• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Origins of Life

DDD

DDD

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
12,351
Reaction score
1,919
Location
Republic of Dardania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There are plenty of religious stories about how life originated and thought we should balance that with some scientifically backed one's instead. Thus statements supported with scientific premises could be piled over here.

There are plenty of theories as to how life originated on our world. Most state that the earth for one should first cool, then have liquid water in it initially before life can have a chance of joining enough chemicals to be considered as an organism.

But from where do those initial life creating chemicals come from? They were always here and awaited water and a bit less scorching temperatures? Or did they came from outer space?

You may have heard about meteorites and comets bringing the initial chemicals here. But this latest scientific finding carried out by astrophysicists (Zaleski et al, 2013) suggest that there may be some in the gases between stars also that Earth. This suggests to me that Earth may have pulled those in itself with gravity while passing through them sometimes back billions of years ago. Alternatively a meteorite could pass through the gas, pick them up with its weaker gravity, and crash into the earth bringing them with it.

But just how do those chemicals get into Earth without being fried from the Earth's atmosphere is not clear for me. Asteroids, comets, meteorites, that could also bring the chemicals with them make quite an entry with their blasts before resting their bones on our soil also.

How do the chemicals survive so as to join later and provide life could be one question for our debate?

But what they found lingering about in between star gasses was:

cyanomethanimine, is one step in the process that chemists believe produces adenine, one of the four nucleobases that form the "rungs" in the ladder-like structure of DNA. The other molecule, called ethanamine, is thought to play a role in forming alanine, one of the twenty amino acids in the genetic code.
Click to expand...

The initial building blocks of such chemicals could probably be primitive bacterial life (hence we come from bacteria!). They may have proliferated without the need of cell walls (Mercier, Kawai, & Errington, 2013) at the beginning. Interestingly today's bacteria can switch to that primitive shape (called L-Shape) if they want to.

Thus to summarize, precursor to DNA life chemicals are found still to be out there. If they are to be put on earth somehow they could join and evolve to become primitive bacterial L-Shape (or shapeless as a matter of fact!). Further evolve from there into multi-cell organisms and into primitive life. The rest is fish, amphiban, dino with feathers, coats, going up the trees with coat, getting smart abandoning coat for the demise of other animals coat instead, and us clicking buttons right now.

A lot of holes I must agree. Care to discuss them? :)

References:

Zaleski, D. P., Seifert, N. A., Steber, A. L., Muckle, M. T., Loomis, R. A., ... Pate, B. H. (2013). Detection of e-cyanomethanimine toward safittarius B2 (N) in the green bank telescope primos survey. The Astrophysical Journal, 765 (1), DOI: 10.1088/2041-8205/765/1/L10

Mercier, R., Kawai, Y., & Errington, J. (2013). Excess membrane synthesis drives a primitive mode of cell proliferation. Cell, 152 (5), DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.01.043

Icy cosmic start for amino acids and DNA ingredients

How did early primordial cells evolve?
 
Way I see it, life began as a chemical reaction that figured out a way to transform excess chemical energy into kinetic energy to keep the reaction happening.
 
I don't really think about the origins of life. Call me a pragmatist but it doesn't really matter. It's not a question worth asking or knowing, and it's certainly not worth people getting all divided over. I appreciate knowing history up to a point, but on the whole all that matters is what we do in the here and now.
 
my own theory about the origins of life on earth has trended towards the contaminated petri dish model; the first unicellular organism might have made it in on a meteor, and found the earth to be a nutrient-rich medium. but how did it develop in the first place? perhaps something like a micelle incorporated the material necessary for continued replication, and it went from there.

my guess is that plants and animals can all trace their way back to those first cells, and that viruses branch from whatever bacteriophage targeted them.
 
I don't know how life originated. It cannot be known either, theories can be made, but we can really never know.

And I am okay with that. I accept we don't and can never know. It is much more easing than running to fantasy stories written 3000 years ago.
 
Northern Light said:
I don't really think about the origins of life. Call me a pragmatist but it doesn't really matter. It's not a question worth asking or knowing, and it's certainly not worth people getting all divided over. I appreciate knowing history up to a point, but on the whole all that matters is what we do in the here and now.
Click to expand...

I think it's foolish to assume something you don't know couldn't be useful.
 
Deuce said:
I think it's foolish to assume something you don't know couldn't be useful.
Click to expand...

Not when the question can never be answered.
 
It's true that we can't imagine something surviving on a meteor travelling through the earth's atmosphere. They key point to remember here is not to think about our atmosphere today, but to think about what it was billions of years ago. It may have been feasible for life to survive a trip through the atmosphere back then. Also, there could have been other things at play that caused dormant cells to awaken during the trip through the atmosphere.

Think about it like this: You can freeze a flea (just as an example) in an ice cube. It will remain alive in a state of suspended animation until you thaw that ice cube. At which point the flea springs back into action. Apply the same principle to bacteria on a meteor. It's probably in a similar state of suspended animation, thawing as it passes through the atmosphere, springing to life when it contacts the surface of the planet; my guess is if the meteor lands in water or another liquid. It doesn't make much sense for bacteria to survive on a meteor impacting the ground.
 
The expectation of a full-blown cell popping up from scratch is hilarious. Obviously there were many, many steps and millions of years between the first stable complex molecules appearing on Earth and the first cell, whatever it's form might have been.
 
Deuce said:
I think it's foolish to assume a question can never be answered.
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing what you think, for the second time. If you want to dedicate your life to trying to find out where life came from then be my guest. It's not a question that matters to me, and implying that I'm foolish for that is rude and arrogant.
 
There were/are Inorganic molecules that tend to replicate; it's really not that big a jump from these to life, at least chemically, if not the final spark.
see.
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Was It the Origin of Life"? Biologists Create Self-replicating RNA Molecule
Making matter come alive [video] | Science | guardian.co.uk

http://bio.sunyorange.edu/updated2/GENETICS/10%20ORIGIN%20OF%20LIFE.htm said:
THE ORIGIN OF LIFE
[........]
1) Is it possible that organic molecules (those complex molecules of living things) arose from simple Inorganic molecules in the absence of life? Yes.

Organic molecules were once thought to exist only in living things and to have possess an “animism” or a “vital force” which could not arise without life. Many of those who thought so called themselves vitalists and argued that because life had properties outside the physical and chemical world, science would never be able to explain the origin of a living cell (or many other things for that matter, such as the digestion of food, the functioning of the nervous system, embryological development, etc.) It was thought that an organic molecule could never be generated outside of living things.

It is now known that this view is incorrect: the organic molecules which form the building blocks of living things can be formed abiotically, without life. Organic molecules even seem to form outside the planet earth. Simulations of conditions in space have generated a variety of organic molecules such as amino acids and nucleotides (Strazzulla, 2001; Simakov, 2002). Solutions of NH4CN were frozen for 25 years (at -20 to -78oC) and the products of electrical discharges in reducing gases (like those of a reducing atmosphere) were frozen for 5 years in order to simulate the conditions which exist on Jupiter’s moon Europa. Analysis of the results isolated substantial amounts of adenine, guanine, and amino acids (primarily glycine but also others such as alanine and aspartic acid) (Levy, 2000).

More than 100 organic and inorganic molecules have been detected in the dust of the galaxy (Greenberg, 2002). The Jupiter moons Callisto and Ganymede seem to organic molecules (McCord, 1997). Meteorites can contain organic molecules such as nucleotides, amino acids, and amino acid precursors.

Analysis of Halley’s comet suggests that 14% of the comet is composed of organic carbon, including adenine and formaldehyde (the latter being a precursor for sugars in abiotic reactions).

Six studies of a famous meteorite (the Murchinson meteorite) have isolated the amino acids glutamic acid, aspartic acid, glycine, β-alanine, leucine, alanine, and the exotic amino acids α-aminoisobutyric acid and isovaline. Additional amino acids were isolated in some (but not all) of the studies including praline, sarcosine, valine, and isoleucine (Engel, 2001; Simakov, 2002). Nucleotides (purines and pyrimidines including uracil) are present in the Murchison meteorite (Martins, 2008).Organic molecules have been identified in Martian meteorites (Trevors, 2003b). Ribose can be made in large quantities through abiotic synthesis, especially in the presence of boron and calcium (Kirschvink, 2006).
[.......]
Methane-rich gases which have been shocked (by phenomena ranging from lightning and UV light to comet and meteorite impacts) can make Organic molecules (McKay, 1997; Chyba, 1992). Organic molecules would have formed in the primitive earth’s atmosphere if it were a reducing atmosphere (as are the atmospheres of the outer planets of the solar system).
[.......]
Thus, it has been shown that the small organic molecules which serve as building blocks of living things can be generated by inorganic molecules and energy, in the complete absence of life
[.......]

2) Small Organic molecules can form in the Absence of life. Could these small organic building blocks have joined to form larger biomolecules in the absence of life? Yes.

Amino acids can fuse when exposed to heat to produce protein-like substances (called proteinoids) which can have catalytic activities (Nashimoto, 2001). Peptides form abiotically in modern subthermal vents (Bada, 2004). It is possible that the early earth’s rotation and the nearness of the moon helped to form chains of organic molecules.
[.......]

3) Can molecules Replicate themselves in the Absence of Life? Yes.

Short RNA and DNA molecules can serve as templates and replicate themselves. One RNA molecule has actually shown itself not only to be a template of its own replication, but a catalyst of the replication of other RNA molecules as well (Green, 1992; Doudna, 1991). In 1996, a small protein (based on a protein found in yeast) was observed to replicate itself (Lee, 1996; Kauffman, 1996).
Self-replicating peptides based on coiled motifs have been observed (Ghosh, 2004). Amines and esters can combine to form an amide which then serves as a template for other amines and esters to do the same. There are a number of organic molecules which are not found in living things which have been shown to replicate (especially vinyl homopolymers and copolymers) (Orgel, 1992; Rebek, 1994).
[.......]
THE LEAP TO THE RNA WORLD

The next topic will describe the possibility of protocells whose metabolism and genetics was based on RNA. Although RNA nucleotides can both form and assemble into chains in the absence of life, some feel that there might have been an important step which immediately preceded the wide usage of RNA (Luisi, 1999). Peptide nucleic acid (PNA) is achiral and might have been an early predecessor to RNA.
Diamino acids which might have supported a chemistry of PNA have been found in meteorites Another possible predecessor of RNA which can be synthesized in the absence of life is tetrose nucleic acid TNA. TNA nucleotides form stable bonds with themselves and with RNA nucleotides (Joyce, 2002, Bada, 2004; Meierhenich, 2004). N-phosphoryl amino acids (PAA) can be synthesized abiotically. They may be important in consideration of the origin of life because they can both self assemble into small peptides and add phosphates to nucleosides to form nucleotides. It is possible that they formed early small proteins which helped to generate the precursors of the RNA world (Lehman, 2004)
[.......]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
grip said:
A handful of dust. Chemicals, water and bioelectrical matter that create a moving organism is our sum total?
Click to expand...
Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust. Enjoy your time here.
 
mbig said:
Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust. Enjoy your time here.
Click to expand...

God must be hope then because after the dust and ashes that's all that is left.
 
I think the primary intent of the OP was to feel that superiority that atheists and homosexuals feel when they imagine themselves soaring above millions of people with faith, to whom they believe themselves to be immeasurably superior. We frequently see this sort of nonsense from the self focused Liberal elitists that are so often ridiculed.

It's often difficult to understand the Liberal pathology, but we do know that it is very difficult to help them.
 
I don't think having belief or non belief makes you superior either way. It's only a personal opinion that should have no bearing on how you interact, except hopefully in a positive way. Knowing science and believing in evolution doesn't designate you to not having some kind of positive faith in a higher power.
 
Northern Light said:
Thanks for sharing what you think, for the second time. If you want to dedicate your life to trying to find out where life came from then be my guest. It's not a question that matters to me, and implying that I'm foolish for that is rude and arrogant.
Click to expand...
But he is right... You may not want to know, but questions like this are what drove our society to such great heights. When you stop questioning, you stop learning, then you stop progressing. You can just sit around and wait for other people to do it for you... but, I guess that is what separates the greats and the leaders from the rest. :shrug:
 
Helix said:
my own theory about the origins of life on earth has trended towards the contaminated petri dish model; the first unicellular organism might have made it in on a meteor, and found the earth to be a nutrient-rich medium. but how did it develop in the first place? perhaps something like a micelle incorporated the material necessary for continued replication, and it went from there.

my guess is that plants and animals can all trace their way back to those first cells, and that viruses branch from whatever bacteriophage targeted them.
Click to expand...

Green Balls said:
It's true that we can't imagine something surviving on a meteor travelling through the earth's atmosphere. They key point to remember here is not to think about our atmosphere today, but to think about what it was billions of years ago. It may have been feasible for life to survive a trip through the atmosphere back then. Also, there could have been other things at play that caused dormant cells to awaken during the trip through the atmosphere.

Think about it like this: You can freeze a flea (just as an example) in an ice cube. It will remain alive in a state of suspended animation until you thaw that ice cube. At which point the flea springs back into action. Apply the same principle to bacteria on a meteor. It's probably in a similar state of suspended animation, thawing as it passes through the atmosphere, springing to life when it contacts the surface of the planet; my guess is if the meteor lands in water or another liquid. It doesn't make much sense for bacteria to survive on a meteor impacting the ground.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying that as well as provide new questions.

So how did initial building blocks of life found to be within the icy comets then? Well this new study suggests that life can be created within the icy core of a comet (Kaiser et al 2013). Chemical scientists have experimentally demonstrated that circumstances in space are such that:

are capable of creating complex dipeptides -- linked pairs of amino acids -- that are essential building blocks shared by all living things.
Click to expand...

In an ultra-high vacuum chamber chilled to 10 degrees above absolute zero (10 Kelvin), Seol Kim and Ralf Kaiser of the Hawaiian team simulated an icy snowball in space including carbon dioxide, ammonia and various hydrocarbons such as methane, ethane and propane. When zapped with high-energy electrons to simulate the cosmic rays in space, the chemicals reacted to form complex, organic compounds, specifically dipeptides, essential to life.
Click to expand...

Thus zapped with cosmic rays in space that come from black holes and star explosion (or pulsar stars) life in it's very beginning is created in ice comet. It then hits the sea and if big enough the ice does not melts and evaporates completely, successfully bringing the initial stages of life on Earth. That now seems probable to me.

Does anyone else notices the similarities between planets and comets (in regards to shape) and ovaries?

Image Search Results for comet approaching earth

Image Search Results for sperm

References:

Kaiser, R. I., Stockton, A. M., Kim, Y. S., Jensen, E. C., & Mathies, R. A. (2013). On the formation of dipeptides in interstellar model ices. The Astrophysical Journal, 765 (2), DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/111

New evidence that comets could have seeded life on Earth
 
DDD said:
Thanks for clarifying that as well as provide new questions.

So how did initial building blocks of life found to be within the icy comets then? Well this new study suggests that life can be created within the icy core of a comet (Kaiser et al 2013). Chemical scientists have experimentally demonstrated that circumstances in space are such that:





Thus zapped with cosmic rays in space that come from black holes and star explosion (or pulsar stars) life in it's very beginning is created in ice comet. It then hits the sea and if big enough the ice does not melts and evaporates completely, successfully bringing the initial stages of life on Earth. That now seems probable to me.

Does anyone else notices the similarities between planets and comets (in regards to shape) and ovaries?

Image Search Results for comet approaching earth

Image Search Results for sperm

References:

Kaiser, R. I., Stockton, A. M., Kim, Y. S., Jensen, E. C., & Mathies, R. A. (2013). On the formation of dipeptides in interstellar model ices. The Astrophysical Journal, 765 (2), DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/111

New evidence that comets could have seeded life on Earth
Click to expand...

that is a pretty interesting coincidence; a bit like the ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny theory.
 
grip said:
A handful of dust. Chemicals, water and bioelectrical matter that create a moving organism is our sum total?
Click to expand...

No. Our sum total is our actions. The things we build, discover, the experiences we have. We are not what we are, we are what we do.

Ray410 said:
I think the primary intent of the OP was to feel that superiority that atheists and homosexuals feel when they imagine themselves soaring above millions of people with faith, to whom they believe themselves to be immeasurably superior. We frequently see this sort of nonsense from the self focused Liberal elitists that are so often ridiculed.

It's often difficult to understand the Liberal pathology, but we do know that it is very difficult to help them.
Click to expand...

Or to, you know, talk about science.

Northern Light said:
Not when the question can never be answered.
Click to expand...

Of course it can be answered. Why would you think it wouldn't? We can determine the state of chemical compounds and energy on the primordial Earth. We can experiment and see what processes could create life. We can see which model most resembles the conditions of primordial Earth, and keep tweaking the process until it fits those measurements.

Juiposa said:
I don't know how life originated. It cannot be known either, theories can be made, but we can really never know.

And I am okay with that. I accept we don't and can never know. It is much more easing than running to fantasy stories written 3000 years ago.
Click to expand...

Again, why would you conclude that this information cannot be discovered?
 
Paschendale said:
No. Our sum total is our actions. The things we build, discover, the experiences we have. We are not what we are, we are what we do.
Click to expand...


I'll agree that in some esoteric way we are more uniquely identified, personality wise by our deeds, experiences and knowledge. But our physical containers are still an intricate part of who and what we are while we exist.
 
Paschendale said:
Again, why would you conclude that this information cannot be discovered?
Click to expand...

Well, I can be known, indeed. But the likelyhood of us ever finding out the true origin of life is incredibly slim in my mind. As a rewording of my post, we don't and very well may never know. And I don't care, I am totally okay with not knowing.
 
Ray410 said:
I think the primary intent of the OP was to feel that superiority that atheists and homosexuals.
Click to expand...

I am an atheist, but don't feel any "superiority". You think that's because I am heterosexual?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom