PDA

View Full Version : Currently occurring abiogenesis on Earth?



A.DIM
2010-Mar-13, 04:55 PM
Is there a mainstream answer to this?

Given that scientific consensus is abiogenesis occurred on Earth, is there consensus as to whether or not it continues to occur?

Or is it thought of as a "one-off" here on Earth?

Thanks!

korjik
2010-Mar-13, 05:21 PM
just a guess, but I bet that all the free oxygen is bad for it.

George
2010-Mar-13, 05:49 PM
Is there a mainstream answer to this?

Given that scientific consensus is abiogenesis occurred on Earth, is there consensus as to whether or not it continues to occur?

Or is it thought of as a "one-off" here on Earth?

Thanks! The bacteria tell me that this is correct and that they are quite tasty! ;)

Gillianren
2010-Mar-13, 07:46 PM
just a guess, but I bet that all the free oxygen is bad for it.

In places where there's free oxygen, yes. Not to mention all the other life which abounds and might consider new life a tasty snack. My understanding of the consensus is that there's no realistic reason to expect that it's still happening.

Swift
2010-Mar-13, 08:11 PM
Certainly the conditions on the early Earth are much different than they are now, and free oxygen isn't the only thing. Additionally if new life formed, it would quickly have to compete with the stuff already here. Much easier filling in a blank slate.

Cougar
2010-Mar-14, 01:55 AM
Is there a mainstream answer to this? ... Given that scientific consensus is abiogenesis occurred on Earth, is there consensus as to whether or not it continues to occur? ... Or is it thought of as a "one-off" here on Earth?

I recently learned that the building-block molecules of the building blocks of life already exist in the Giant Molecular Clouds that orbit within ours and other galaxies, and out of which stars and planetary systems form. So any potential planetary life has this head start. It's somewhat... disheartening that it then took 3 billion years for single-celled creatures to go multi-cellular. But apparently that's life, at least in this circumstance.

George
2010-Mar-14, 02:33 AM
It's somewhat... disheartening that it then took 3 billion years for single-celled creatures to go multi-cellular. But apparently that's life, at least in this circumstance. :) [8.5 in puntification.]

loglo
2010-Mar-14, 06:18 AM
I think a more accurate statement is it took 3 billion years to produce a successful multicellular life form. Who knows what failures were produced and died or successes that were produced and subsequently wiped out by an asteroid, volcanism or whatever. The Earth was a pretty crappy place to hang out back then.

Swift
2010-Mar-14, 03:31 PM
I think a more accurate statement is it took 3 billion years to produce a successful multicellular life form. Who knows what failures were produced and died or successes that were produced and subsequently wiped out by an asteroid, volcanism or whatever. The Earth was a pretty crappy place to hang out back then.
I'll even extend that a little more... it took 3 billion years to produce a successful multicellular life form that left traces of itself behind. If things didn't fossilize, we won't know about them.

loglo
2010-Mar-15, 11:30 AM
Yep ... we only know about species that left crap behind. Palaeontologists of the human race are going to have it easy!

Disinfo Agent
2010-Mar-17, 12:25 PM
Given that scientific consensus is abiogenesis occurred on Earth, is there consensus as to whether or not it continues to occur?The consensus, in my understanding, is that it is not occuring today, since it has never been observed.

Speculations on why this may be the case are aplenty, as you can tell from the previous posts.

Digix
2010-Mar-20, 01:03 AM
I think a more accurate statement is it took 3 billion years to produce a successful multicellular life form. Who knows what failures were produced and died or successes that were produced and subsequently wiped out by an asteroid, volcanism or whatever. The Earth was a pretty crappy place to hang out back then.

Actually that nasty and deadly environment is vital requirement to create life.

Early organisms did not had ability to absorb solar energy or use chemicals as power source. So they required rapidly changing temperatures to reorder RNA.

Since today volcano activity is low, lightings are quite rare and climate is too cold, planet probably could not produce life anymore.

BigDon
2010-Mar-20, 01:55 AM
Is there a mainstream answer to this?

Given that scientific consensus is abiogenesis occurred on Earth, is there consensus as to whether or not it continues to occur?

Or is it thought of as a "one-off" here on Earth?

Thanks!

A.Dim, what some folk are hinting at is that most proto-biotic molecules are nutrients to something in their own right. It would have to be isolated first. Maybe in a deep void in one of the older cratons.

DrRocket
2010-Mar-20, 02:56 AM
Is there a mainstream answer to this?

Given that scientific consensus is abiogenesis occurred on Earth, is there consensus as to whether or not it continues to occur?

Or is it thought of as a "one-off" here on Earth?

Thanks!

Anybody who thinks that inanimate objects cannot come to life has never seen a freshman class when the dismissal bell rings.

agingjb
2010-Mar-20, 08:43 AM
Let us, hypothetically, ignore the effect of the suitability of the environment and assume that abiogenetic events take place about once every million years, then there would both be plenty of time for one (or more) original events in the early Earth, and virtually no chance of observing a current event, even if its derivatives could survive a few millenia against the existing biosphere.

Digix
2010-Mar-20, 04:19 PM
Let us, hypothetically, ignore the effect of the suitability of the environment and assume that abiogenetic events take place about once every million years, then there would both be plenty of time for one (or more) original events in the early Earth, and virtually no chance of observing a current event, even if its derivatives could survive a few millenia against the existing biosphere.

This is incorrect.

Abiogenesis is not an event, but long process like evolution.
First, water is filled with required components then they interact evolve and turn into humans after 3 billions years. It is not if some chemicals randomly assemble living cell and then evolution starts from that one cell.

So if you create something like early earth, after some time life will definitely evolve after roughly same time.
Also if you take samples of water you will observe evolution of nonliving objects that are precursors of current life.

Gillianren
2010-Mar-20, 05:53 PM
Abiogenesis is not an event, but long process like evolution.
First, water is filled with required components then they interact evolve and turn into humans after 3 billions years. It is not if some chemicals randomly assemble living cell and then evolution starts from that one cell.

This is a combination of speculative and wrong.

First off, no one knows how abiogenesis started, not for sure. I've heard some interesting speculation that it had to do with crystals in clay, and the experiment which supposedly proved how early life formed had some flaws to it.

Second . . . wow. "Turn into humans after three billions years"? Turned, certainly. However, it's not as though a, all evolution just produced humans, and b, the earliest life on Earth was programmed with "become human."

Third, if I understand things correctly, evolution did start from one cell. Common ancestor, remember?

agingjb
2010-Mar-20, 06:05 PM
I was, perhaps, using "event" in a way that could be criticised as implying something instantaneous. I think that my use of the word could be defended (but clearly not here).

Swift
2010-Mar-20, 08:51 PM
I thought your idea was interesting agingjb. Whether it is a specific event or a process over a long period of time, it might be possible that such "events" are still on-going, but are rare enough that they have not been observed, or are in environments where we have not looked (such as deep within rock formations). Speculation, but an interesting speculation.