NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been wondering what all of the theories for abiogenesis are. I know two--the primordial soup theory and the Cairns-Smith theory.

No-one knows any?

*tastes the primortial soup*
"Slurp"
"Needs more DNA!"

*tastes the primortial soup*
"Slurp"
"Needs more DNA!"
Does that mean that you don't believe in abiogenesis?

Does that mean that you don't believe in abiogenesis?

I think it's just a joke.

I don't know anything about abiogenesis. There is a wikipedia article about it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis if you're interested.

Does that mean that you don't believe in abiogenesis?
I believe in abiogenesis, yes - and Pure Science was correct, I was joking

I don't know anything about abiogenesis. There is a wikipedia article about it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis if you're interested.
Yes, but it doesn't talk about the various theories, it only discusses spontaneous generation, which is a given in abiogenesis.

I believe in abiogenesis, yes - and Pure Science was correct, I was joking
Oh, ok. I thought you were saying that abiogenesis is impossible because modern organic chemicals are too complex to have just arranged themselves.

I don't know anything much about what would count as an abiogenesis theory. There are however a series of links here (http://www.origins.tv/darwin/abiogenesis.htm#Origins) refering to cell generation theories.

Abiogenesis itself, would seem to be a matter of the right chemicals under the right conditions. Any theoretical differences could only refer to one or other of these requirements. Not much theoretical variation is to be expected. But I may be wrong, as usual

Lately I've been leaning more toward the theory of panpermia myself.
Abiogenesis sounds quite possible though, but I'm not up on every theory or antitheory out there.

I don't know anything much about what would count as an abiogenesis theory. There are however a series of links here (http://www.origins.tv/darwin/abiogenesis.htm#Origins) refering to cell generation theories.
Thank you, I will look into those.

Abiogenesis itself, would seem to be a matter of the right chemicals under the right conditions. Any theoretical differences could only refer to one or other of these requirements. Not much theoretical variation is to be expected. But I may be wrong, as usual
There are different theories of how those conditions occured. The Cairns-Smith theory truly blew my mind. It detals that the first self-replicating entities on Earth were silicates, which then used organic chemicals to advantage themselves, which then caused the conditions for spontaneous biotic generation. It is detailed much better and more fully in The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins.

Lately I've been leaning more toward the theory of panpermia myself.
God, panspermia is funny. It's possible, but...just so ridiculous! I can see where people come from with that, but I'd suggest looking more to abiogenesis, not exobiology. Panspermia is too ridiculous with current scientific knowledge to take too seriously. Though I'm glad at least some people are looking into it, I just personally disagree.

How about the hydrothermal theories such as Gold's "Deep-hot biosphere" model (http://people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/DHB.html) and Wächtershäuser's Iron Sulfur world (http://ajdubre.tripod.com/Sci-Read-0/y-OriginLife-82500/OriginLifeSci-82500.html).

Lately I've been leaning more toward the theory of panpermia myself.
Abiogenesis sounds quite possible though, but I'm not up on every theory or antitheory out there.

That could explain life here, but it had to start somewhere. ;)

Oh, and the origin of life wiki has more models: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

That could explain life here, but it had to start somewhere. ;)

Oh, and the origin of life wiki has more models: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life
That's the million dollar question... is it a virus that spreads?
If so, where did it originate?
Abiogenesis had to have happened somewhwere.
Or, for teh funney, did the "Blind Clockmaker" create (literally) a machine that created life?
Ahhhh, who knows if we'll ever know.

It had to happen somewhere. I vote primordial soup theory.

*bleah* Serious science.

Let me throw a semi-related question into the fray:

Are viruses alive, or are they a form of protolife?

Are viruses alive, or are they a form of protolife?
Virology! Could you please define "protolife"? I know that proto- comes from the Greek prôtos, "first", from pro, "before". Life is from the Anglo-Saxon lif, though I guess that is superfluous, since we all know the definition and etymology of life.

Back from that digression, viruses are certainly not alive. They are certainly a self-replicating entity, along with prions, but are not actually alive themselves. I do not know how it is theorised they came about, and when. Does anyone know anything about that?

*bleah* Serious science.

Let me throw a semi-related question into the fray:

Are viruses alive, or are they a form of protolife?


there's no consensus on whether viruses are alive but they should probably not be referred to as proto-life because they did not evolve before complex organisms did. Instead they developed from the creatures they infect. Viruses are pieces of rogue DNA or RNA which broke away from the genome of a higher organism and began to infect what it used to be part of.

Virology! Could you please define "protolife"? I know that proto- comes from the Greek prôtos, "first", from pro, "before". Life is from the Anglo-Saxon lif, though I guess that is superfluous, since we all know the definition and etymology of life.

Back from that digression, viruses are certainly not alive. They are certainly a self-replicating entity, along with prions, but are not actually alive themselves. I do not know how it is theorised they came about, and when. Does anyone know anything about that?

I've always fascinated me that as near as we can tell, viruses have existed as long as life has, and has always evolved with life, yet has never itself been categorized as life.

What purpose does their survival and evolutionary shifts accomplish? Are they more important to the life cycle than we think? In fact, is it possible that they played a role in the creation of it?

Virology! Could you please define "protolife"? I know that proto- comes from the Greek prôtos, "first", from pro, "before". Life is from the Anglo-Saxon lif, though I guess that is superfluous, since we all know the definition and etymology of life.

Back from that digression, viruses are certainly not alive. They are certainly a self-replicating entity, along with prions, but are not actually alive themselves. I do not know how it is theorised they came about, and when. Does anyone know anything about that?

Hmm, I always thought that viruses arose after cellular life and were a corrupted form of the DNA transmisson mechanism observed in some prokaryotes. It's been a while since I took a bio class though, but that sounds right.

OTOH, prions I believe could have pre-existed cells.

I've always fascinated me that as near as we can tell, viruses have existed as long as life has, and has always evolved with life, yet has never itself been categorized as life.

What purpose does their survival and evolutionary shifts accomplish? Are they more important to the life cycle than we think? In fact, is it possible that they played a role in the creation of it?

There was a really interesting main article on whether viruses are alive in Scientific American a couple months back, but I can't remember much from it now.

OTOH, prions I believe could have pre-existed cells.
They could have, except that they could never have been able to self-replicate. Same with viruses. Both rely on metabolising organisms to reproduce.

They could have, except that they could never have been able to self-replicate. Same with viruses. Both rely on metabolising organisms to reproduce.

Say there was a protein "soup", could not prions prosper there. IIRC, they don't require cellular ultrastructure to replicate like viruses do, so it is possible.

They could have, except that they could never have been able to self-replicate. Same with viruses. Both rely on metabolising organisms to reproduce.

They do NOW. This might be a bit nutty but is it possible that cellular life exists because viruses needed a way to self-replicate?

Say there was a protein "soup", could not prions prosper there. IIRC, they don't require cellular ultrastructure to replicate like viruses do, so it is possible.

What's the difference between a virus and a prion?(short version)

Say there was a protein "soup", could not prions prosper there. IIRC, they don't require cellular ultrastructure to replicate like viruses do, so it is possible.
Ahh, that is a good point. I don't believe that such a situation is likely, but I wouldn't just rule it out.

They do NOW. This might be a bit nutty but is it possible that cellular life exists because viruses needed a way to self-replicate?
That actually sounds a whole lot like the Cairns-Smith theory, of life originating because silicates would use organic matter to facilitate self-replication. Perhaps another part could be added, that viruses were produced by silicates, which were outcompeted by viruses when life originated from viruses. It may be that all life serves the ultimate purpose as a tool for viruses. This would be so awesome to think about while high, I swear!

What's the difference between a virus and a prion?(short version)
A virus is a strain or two strains of genetic material, RNA or DNA, that uses a cells faculties to reproduce itself. A prion is a proteinaceous infectious particle, a protein that changed other proteins into itself. Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE's), most famous is BSE, mad cow disease, are a good example.

Viruses also can change human DNA to alter offspring. Little buggers are creepy in how much they can screw with our structure. That they cause death isn't a big deal compared to what else they do.

A virus is a strain or two strains of genetic material, RNA or DNA, that uses a cells faculties to reproduce itself. A prion is a proteinaceous infectious particle, a protein that changed other proteins into itself. Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE's), most famous is BSE, mad cow disease, are a good example.

Sound similar on the surface, but I see the difference. Viruses are self-replicating templates looking for factories and prions are self-replicating finished products.

WHich is fascinating in and of itself. Imagine how useful it could be to custom design self-replicating proteins that were beneficial.

For that matter, it sounds an awful lot like what cellular life does.

Viruses also can change human DNA to alter offspring. Little buggers are creepy in how much they can screw with our structure. That they cause death isn't a big deal compared to what else they do.

Even creepier is that we would probably not survive without certain HERVs. Little bastards worming there way in.

On the plus side, its good ammunition against the creationists.

Sound similar on the surface, but I see the difference. Viruses are self-replicating templates looking for factories and prions are self-replicating finished products.
Well, the huge difference is that a prion is a single protein, and a virion is genetic material and protein. But, yes, you got it pretty much.

Imagine how useful it could be to custom design self-replicating proteins that were beneficial.
I see where you're coming from, but protein synthesis seems to be working fine for us right now.

For that matter, it sounds an awful lot like what cellular life does.
No, there are huge differences. Viruses comandeer the processes of cells in order to reproduce. Cells are so much more complicated in how they work.

Sound similar on the surface, but I see the difference. Viruses are self-replicating templates looking for factories and prions are self-replicating finished products.

WHich is fascinating in and of itself. Imagine how useful it could be to custom design self-replicating proteins that were beneficial.

For that matter, it sounds an awful lot like what cellular life does.


MIT - I think it was MIT anyway - built a DNA computer* which used little bits of DNA in a mixture with DNA polymerase to perform paralel processing operations. It solved a travelling salesman problem that was previously though insoluble using serial computation with todays computers.

Now that's cool.

*Although to be fair the, actual computer was just a big flask of chemicals.

Well, the huge difference is that a prion is a single protein, and a virion is genetic material and protein. But, yes, you got it pretty much.


I see where you're coming from, but protein synthesis seems to be working fine for us right now.


No, there are huge differences. Viruses comandeer the processes of cells in order to reproduce. Cells are so much more complicated in how they work.

I meant prions and cells. Both are self-replicating protein makers.

I meant prions and cells. Both are self-replicating protein makers.
Well, I may just be misunderstanding you, but what prions do is "fold" existing proteins into their own structure. They can produce none, only convert.

Well, I may just be misunderstanding you, but what prions do is "fold" existing proteins into their own structure. They can produce none, only convert.

All cells do is convert amino acids(some of which come by disassembling existing proteins) into proteins.

All cells do is convert amino acids(some of which come by disassembling existing proteins) into proteins.
Not entirely...that is their secondary function. After protein synthesis is things like metabolism. But their primary function is to replicate genetic material. Prions can only take existing proteins and re-fold them into the prion itself. They can not assemble or dissemble.