water bear that could feasibly survive it, then there is a possibility that single celled organisms did as well.
How would they have survived is what would be your next question. Creatures evolve more often than not to suit their environment and our single celled organisms may have been here so long that they lost capacities similar to the water bears.
This entire premise and theory is more plausible based on the evidence we currently have, it doesn't make it the correct theory and could be easily disproven by creating a simple organism.
Wait, you lost me could you reexplain that first sentence?
I'm not saying your theory is wrong, I'm just questioning certain things & I find it highly unlikely that organisms like the water bear were organisms that were transported here & sprung life.
I'm not sure if you understood my point either.. What I was saying was, I do believe amino acids and MAYBE a single celled organism could survive the impact on Earth, but anything more than that I doubt. Not only because of the collision but because, then we would have no use for a prokaryote during evolution.
Were you trying to say that something (like) the water bear could have landed & then lost it's capacities similar to the water bear over time?
Also, if that were possible, I think by now we'd have evidence of some form of highly developed organsim having survived/not survived impact on one of the several meterorites that have hit the Earth and that have been studied..
The link that Nrg2Nfinit provided, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALH84001 is a good example of what I am saying..
The theory holds that it was shocked and broken by one or more meteorite impacts on the surface of Mars some 3.9 to 4.0 billion years ago, but remained on the planet. It was later blasted off from the surface in a separate impact about 15 million years ago and impacted Earth roughly 13,000 years ago.
Several tests for organic material have been performed on the meteorite and amino acids and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) have been found. The debate if the organic molecules were created by nonbiological processes or are due to contamination from the contact with Antarctic ice is still ongoing.
The problem is that it's only a theory since, like this meterorite, it has had contact with Earth, so maybe those amino acids were placed AFTER its collision..
But, I just find it unlikely to suggest that anything more than an amino acid/prokaryote was transported & survived the collision & sprung life. 
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.