Abiogenesis: Life before evolution

3,5 billion years ago there was life on Earth. Now, this life lasted for millions of years, and practically no evolution. Why?
Conditions were similar for millions of years...
But, if those conditions were unchanged for millions of years, it would be possible that from the organic mass life would constantly occur without being able to replicate. It would simply die, and more of the similar beings would simply occur from the bouillon.

This cannot be ruled out.
Would that make planet Earth (in one of its aspects at least) a living being?

reply to post by DangerDeath


Crystals are not life... currently... but thats the point.

The fact they can self-replicate means they have the potential to become life in the future.. (chemical evolution?) as each copy is not perfect...

while I have no problem using your idea of exchange in a definition of life... (although we'd have to define exchange), I don't like adding "conscious".

The scientific definition of consciousness is the mental process in which an organism processes a stimulus, and executes a response...

I may be wrong, but This would mean sponges aren't "alive". we also have to remember the virus... its not "alive" but its "alive".

But I think we're on the right track!

Originally posted by DangerDeath
3,5 billion years ago there was life on Earth. Now, this life lasted for millions of years, and practically no evolution. Why?
Conditions were similar for millions of years...
But, if those conditions were unchanged for millions of years, it would be possible that from the organic mass life would constantly occur without being able to replicate. It would simply die, and more of the similar beings would simply occur from the bouillon.

This cannot be ruled out.
Would that make planet Earth (in one of its aspects at least) a living being?

Well, the conditions are different... but besides that..

The theory on this is, that the current DNA based life is so prolific, that newer life could never grab a foothold... They would be competing for resources against DNA/RNA based life, and if they managed to scrape out a nitch, its very likely they would be victims of predation.

We have seen exactly how "unsuccessful" life can be... in that 99.9% of all species ever on earth are currently extinct.

There always is the possibility that the virus developed along different means than most other life... thus, the vast difference between a Virus, and all other life.

A parasitic approach may be the best way for "new life" to survive the competition for resources...

edit to add: Practically no evolution is a false statement... I went off the premise you meant "no new life", or that abiogenesis hasn't happened again...

I would say there is a huge difference between an ameoba and a moose



[edit on 15-12-2008 by nj2day]

If you've never had a chance to read it - I'd recommend LIFE: WHAT A CONCEPT! An Edge Special Event at Eastover Farm(.pdf) With, Freeman Dyson , J. Craig Venter, George Church, Robert Shapiro, Dimitar Sasselov and Seth Lloyd.

VENTER: What's missing is your definition of life. It seems to encompass a
broader range than maybe my definition would.

SHAPIRO: There was a wonderful paper written by Chris Chyba and Carol
Cleland about three years ago about definitions of life, and how even defining
what definition is can get you into philosophical doo-doo. And it's best to look for
phenomena that by their properties we would be happy to classify as alive, and to
not worry too much about definition.
Of course we'd want something that didn't extinguish immediately. That wouldn't
be a good kind of life. One could consider a Zhabotinsky reaction as alive, or a
thunderstorm, or a hail storm — but they don't evolve, they dissipate, so that isn't
interesting life. What we're really interested in is interesting life — something
which becomes more and more complex and adapts so it resists being
extinguished.

VENTER: Does it need to be self-replicating?

SHAPIRO: It needs to be reproduced. The idea of a replicator, of DNA copying
itself. I have a tie like that: it shows nucleotides swimming up to DNA, and
miraculously one strand forms a double helix, but anyone who teaches
biochemistry knows that doesn't happen — no way. There are dozens of proteins
that come in and get involved in the action, and untwist the twists of DNA, and
prime it and close the gaps in DNA.

VENTER: I wasn't describing a mechanism, just, the term 'self-replicating'.

SHAPIRO: DNA isn't self-replicating.

VENTER: No, I'm not talking about DNA.

SHAPIRO: And RNA as far as I know isn't — virus needs an entire cell filled
with ribosomes and god knows what — mitochondria.

VENTER: Methanococcus is self-replicating.

SHAPIRO: Methanococcus is self-replicating, and if it lives and grows and
changes eventually into different strains, that's alive.

LLOYD: So is a virus alive?

SHAPIRO: That's a question of how you want to define it.

VENTER: Is it not self-replicating.

LLOYD: I'm not self-replicating either. I have children and neither of them look
anything like me.

SHAPIRO: The difficulties in these definitions are notorious. Is a nun alive? She's
certainly not replicating. Is a mule alive? It has most of other properties, but it's
sterile and has no offspring.

CHURCH: Its cells are alive.

SHAPIRO: Its cells are alive.

VENTER: If we're looking for life, it helps to know what we're looking for in
some form.

SHAPIRO: Yes, I would design missions to Mars to follow the carbon, not the
water. They've detected methane now in the atmosphere, and I would have
orbiters that sniff that methane and looked for the place where it was coming out
of the ground and then analyze whatever organic chemicals might be emitted
there. Out of the nature and identity of those organic chemicals, I would come to a
conclusion about whether something of interest is present there or not, and decide
if missions should be flown to investigate that site in greater depth.

VENTER: My other question is, I don't understand your dismissal of Stanley
Miller's experiments.

SHAPIRO: I'm not dismissing — he was really addressing a very separate and
valid scientific question, which is how did Earth come into its carbon reservoir. I
mean we know there is carbon in various forms on the Earth.

VENTER: But isn't the spontaneous formation of the amino acids that he showed
still valid? And if not, why not? [.....]

The whole thing is worth a read. Should be 'stickied' at the top of the O&C forum here.


Wiki has this:

There is no universal definition of life. To define life in unequivocal terms is still a challenge for scientists.[6][7]

Conventional definition: The consensus is that life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following phenomena:[8][9]

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and chemotaxis.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

Whatever it is (we know it we we see it, I guess) it was here on Earth very early on.

reply to post by Rren


Nice post!

Yah, thats the problem we're going to have...

especially when talking about abiogenesis...

lets suppose one of those theories is correct... and poof, we have a protocell...

is this protocell alive? its just a membrane with some RNA swimming around inside...

The one thing I do find absolutely facinating though, is the fact that they've discovered that there is a strong likelyhood that mitochondria in cells used to be free roaming and independent bacterium.

cas.bellarmine.edu...

fascinating stuff!

Originally posted by X-tal_Phusion


Might I suggest reading the work of Michael Russell (NASA-JPL)? His work takes these factors into consideration (unlike research produced by the Szostak lab). If you'd like me to dig up some of his more interesting papers, I'd be happy to oblige.

I know this wasn't directed towards me but, I'd like to see them. If you have something geared more towards a general audience, that'd be appreciated too. Thanks.

I don't know about scientific definition of consciousness, but philosophical definition of consciousness is: differentiation, perception.
Consciousness is the same as its contents. There is no such thing as empty consciousness which could be, for instance, applied to some objects. It is the objects. The only case when consciousness is "empty" of contents is in the idea of consciousness, but ideas don't belong to consciousness. They belong to the mind.

Mind is the ability to organize perception. "Process" can only belong to the mind.

You see, mental process is fed by consciousness (C provides elements, input, perception). Mental process results in consciousness of a process (of organizing perception).

What is a "stimulus" is decided by the mind, not by consciousness. There has to be a fully operational mind which decides what is to be exchanged and when. It needs to be fed by consciousness (senses).

This basic idea of life has to contain concepts of "space" and "time" and "continuation". Continuation is an abstract thought which simulates endurance of an object as if it was unchangeable, while in reality it is not and exchange is necessary in order to perpetuate this illusion (or delusion).

So, definition of life must already operate with the ideas o consciousness (perception) and mind (which processes perception). Maybe "conscious exchange" is not the best definition, but I'm pretty sure the answer is somewhere in this vicinity.

What science is trying to prove, that life is purely material, I think that it cannot be done.

That life is just a random chemical process which suddenly starts repeating itself as a result of some bingo combination - I sincerely doubt it.

Church: Its cells are alive.


Shapiro: Its cells are alive.

Easy

reply to post by Rren


OK, this interview with Shapiro is very much on the same track I am, though I am not a biologist

As for viruses, lets assume, for the sake of further speculation, that viruses are the furthest point material nature can advance before it becomes life - life understood as a combination of matter + mind and perception, which would initiate the necessary process of exchange and reproduction as a result of the idea of continuation.

So here we need to introduce energy (force) into essentially "dead" matter. Spiritus movens.

reply to post by DangerDeath


I think your definition of life assumes too much... While I understand fully the philosophical aspects your implying, I believe your excluding too many organisms that we'd classify as alive.

To me, you sound like your attributing thought to the idea of life. Many many organisms don't "think" and react the way your describing.

Like my example with the sponge... its an animal, that does nothing but eat, grow and reproduce.

what of plants? they wouldn't seem to fit this definition either...

Unicellular life? cells are nothing more than a series of chemical reactions... yet, they are alive...

am I making sense? (I might not be, I need more coffee )

You are forgetting that most organic processes are subconscious. Who would be able to control everything at once even in a simple organism?

We say "subconscious" but what does that really mean? That it is not brought to our perception. So, it is a mind of its own (program) and assumes that the organism will follow its instructions (feeling of hunger, etc. which we usually call instinct). But the mind itself is hidden, silent perpetrator.

So, there is a fully developed world of the immaterial, metaphysical differentiation parallel to physical world. If we only assume that there is just physical world, we will get stuck with viruses or alike.

Both ideas and emotions are affections, they affect organisms and make them "do" as they wish. The whole work belongs to those emotions or ideas, and the organism simply suffers from the imposition.

Mind is the realm of those, it is the source of "conscious processes".


edit: add.

Perhaps in order to comprehend this, we need another mind, which is "above" these two worlds - the analytical mind which is capable of being unaffected at all times. Such mind would only belong to "sentient" beings, those beings which are capable to escape the existence which is a result of conditioning.

[edit on 15-12-2008 by DangerDeath]

reply to post by DangerDeath


ah ok, I understand now...

You're considering reflexes and instinct as a "subconscious".

I just thought of another way to look at abiogenesis...

looking at the cell you see nothing more than various chemical reactions and interaction between the results chemical processes. These chemical processes do not start in the cell... instead, the reactions are passed down from parent to offspring.

Abiogenesis is seeking to find the moment these chemical reactions began...

I will make a small digression here, in regards to the idea of exchange.

What we do here is sharing ideas. We don't lose what we give, and we gain from each other. The capacity of our knowledge grows by doing so.

If I give you an idea, it doesn't mean I will now be deprived of it. Where sharing occurs, accumulation occurs.

Exchange is a bit more tricky. When you exchange things you lose some and gain some. If you are cunning, you may get more than you give. This is the realm of political economy, and it exists in natural life practically everywhere, not only among humans.

Then, there is pure robbery and deprivation of life, all falls into the category of exchange.

Scooping natural resources may and may not be exchange, depending on several factors.

But is unconscious (I don't mean subconscious, I mean non-conscious) exchange possible in life?

There is plenty to think about and it does involve both ethical and unethical approach.

Suppose we can make artificial virus (maybe "we" already can).

Equip it with some programmable nano machinery, a nano-processor.
Equip it with a bag of resources.
Nano-machinery can modify it depending of the input - we are the mind, it doesn't have its own mind.
You have a perfect weapon or a cure.
It could edit the DNA of a cell and start an irreversible process in someone's organism.
It could be used as a cure from a disease.
It could steal elements from its environment and reproduce itself.

Still, it will not be alive.

Real viruses do have a program, but they don't have a mind of their own. So who created them? Does anyone know how they come to be?

reply to post by DangerDeath


This reminds me of the 3 relationships from an evolutionary standpoint... as explained in laymen terms...

1) The Cheat, one who takes and gives nothing back

2) Cooperative, more of a tit-for-tat type thing

3) and Symbiotic: Mutually beneficial relationships, based on "selfishness"

A tapeworm is an example of a cheat... in that it absorbs the food the host consumes, giving no benefit whatsoever to the host.

The bacteria in the digestive tract is a decent example of cooperative...

Predation is the best example of the third... predators just want to eat... so they kill... but without predators, the prey would overpopulate and starve to death...

the technical terms elude me at the moment... it was a fascinating day in class about 3 years ago

OK, predators are the favorite theme in the last decades

Now, is this behavior "conscious" on the level of predators and pray, or is it "above" them.

Remember how some ancient people (and not so ancient, like even modern Bushmen) believe that animals know to surrender themselves willingly to the hunter. Would that be the "sharing" thing?

Originally posted by DangerDeath

OK, predators are the favorite theme in the last decades

Now, is this behavior "conscious" on the level of predators and pray, or is it "above" them.

This symbiotic relation ship is "Aside" them... they've evolved over the years to the animals they are today, based on the concept of natural selection, and an evolutionary "arms race".

Its evolved simultaniously, and both predator and prey are now completely dependent on the other for survival.

Remember how some ancient people (and not so ancient, like even modern Bushmen) believe that animals know to surrender themselves willingly to the hunter. Would that be the "sharing" thing?

There's no willing surrender... as we've observed, the animals strive desperately for survival. Both predator and prey are oblivious to the delicate relationship they share...

The predator thins out the numbers of the prey...

and the prey assist the predator in evolving better hunting techniques... (remember, its rare to have a predator that thrives exclusively off 1 species of prey).

I must say this. If you see logic in that, then there must be a mind behind it. And it is not just your mind.

There are many options here:
Pantheism?
God?
Independent Reason?
A mind that sees and controls everything?

The tiny line between creationism and materialism.
Perhaps it's a mixture?

I have seen a video, probably from Yutube, when a hippopotamus tries to save an antelope from the mouth of a crocodile. Hipo chased away the crocodile, and followed the antelope until she fell. Then he took her head into his mouth and attempted to revive her. He did that several times, but unfortunately the antelope died from losing too much blood.

Doesn't this fit into the idea of sharing? I definitely see a mind of higher order in this event.

reply to post by Rren


You can find a collection of papers (some by Russell and others by his collaborators) here. Just drag the cursor over the articles in the box to see the full title of each one. There is also a collection of links on this same website to substantiate what I wrote earlier. Here is Dr. Russell's page and there is a collection of interactive animations as well. Happy reading!

reply to post by X-tal_Phusion


Soooo, the crystals... Since you know a lot of them.

Do they have the Sharing mind or the Divided mind?

Is Fusion the key word?

[edit on 15-12-2008 by DangerDeath]