Abiogenesis Wars: How Did Biology Emerge on Earth from Non-Biological Molecules?

[Wowbagger]

I have started this thread as a platform for discussing of abiogenesis and, and a place to facilitate a raging debate between John Hewitt (http://forums.randi.org/z/index.php?z-profile=John-Hewitt) and I, on the nature of fundamental replicators (which may have a significant impact on abiogenesis).

In seeking a compromise between evidence cited for John's theory (http://sexandphilosophy.co.uk/pe00_prebiotic_index.htm) (where membranes were the first replicators), and evidence cited for the situation today (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-centered_view_of_evolution) (where genes are fundamental replicators), I have developed this wild and crazy idea.

My "Wild and Crazy" Idea
Membranes were the original replicators. Then, in the midst of their cells, gene-like molecules emerged. Once these genes got going, they managed to "usurp" the role of replicator, so that the membranes took on a role closer to that of "vehicle" for gene replication. You could say that if this were the case, genes were something of a parasite of membranes.

Participants of this thread can either comment on that one, and/or provide their own theories. Whatever. Just please keep the battles as constructive and as civil as possible.

[John Hewitt]

I have started this thread as a platform for discussing of abiogenesis and, and a place to facilitate a raging debate between John Hewitt (http://forums.randi.org/z/index.php?z-profile=John-Hewitt) and I, on the nature of fundamental replicators (which may have a significant impact on abiogenesis).

In seeking a compromise between evidence cited for John's theory (http://sexandphilosophy.co.uk/pe00_prebiotic_index.htm) (where membranes were the first replicators), and evidence cited for the situation today (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-centered_view_of_evolution) (where genes are fundamental replicators), I have developed this wild and crazy idea.

My "Wild and Crazy" Idea
Membranes were the original replicators. Then, in the midst of their cells, gene-like molecules emerged. Once these genes got going, they managed to "usurp" the role of replicator, so that the membranes took on a role closer to that of "vehicle" for gene replication. You could say that if this were the case, genes were something of a parasite of membranes.

Participants of this thread can either comment on that one, and/or provide their own theories. Whatever. Just please keep the battles as constructive and as civil as possible.
Well, they're you are, still making this assumption that evolution needs a replicator and I still don't see what the word "vehicle" adds to anything. If its got a membrane round it, its a cell or a vesicle. Those words have clear meaning to which vehicle adds nothing.
There a good number of people supprt membrane first ideas, Deamer, I recall, is one. Assuming membrane first ideas are approximately correct, then it is unarguable that genetic material must have come along later. I think it unlikely that RNA or DNA were ever parasitic, rather I would argue (after Shapiro) that they were energy stores which later began to take on a data storage and genetic role.

[balrog666]

I have started this thread as a platform for discussing of abiogenesis and, and a place to facilitate a raging debate between John Hewitt (http://forums.randi.org/z/index.php?z-profile=John-Hewitt) and I, on the nature of fundamental replicators (which may have a significant impact on abiogenesis).

In seeking a compromise between evidence cited for John's theory (http://sexandphilosophy.co.uk/pe00_prebiotic_index.htm) (where membranes were the first replicators), and evidence cited for the situation today (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-centered_view_of_evolution) (where genes are fundamental replicators), I have developed this wild and crazy idea.

My "Wild and Crazy" Idea
Membranes were the original replicators. Then, in the midst of their cells, gene-like molecules emerged. Once these genes got going, they managed to "usurp" the role of replicator, so that the membranes took on a role closer to that of "vehicle" for gene replication. You could say that if this were the case, genes were something of a parasite of membranes.

Participants of this thread can either comment on that one, and/or provide their own theories. Whatever. Just please keep the battles as constructive and as civil as possible.

IIRC, the minimum known self-replicating protein is composed of a string of 32 amino acids. Not very much in a world of 1 billion cubic kilometers of ocean .

[Cuddles]

Well, they're you are, still making this assumption that evolution needs a replicator

How exactly does evolution take place without reproduction?

[Dancing David]

We can only guess and speculate, we can use words like "might" and "possible", but we can't say "this is how abiogenesis occuered".

I feel that there were self catalyzing aggregates and there were films of some sort. the order of which came first in immaterial, if you have a small tidal pool that last for a couple of days and it has a thousand acting pieces of dreck, there is the probability that it will produce a self replicating aggregate in a film that supports the film.

take one hundred thousand pools and millions of events over a billion years, shaken not stirred, add a cocktail onion and viola, a Life Cocktail, in its own convinient Carrying Case.

[Wowbagger]

First, I wanted to clarify that I am not sentimental to the "Wild and Crazy" idea I gave in the OP. I will try defending it, first. But, if evidence presented to me shows it to be wrong, and that another idea is better, I will be inclined to go with that one.

Well, they're you are, still making this assumption that evolution needs a replicator For Evolution, in the Darwinian sense, to occur, natural selection has to act on something. No replicators to act on, means no natural selection.
Of course, when you talk about evolution in a general sense, meaning mere gradual changes over time, no replicator is necessary. However, given that there are replicators around, today, and that natural selection happens, we have to account for that in our theories of how life emerged.

and I still don't see what the word "vehicle" adds to anything. If its got a membrane round it, its a cell or a vesicle. Those words have clear meaning to which vehicle adds nothing. It means that the cell now serves the genes. It might not have been that way, originally. You could be correct in that genetic structures started as energy stores serving the cells. But, since then, the tables turned.

I think it unlikely that RNA or DNA were ever parasitic, Parasites can be very subversive. They could start out "benefiting" survival, in some way, only later to take over the life form.

IIRC, the minimum known self-replicating protein is composed of a string of 32 amino acids. Not very much in a world of 1 billion cubic kilometers of ocean . I assume you are implying that the emergence of self-replicating proteins is very probable, given the vast oceans and time spans? If so, I agree.

We can only guess and speculate, we can use words like "might" and "possible", but we can't say "this is how abiogenesis occuered". I agree. That is a good guideline for this thread, and others like it.

take one hundred thousand pools and millions of events over a billion years, shaken not stirred, add a cocktail onion and viola, a Life Cocktail, in its own convinient Carrying Case.
<John Hewitt Impersonation>
Why, that's preposterous! Your theory does not define precisely what an "onion" or a "carrying case" is! And, it is certainly not useful to refer to life as a "cocktail"! That's the problem with evolutionary theory, today. Too much of it is based on analogies.
</John Hewitt Impersonation>

Other than that, it makes perfect sense.

[John Hewitt]

I assume you are implying that the emergence of self-replicating proteins is very probable, given the vast oceans and time spans? If so, I agree.

That is an interesting idea. I will look forward to seeing how you develop it into a full blown theory of abiogenesis.

[Meadmaker]

Some folks at Penn State have recently come up with some things I found very interesting. The key is that they say (I've only read an article, not the paper) that they've found a mechanism that could produce a self-sustaining, energy producing, reaction, inside a membrane. The reaction itself is fairly simple, not requiring lots and lots of interactions with complex carbon based molecules whose spontaneous emergence is questionable anyway.

I'll try and post a link later, but if anyone who is more capable than I of analyzing their claims could comment, I would appreciate it.