[evolutionquestion]

Is anyone in biology looking into Abiogenesis (origin of life events) still taking place today on Earth? I mean, why would something that happened in the past not still be taking place on Earth today within areas of the Earth that still have similar conditions to pre-life Earth. Places with volcanic activity perhaps?

I've looked online for this type of research but have yet to find it. However, I find it hard to believe no one is exploring that the creation of life isn't still taking place on Earth today.

[CharonY]

Research in abiogenesis is most likely to focus on reproducing the conditions in laboratory conditions rather than looking for it in nature. Even if there were organic molecules that may have been precursors of life, they would be rapidly utilized by the lifeforms that exist now. Thus, the likelihood of abiogenesis still to occur is extremely low.

[questionposter]

evolutionquestion, on 23 August 2011 - 03:34 AM, said:

Is anyone in biology looking into Abiogenesis (origin of life events) still taking place today on Earth? I mean, why would something that happened in the past not still be taking place on Earth today within areas of the Earth that still have similar conditions to pre-life Earth. Places with volcanic activity perhaps?

I've looked online for this type of research but have yet to find it. However, I find it hard to believe no one is exploring that the creation of life isn't still taking place on Earth today.

Ya know, it honestly takes a billion years for a pool of just the right chemicals to get tampered with just the right amount of heat as to cause life. I doubt scientists can prove it in a single lifetime.

[JorgeLobo]

It is highly unlikely that the origin of life can be "proven" even if imagined conditions can be reproduced and viability elicited. In fact, biology has few if any "proofs. We have theories such as evolution based on and ther interpretation.

[rktpro]

The atmosphere at that time was reducing. A reducing environment can be obtained only in a lab; not at some place full of oxygen.

[Sorcerer]

evolutionquestion, on 23 August 2011 - 03:34 AM, said:

Is anyone in biology looking into Abiogenesis (origin of life events) still taking place today on Earth? I mean, why would something that happened in the past not still be taking place on Earth today within areas of the Earth that still have similar conditions to pre-life Earth. Places with volcanic activity perhaps?

I've looked online for this type of research but have yet to find it. However, I find it hard to believe no one is exploring that the creation of life isn't still taking place on Earth today.

Personally I see the presence of plasmids, viruses and transposons (horizontal transfer) as evidence of early life still occurring today. These would have been very helpful at shuttling around RNA/DNA before there was full blown abiogenesis (IE cell replication/mitosis).

As for it still happening, all the niches have been filled and adapted to, outcompeting life with protolife doesn't fit evolution.

However it is possible there may have been several competing 'protolifes' during abiogenesis, after all competition can accelerate evolution and the emergence of life did happen fast on earth. Perhaps even archea and bacteria are 2 seperate abiogenesis events (but I doubt it).

This post has been edited by Sorcerer: 29 December 2011 - 05:17 AM

[CharonY]

The evidence (e.g. DNA codons) strongly suggests that all known organisms (i.e. including archea and bacteria) share a common ancestor. It is of course possible that several proto-life forms evolved but only one group survived. Current mobile genetic elements depend on relatively highly complex protein systems to facilitate their spread. Early mechanisms were likely much simpler (more in the form of ribozymes, for instance).

[Sorcerer]

Ribosomes are not THAT simple. I know plasmids/transposons/viruses need enzymes to facilitate their spread efficiently into other genomes, but whats efficient now would have been SUPER efficient then. DNA/RNA in close proximity and in the right environment will combine sometimes.

Yes I have heard the simple explanation of abiogenesis and it's not sufficient for me, very lacking. Sorry if I'm imposing my pseudo-hypothesis on u because what I was taught doesn't measure up to my expectations.

Edit: sorry with ribosomes and RNA we are reducing ourselves to a chicken or the egg argument. Proteins help multiply RNA and proudces proteins (ribosomes) with aid of tRNA. How did the RNA gain the complexity to produce the protiens? IMO through horizontal transfer - in a pre-biotic sense.

This post has been edited by Sorcerer: 31 December 2011 - 08:03 AM

[CharonY]

Ribozymes, not ribosomes. Ribozymes are essentially RNA molecules with catalytic properties (i.e. independent of proteins). Also you got it backwards in terms of efficiency. Now, due to complex cellular systems the required mechanisms are in close proximity (including specialized compartments, when thinking about eukaryotes and to a certain extent prokaryotes, too). Just putting everything into a big pot would dilute everything.

There is no strong consensus how early proto life could have been. Many favor a nucleic acid system, though there are proponents that postulate peptides as early replicating units. The mix of the two is almost certainly something that evolved later.

This post has been edited by CharonY: 31 December 2011 - 10:26 PM

[zapatos]

Sorcerer, on 29 December 2011 - 05:11 AM, said:

Personally I see the presence of plasmids, viruses and transposons (horizontal transfer) as evidence of early life still occurring today. These would have been very helpful at shuttling around RNA/DNA before there was full blown abiogenesis (IE cell replication/mitosis).

As for it still happening, all the niches have been filled and adapted to, outcompeting life with protolife doesn't fit evolution.

However it is possible there may have been several competing 'protolifes' during abiogenesis, after all competition can accelerate evolution and the emergence of life did happen fast on earth. Perhaps even archea and bacteria are 2 seperate abiogenesis events (but I doubt it).

That doesn't seem possible. There must be a huge number of resources, or combinations of resources, that a form of life could take advantage of. When a new form of a bacteria shows up that can cause illness, isn't a new niche being utilized?

[Sorcerer]

True zapatos I should've said all the simple niches, i.e. the ones that would be easy for a new abiogenesis to exploit. I don't really see an abiogenesis event going straight to a highly evolved (niche specialised) pathogen.