Origins of life article by Univ of Chicago

[scruffy]

We are talking about earth and other planets. Nothing can survive the insane force and energy involved in creating a planet. When planets are formed they are void of life. That's a fact. Relative to God and the creator that so far above anyone's understanding.

You may have an incorrect definition of "life".

It's not an individual, it's a continuum.

The rules for life are contained in quantum physics. Life is inevitable in any such system, in fact one could say the entire system is "alive".

 

[scruffy]

Then it should not be hard creating life in a lab

Good luck with that, no one can do it.

Actually it's already been done. Hundreds of times. The first time was 1972. General Electric has the patent.

 

[Hollie]

We are talking about earth and other planets. Nothing can survive the insane force and energy involved in creating a planet. When planets are formed they are void of life. That's a fact. Relative to God and the creator that so far above anyone's understanding.

Organic life would emerge after matter coalescing into planets. If creator gods are above anyone's understanding, it seems contradictory to assume you know with any certainty that specific gods are responsible for creation of anything.

 

[Votto]

Actually it's already been done. Hundreds of times. The first time was 1972. General Electric has the patent.

Link?

 

[alang1216]

No.

Simpler than that.

It has to survive "as a population" long enough to learn how to divide. Self replication is not easy, it's very complicated.

Not sure what this means. You disagreed with my "only had to grow and divide". To me that is the minimum requirements for natural selection to operate. Without it, how would a population 'learn' how to divide?

For cells to survive "as a population", the rate of refreshment has to equal or exceed the rate of destruction. That's all, nothing more is needed.

The idea is, you need a "stable population of a large enough size", so the biophysical forces have time to do their thing.

There are for instance ionic conditions that favor micelle creation. If you get a large enough population of micelles for long enough, they'll start ingesting ingredients from the surrounding fluid, and making use of them.

What are the pressures to evolve?

it's a long way from a dividing micelle to a self replicating cell. Millions of years

Probably billions.

 

[Votto]

Do your your beliefs produce life? Do you have any idea how they would produce life?

The bottom line is, there is simply not enough time to produce life by chance, at least, statistically

This is why many agnostic type scientists think that life was put here by aliens.

But there is the problem of the age of the known universe, only being around 15 billion years old.

So how did the aliens evolve?

 

[alang1216]

The bottom line is, there is simply not enough time to produce life by chance, at least, statistically

True but evolution is not a random process so you statistical calculations are wrong.

This is why many agnostic type scientists think that life was put here by aliens.

But there is the problem of the age of the known universe, only being around 15 billion years old.

So how did the aliens evolve?

I don't think aliens are needed to explain life on earth.

 

[Votto]

True but evolution is not a random process so you statistical calculations are wrong.


I don't think aliens are needed to explain life on earth.

But you don't discount aliens?

The oldest know life forms found some 3 billion years ago means life appeared on earth almost immediately, at least in geological terms.

 

[alang1216]

But you don't discount aliens?

I believe there are aliens out there, maybe even right here, but I see no evidence they were involved in the start of life or its evolution.

The oldest know life forms found some 3 billion years ago means life appeared on earth almost immediately, at least in geological terms.

I don't think even a geologist would consider 1 1/2 billion years to be 'immediately'. The Cambrian explosion was less than 600 mya.

 

[Votto]

I believe there are aliens out there, maybe even right here, but I see no evidence they were involved in the start of life or its evolution.


I don't think even a geologist would consider 1 1/2 billion years to be 'immediately'. The Cambrian explosion was less than 600 mya.

What Was the First Life on Earth?

The earliest evidence for life on Earth arises among the oldest rocks still preserved on the planet, dating back some 4 billion years.

www.livescience.com

Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, but the oldest rocks still in existence date back to just 4 billion years ago.

Most recently, scientists reported in the journal Nature that they had discovered microfossils in Canada that might be between 3.77 billion and 4.29 billion years old, a claim that would push the origins of life to very shortly after Earth first formed oceans.

I think we both agree that life does not come about gradually as first thought.

 

[alang1216]

What Was the First Life on Earth?

The earliest evidence for life on Earth arises among the oldest rocks still preserved on the planet, dating back some 4 billion years.

www.livescience.com

Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, but the oldest rocks still in existence date back to just 4 billion years ago.

Most recently, scientists reported in the journal Nature that they had discovered microfossils in Canada that might be between 3.77 billion and 4.29 billion years old, a claim that would push the origins of life to very shortly after Earth first formed oceans.

I think we both agree that life does not come about gradually as first thought.

We might or might not agree but the science is still out on these 'microfossils'.

 

[scruffy]

Link?

Anand Chakrabarty created a new species in the laboratory, called pseudomonas putida.

It eats oil - a behavior/capability found nowhere in nature.

They dropped it on an oil spill. It eats the oil, and when there's no more food (oil) it simply dies.

Prof. Ananda Mohan Chakrabarty: The Superbug Superhero! - Environmental Sustainability

link.springer.com

Ananda Mohan Chakrabarty - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is a famous case because it gave rise to a plethora of lawsuits over whether anyone could actually patent a life form, even one they created.

Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980)

Diamond v. Chakrabarty: Patent protection is available for a micro-organism that is artificially constructed rather than naturally occurring.

supreme.justia.com

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348691677_Forty_Years_Since_Diamond_v_Chakrabarty_Legal_Underpinnings_and_its_Impact_on_the_Biotechnology_Industry_and_Society_CENTER_FOR_THE_PROTECTION_OF_INTELLECTUAL_PROPERTY

 

[scruffy]

Oh - you should know about "minimal cells" too.

Scientists have removed all the DNA from a cell except for what it needs to survive and reproduce.

Which is less than 500 genes, and only around half a million base pairs.

Minimal Cells—Real and Imagined

A minimal cell is one whose genome only encodes the minimal set of genes necessary for the cell to survive. Scientific reductionism postulates the best way to learn the first principles of cellular biology would be to use a minimal cell in which the functions ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Into this minimal cell, can be inserted DNA of choice.

Right now it's being used to study cellular systems in isolation.

 

[Stryder50]

We might or might not agree but the science is still out on these 'microfossils'.

A bit more to this 'story';
...
A prokaryote (/proʊˈkærioʊt, -ət/) is a single-celled organism that lacks a nucleus and other membrane-bound organelles.[1] The word prokaryote comes from the Greek πρό (pro, 'before') and κάρυον (karyon, 'nut' or 'kernel').[2][3] In the two-empire system arising from the work of Édouard Chatton, prokaryotes were classified within the empire Prokaryota.[4] But in the three-domain system, based upon molecular analysis, prokaryotes are divided into two domains: Bacteria (formerly Eubacteria) and Archaea (formerly Archaebacteria). Organisms with nuclei are placed in a third domain, Eukaryota.[5] In biological evolution, prokaryotes are deemed to have arisen before eukaryotes.

Besides the absence of a nucleus, prokaryotes also lack mitochondria, or most of the other membrane-bound organelles that characterize the eukaryotic cell. It was once thought that prokaryotic cellular components within the cytoplasm were unenclosed, except for an outer cell membrane, but bacterial microcompartments, which are thought to be simple organelles enclosed in protein shells, have been discovered,[6][7] along with other prokaryotic organelles.[8] While being unicellular, some prokaryotes, such as cyanobacteria, may form large colonies. Others, such as myxobacteria, have multicellular stages in their life cycles.[9] Prokaryotes are asexual, reproducing without fusion of gametes, although horizontal gene transfer may take place.

Molecular studies have provided insight into the evolution and interrelationships of the three domains of life.[10] The division between prokaryotes and eukaryotes reflects the existence of two very different levels of cellular organization; only eukaryotic cells have an enveloped nucleus that contains its chromosomal DNA, and other characteristic membrane-bound organelles including mitochondria. Distinctive types of prokaryotes include extremophiles and methanogens; these are common in some extreme environments.[1]

History​

The distinction between prokaryotes and eukaryotes was firmly established by the microbiologists Roger Stanier and C. B. van Niel in their 1962 paper The concept of a bacterium[11] (though spelled procaryote and eucaryote there). That paper cites Édouard Chatton's 1937 book Titres et Travaux Scientifiques[12] for using those terms and recognizing the distinction. One reason for this classification was so that what was then often called blue-green algae (now called cyanobacteria) would not be classified as plants but grouped with bacteria.
...

Environment​

Phylogenetic ring showing the diversity of prokaryotes, and symbiogenetic origins of eukaryotes

Prokaryotes have diversified greatly throughout their long existence. The metabolism of prokaryotes is far more varied than that of eukaryotes, leading to many highly distinct prokaryotic types. For example, in addition to using photosynthesis or organic compounds for energy, as eukaryotes do, prokaryotes may obtain energy from inorganic compounds such as hydrogen sulfide. This enables prokaryotes to thrive in harsh environments as cold as the snow surface of Antarctica, studied in cryobiology, or as hot as undersea hydrothermal vents and land-based hot springs.

Prokaryotes live in nearly all environments on Earth. Some archaea and bacteria are extremophiles, thriving in harsh conditions, such as high temperatures (thermophiles) or high salinity (halophiles).[30] Many archaea grow as plankton in the oceans. Symbiotic prokaryotes live in or on the bodies of other organisms, including humans. Prokaryote have high populations in the soil - including the rhizosphere and rhizosheath. Soil prokaryotes are still heavily undercharacterized despite their easy proximity to humans and their tremendous economic importance to agriculture.[31]
...

...

Prokaryote - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org