How did life first come into being from a dead piece of organic matter? With this quest in mind, I went forth and reviewed the relevant material and literature from diverse sources. Although serious scientists have applied their scientific and analytical skills for about 70 years now, the results have proved disappointing. From my cursory review, it seems that numerous research groups throughout the world are on the brink of a significant breakthrough. And then I looked back to work conducted in the late 1990s and several research groups working then stated they were on the cusp of a significant breakthrough........
It is to be remembered that conditions on early Earth c3.5 billion years ago were vastly different to today. The atmosphere of that time contained little or no oxygen. This primitive miasma was dominated by the presence of carbon dioxide, water vapour, methane and other trace gasses. Of course, this primitive atmosphere would be noxious and lethal to present-day organisms. The majority of today's creatures, great and small, rely on oxygen for their respiratory metabolism (aerobic). Oxygen levels in our current atmosphere are around 20% and are maintained by organisms utilising the power of photosynthesis. Oxygen is necessary for aerobic respiration, and clearly, the very first life would have had to rely on other means for energy generation.
The RNA World
What follows is a highly truncated and simplistic review of how the RNA world is thought to have formed
All researchers in the field agree that the first life formed in a watery environment. This environment c3.5 billion years ago would be a soup of organic compounds formed from ubiquitous carbon. There are several energetic events that could have been responsible for the synthesis of organic compounds from inorganic molecules. Lightning strikes and thermal energy from volcanoes would have done the trick. At the time of the 'Great Bombardment', meteorites containing organic compounds would have covered the primaeval Earth. It matters not whether the first life appeared in a warm muddy pool or on the ocean floor next to a volcanic vent, there is a fundamental paradox that must be tackled, the ultimate chicken and the egg question. Chains of nucleic acid molecules (RNA and DNA) are required for self-replication, however, this replication can only occur with the help of proteins consisting of amino acids. Both types of molecules are necessary for the propagation of life. What came first, nucleic acids or proteins? Both are required and act in unison for the process of replication. It is hard to imagine that these two exceedingly rare events could happen spontaneously. Perhaps religious folk are correct after all, and a god(s) is/are required to provide the vital spark. One solution relies on the properties of single-stranded RNA molecules. According to this hypothesis, RNA strands act as a template for their own propagation. This process would have to be facilitated by other RNA strands that have folded upon themselves, an innate property of certain RNA strands. These two separate systems would have to spontaneously engage and cooperate to facilitate the replication of single RNA strands with high regard for fidelity. It is to be imagined that open RNA strands would continue to replicate in a milieu of organic chemicals. Competition for free-floating ribonucleotides would then occur. A form of chemical evolution would ensue and ensure that the fastest replicating molecules would dominate and therefore drive the formation of an efficient cooperating replication system. The problem with such a free-floating system is that the replicating RNA strands would be at the mercy of other molecules within the system that might destroy the growing and replicating RNA molecules. Researchers agree that some form of enclosed protective canopy would have had to develop fairly early on to offer some form of protection. Organic lipids in water will spontaneously form spheres. This is due to the molecules having both hydrophilic and hydrophobic regions. That is, one end of the molecule will attract water molecules while the opposite end repels water. The result is that lipids in a watery medium naturally form 'fatty bubbles'. Somehow, the primitive RNA system (I refrain from calling this life) would have had to enter the protective lipid sphere. From there on, the structure would continue to absorb free-floating ribonucleic acids, and the system would continue to replicate. And then, at a suitable time, a portion of the RNA system would bud off and still remain enclosed within a portion of the original fatty domain. And so on, and so on. This model assumes that chemical evolution would drive these primitive systems to become better at replication and at acquiring substrates. Therefore, along the way, most of these competing 'bubbles' would succumb, and at some fine juncture, there would emerge from this chemical deluge a single system that goes on to be refined by natural selection, finally becoming the 'organism' that goes on to beget all life on Earth. If this is the case, then when did the lipid bag of nutrients actually become life. This is moot, I suspect it is analogous to asking when did the first human arise from our ape-like ancestors. Could we actually define a moment and pronounce with absolute rigour/vigour that a particular individual was fully human? And how would we categorise the status of the parents? This proposed continuum presents us with a problem. Could there be a defining moment in the history of our planet when chemical evolution transformed and became life? There is much to ponder here. Of course, all this is pure conjecture, and there are numerous problems with this model. It would be necessary for all the elements to come together almost simultaneously for all this to be feasible. Each step borders on the impossible. The probability that each step in the process could come about and interact stretches probability to unknown realms and, dare I say it, borders on the miraculous. With all that said, it must have happened somehow. The fact that I'm able to sit here and write these words whilst scratching an itch on my twinkle should be testament enough.
My attempt at explanation is an extremely truncated affair- how could it be otherwise. Also, my limited exposition is only one scenario of how life could have come about. There are alternatives, although many rely on some form of RNA initiation. These alternatives will have to wait another day.
Hi Flax, the disapointment about the answers can result from putting the wrong question. As figured out in the Schrödinger-comments, it did not need an ignition spark to make "dead" matter alive. This idea is anchored in religious images (Sistine chapel - God treated it to Adam plus a dick sized half of his thumb) - but the progress of epistemology should able us to think in more logical categories. The most probable solution for the phenomenon of living beeings is the theory, that life is a regular component of the infinte universe, such as matter, energy, time, space.... To the "hot ball" of early earth, life came by incredible hails of cosmical projectiles made from or containing a lot of h2o-ice (such as comets for exampl.). It cooled down our planet that now could keep then the melting water from outer space "loaded" with microbes and their nutrition already in and voilá, earth was "infected" by life ready for evolution. That theory seems to me best convincing, als long as we take our todays idea about the universe as a final fact - and there are pretty good reasons for doubts about that. We smile at the cosmos-models of the midages (flat disc., terracentric...) or the ancient cultures (Aristotle´s glass-spheres...) not to mention all those giants, turtles, elephants carrying the dirtclump on their back..., but what will people in future think about our actual primitive model (especially when we realize, that any honest thinking about convincing solutions are used to be torpedoed by the church, with fictional science like Lemaitre´s bigbang rubbish for example. Well... never mind. We don´t do it, because it´s easy - we do it, because it´s hard (or insane?).
ReplyDeleteHI Josh, we do it because we are mad.....And yea, I've been 'certified.' by a trick cyclist. Revel in your difference and embrace your insanity.
ReplyDeleteFascinating post on a fascinating – and very likely frustrating – subject.
ReplyDeleteThe raw material is there. It is known that amino acids – the very key to life if they are necessary for RNA and DNA to work - are out there among the stars. It is known that discharges through various chemical soups can create them, but whether this is the only mechanism or if different amino acids need different mechanisms to create them (or there are a number of alternative/interchangeable mechanisms) is something we don’t currently know (but as amino acids appear to be relatively plentiful perhaps this is not the basic issue).
Amino acids, I believe are observable in nebula and gas clouds Doubtless they will be on planets, but we don’t have sufficient resolution of telescopes and other instruments yet to investigate planets at interstellar distances in the requisite detail.
As for RNA/DNA, the precursors for this may well just be chemistry, but that in itself may be a severe limitation if the conditions for the chemistry to come about – liquid water at the correct temperature for sufficient time, whatever else – are not as common as we might like to hope.
"Rare earth" I suppose until we can find some more direct evidence to the contrary.
Then there is the sequence – whatever that may be – of stages to get from chemistry to life. How does this tie into the specific planetary (or whatever) environment?
Maybe a model of abiogenesis theorising all the stages to get from basic chemicals to what is universally acknowledged to be living can be derived. Again, how would it be tested? Until we can properly examine actual life bearing worlds, likely a minimum of tens of light years away, could it ever be properly verified? (It could explain life on earth perhaps, but that is just a single example).
Mars and Venus were likely like the early earth several billion years ago, and there is an ocean on Enceladus, so these should be the focus of research. Actual evidence of life – fossilised most likely if it exists – elsewhere in the solar system would be an immense pointer.
Of course, inevitably, gods will raise their ugly heads in all this, largely based on probability quoting probabilities of 1 in 10 to the 100, 200, or even 300 (I believe there are “only” something like 10 to the 80 atoms in the observable universe) for the formation of by chance of protein sequences etc.
1 in 10 to the 300? Not sure if you’ve already come across this. Over 20 years old but interesting: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html)
Of course, this link is one in the eye for “creationists”, but the basic arguments do have a lot of appeal in the general population. I don’t think there are too many actual “creationists”, but there is the beginning of a real distrust in science (given the destructive ideological lunacy that is cites “science” as it’s justification, but that is another argument) and abiogenisis is perhaps on the fringe of most people’s consciousness, but funding is needed and who is being asked?
Thanks for the link, Mark.
DeleteIn an infinite universe, anything is possible, life spontaneously arising etc. However, even though the universe may be infinite, not everything is possible as there are certain laws built into the universe that allow it to exist For more than a few seconds) , if one of these laws changed, even slightly, the universe and therefore life would probably not exist. Life needs no external 'deity' to be created, just Dawinism at it's finest.
ReplyDeleteI have a 'You are Sane Chit' too. Not sure if it is still valid though.
Cheers! Tony F.
I'm always ready to cash mine in.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Deletethanks Flaxen for dipping our noses into Schrödinger´s cat´s shit. Tony is very right - anything can happen and cannot in an infinite universe. Law is controlled by men and does control men same time. That´s enlightenment of it´s finest. Well done, folks. I never realized how many of those specifical paradoxons exist cause not paying the attention to them they deserve.
ReplyDeleteBy the way - thinking of spontan life and the evolution. There is a spider anyone of us may have in our rooms (in Zealand too...?) at exactly this moment. It´s a no dangeous creature with a tiny body, long thin legs and looks pretty familiar to us meanwhile as it is the today´s most spread spider worldwide. The special about it: It did not exist before the 1980ies - so it is a "brandnew" species, not related to any other spiders. It looks like daddy longlegs, but daddy longlegs is an active hunter, and this pet is a web-builder. In german it´s named Zitterspinne (shivering spider - it uses to shiver under pressure). On english Wiki me found only the name daddy longlegs for it, but strange enough that´s the same name for two absolute different animals. Now it comes even better: I still have an Encyclopedia Britannica and a Brockhaus (the german equivalent encyclopedia) from the 1970ies and the Zitterspinne is not mentioned in both of them, nor in any other sources of those days and before. Much more to say about but leads too far. It seems to be the spontaneously appearance of a very complex species (a spider is no microbe). I guess most of you felllows are old enough to remember, if you have seen it in the 60ies or earlier (me did not and used to travel a lot). I find it particular interesting as an indicator, that on Wikipedia history seems to change slightly. Always when I´m looking after it (less than once a year), I read something a bit else (not talking of new insights) about it. Am I the only one with that puzzling kind of observation (beyond madness)?
An interesting observation. I'm well aware of the daddy long legs. However, I'm not acquainted with the shivering variety- I will look into the problem.
ReplyDelete