The primordial organism and abiogenesis

[BigToque]

I posted this in OT, but I don't seem to have any peopleeven looking at the thread...

---------

To believe in the theory of evolution, one must subscribe to the belief that every living thing in this universe came from one initial primordial organism. In and of itself, seems logical and reasonable.

Everything in this universe is created out of molecules of matter, which is nothing more than the elements we all know of.

When you stick a bunch of these elements together, you get macromolecules.

All life is determined by it's DNA. DNA is nothing but a particular set of macromolecules. These molecules are adenine (A), thymine (T), uracil (U), cytosine (C), and guanine (G).

---------

Someone explain to me how lifeless groups of molecules changed into the first "life". Abiogenesis is very difficult to understand.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: BigToque
I posted this in OT, but I don't seem to have any peopleeven looking at the thread...

---------

To believe in the theory of evolution, one must subscribe to the belief that every living thing in this universe came from one initial primordial organism. In and of itself, seems logical and reasonable.

Everything in this universe is created out of molecules of matter, which is nothing more than the elements we all know of.

When you stick a bunch of these elements together, you get macromolecules.

All life is determined by it's DNA. DNA is nothing but a particular set of macromolecules. These molecules are adenine (A), thymine (T), uracil (U), cytosine (C), and guanine (G).

---------

Someone explain to me how lifeless groups of molecules changed into the first "life". Abiogenesis is very difficult to understand.

Here's a good start. Text You can chase the references in the article for the more meaty details.

Just IMO, most of the idea seems plausible to me. One thing that stil doesn't have a great explanation (again, just imo) is how the first lipid membrane(s) came to be. The other stuff, even if we don't necessarily understand how it must have happened, we've got ideas of how it could have happened (ribozymes to bridge the functional/informational gap, a hypercycle as the first replicator).

 

[CycloWizard]

The theory of abiogenesis is not intrinsically linked to the theory of evolution. I can believe that beings evolve AND that they were created by some superior intellect/god, or I can believe in abiogenesis and evolution, or I can believe in divine creation in the form of abiogenesis and evolution, or I can believe in divine creation and not believe in evolution. Essentially, evolution doesn?t really tell us anything about where the first life form came from. It only deals with what has happened since that first life form was ?born?.

 

[spikespiegal]

I have a better way to put this all in perspective, but it's not very pleasant to think about.

Our biggest problem with evolution and understanding the processes of evolution is our point of reference. Even Darwin was looking at things from the wrong scale.

Human beings, in our arrogant way, assume we are the center of the universe and the highest order of evolution on the planet. Natural selection thus occurs at the level we see it for our own benefit.

When you get down to it though, the genetic differences between humans and much lower life forms are trivial. Basically, the *real* evolution occurs at a molecular level, and always has. We are nothing more than a convenient 'sack' for molecules to replicate themselves in.

 

[blahblah99]

Originally posted by: BigToque
I posted this in OT, but I don't seem to have any peopleeven looking at the thread...

---------

To believe in the theory of evolution, one must subscribe to the belief that every living thing in this universe came from one initial primordial organism. In and of itself, seems logical and reasonable.

Everything in this universe is created out of molecules of matter, which is nothing more than the elements we all know of.

When you stick a bunch of these elements together, you get macromolecules.

All life is determined by it's DNA. DNA is nothing but a particular set of macromolecules. These molecules are adenine (A), thymine (T), uracil (U), cytosine (C), and guanine (G).

---------

Someone explain to me how lifeless groups of molecules changed into the first "life". Abiogenesis is very difficult to understand.

"life" is a term that "humans" use to describe any "living" organism. What determines lifeless and life? Is it a gray or black and white boundary? For example, are viruses considered "lifeless"?

What if they have a host to feed on? Are they now considered live?

IMO, finding the origins of life is going to be impossible if we can't even understand prions and viruses.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: blahblah99

Originally posted by: BigToque
I posted this in OT, but I don't seem to have any peopleeven looking at the thread...

---------

To believe in the theory of evolution, one must subscribe to the belief that every living thing in this universe came from one initial primordial organism. In and of itself, seems logical and reasonable.

Everything in this universe is created out of molecules of matter, which is nothing more than the elements we all know of.

When you stick a bunch of these elements together, you get macromolecules.

All life is determined by it's DNA. DNA is nothing but a particular set of macromolecules. These molecules are adenine (A), thymine (T), uracil (U), cytosine (C), and guanine (G).

---------

Someone explain to me how lifeless groups of molecules changed into the first "life". Abiogenesis is very difficult to understand.

"life" is a term that "humans" use to describe any "living" organism. What determines lifeless and life? Is it a gray or black and white boundary? For example, are viruses considered "lifeless"?

What if they have a host to feed on? Are they now considered live?

IMO, finding the origins of life is going to be impossible if we can't even understand prions and viruses.

What you're describing is arguments over semantics and/or definitions, not a lack of understanding. If you see a car and your friend calls it red but you say it's more orange, does that mean you don't understand color?

While we don't fully understand viruses or prions, we certainly know a heck of a lot about them. We know then entire sequence of numerous viruses and the function of each gene and what mutations in which genes lead to drug resistance or cancer, we know what mutations in humans lead to familial prion diseases etc.

Just to answer your question, viruses are not considered alive, and they don't really "feed," they infect.

 

[blahblah99]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: blahblah99

Originally posted by: BigToque
I posted this in OT, but I don't seem to have any peopleeven looking at the thread...

---------

To believe in the theory of evolution, one must subscribe to the belief that every living thing in this universe came from one initial primordial organism. In and of itself, seems logical and reasonable.

Everything in this universe is created out of molecules of matter, which is nothing more than the elements we all know of.

When you stick a bunch of these elements together, you get macromolecules.

All life is determined by it's DNA. DNA is nothing but a particular set of macromolecules. These molecules are adenine (A), thymine (T), uracil (U), cytosine (C), and guanine (G).

---------

Someone explain to me how lifeless groups of molecules changed into the first "life". Abiogenesis is very difficult to understand.

"life" is a term that "humans" use to describe any "living" organism. What determines lifeless and life? Is it a gray or black and white boundary? For example, are viruses considered "lifeless"?

What if they have a host to feed on? Are they now considered live?

IMO, finding the origins of life is going to be impossible if we can't even understand prions and viruses.

What you're describing is arguments over semantics and/or definitions, not a lack of understanding. If you see a car and your friend calls it red but you say it's more orange, does that mean you don't understand color?

While we don't fully understand viruses or prions, we certainly know a heck of a lot about them. We know then entire sequence of numerous viruses and the function of each gene and what mutations in which genes lead to drug resistance or cancer, we know what mutations in humans lead to familial prion diseases etc.

Just to answer your question, viruses are not considered alive, and they don't really "feed," they infect.

Isn't that the original question?

"Someone explain to me how lifeless groups of molecules changed into the first "life". "

My point is at what point can a clump of molecules be considered "life"? If viruses are non-living and "infect" and reproduce by using a host, then why isn't parasites considered as non-living also?

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: blahblah99

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: blahblah99

Originally posted by: BigToque
I posted this in OT, but I don't seem to have any peopleeven looking at the thread...

---------

To believe in the theory of evolution, one must subscribe to the belief that every living thing in this universe came from one initial primordial organism. In and of itself, seems logical and reasonable.

Everything in this universe is created out of molecules of matter, which is nothing more than the elements we all know of.

When you stick a bunch of these elements together, you get macromolecules.

All life is determined by it's DNA. DNA is nothing but a particular set of macromolecules. These molecules are adenine (A), thymine (T), uracil (U), cytosine (C), and guanine (G).

---------

Someone explain to me how lifeless groups of molecules changed into the first "life". Abiogenesis is very difficult to understand.

"life" is a term that "humans" use to describe any "living" organism. What determines lifeless and life? Is it a gray or black and white boundary? For example, are viruses considered "lifeless"?

What if they have a host to feed on? Are they now considered live?

IMO, finding the origins of life is going to be impossible if we can't even understand prions and viruses.

What you're describing is arguments over semantics and/or definitions, not a lack of understanding. If you see a car and your friend calls it red but you say it's more orange, does that mean you don't understand color?

While we don't fully understand viruses or prions, we certainly know a heck of a lot about them. We know then entire sequence of numerous viruses and the function of each gene and what mutations in which genes lead to drug resistance or cancer, we know what mutations in humans lead to familial prion diseases etc.

Just to answer your question, viruses are not considered alive, and they don't really "feed," they infect.

Isn't that the original question?

"Someone explain to me how lifeless groups of molecules changed into the first "life". "

My point is at what point can a clump of molecules be considered "life"? If viruses are non-living and "infect" and reproduce by using a host, then why isn't parasites considered as non-living also?

ah, I see what you're saying. Yes, it's a fine line, and somewhat arbitrarily drawn, especially in light of some bugs like chlamydia and some spirochetes.

In terms of abiogenesis, I'd define it as the first thing to be capable of reproduction/replication... Seems reasonable, but, as you're pointing out, it's also at least a little subjective and arbitrary.