What is the origin of life according to ToE?

[Gunfingers]

Not entirely. Prior to the advent of genetic reproduction there was no evolution. There may have been processes similar to evolution, but those processes were not covered by evolutionary theory. Because things didn't work quite the same way the phylogenetic tree likely wouldn't have looked quite the same as it does now. It's a subtle distinction, and to laypersons like you and I it may seem trivial or even unnecessary, but to the scientists who deal in the respective fields the distinction is important.

 

[Krok]

Evolution is the process by which the first prototype organism came to be,...

No, The ToE deals with what happened after the first organism came to be. Not before.

... where only inorganic materials existed before.

That's not part of ToE. it's called abiogenesis.

When you read a paper on abiogenesis, it's almost entirely about evolution by natural selection, only applied to non-living stuff.

It's about non-organic stuff. The ToE is not involved. The moment an organism passes on it's genes, then it becomes part of ToE.

It's the beginning of evolution, .....

No, that's about the beginning of life. The ToE follows after that.

...the beginning of our story, and an enormous part of who we are.

It still is not about the ToE.

...If you accept that we're all twigs on a phylogenetic tree,.....

With the first common ancestor at it's base.

... then abiogenesis was the very first step at the base of the trunk.

No, the first step of the ToE involves the first organic organisms who could pass on their genes.
The first step in the formation of the Theespruit Formation of the Barberton Supergroup, where we find the first prokaryotic fossils, is not included. The rocks are not part of ToE. The fossils of living organisms, found in those inorganic rocks, are included.

 

[ScottySatan]

Prior to the advent of genetic reproduction there was no evolution.

Darwin didn't know what genes were when he made his theory. but his idea still worked because modern molecular genetics was not necessary. DNA-encoded genes are not a required part of evolution. RNA genomes are subject to evolution. Transmission of hereditary information form one generation to the next by epigenetics is also subject to evolution by natural selection.

Transmission of heredity by biopolymers that predate DNA are also subject to evolution by natural selection. They evolved to become DNA because DNA works better.

 

[painted wolf]

I will assume that we have descended from a common ancestor that we share with apes, but what is the origin of all life forms? Where did the original ancestors come from?

This is actually a separate question from evolution.

Evolution is the question of how we got the biodiversity we see today. (and the questions that follow from that: ie, why do we have sex, how does inheritance work)

Once you ask where the "first living thing" came from you are asking a very different question. Indeed, the first living things don't have to evolve and likely didn't. Now once you get inheritance with modification and differential fitness then you get evolution.

But just to get a self replicating bio-molecule is question of chemistry.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Darwin didn't know what genes were when he made his theory. but his idea still worked because modern molecular genetics was not necessary. DNA-encoded genes are not a required part of evolution. RNA genomes are subject to evolution. Transmission of hereditary information form one generation to the next by epigenetics is also subject to evolution by natural selection.

Transmission of heredity by biopolymers that predate DNA are also subject to evolution by natural selection. They evolved to become DNA because DNA works better.

True, but the chemistry that produced the first replicating bio-molecules was not driven by evolution... only which of those molecules was able to out compete the others.

wa:do

 

[jarofthoughts]

Evolution is the process by which the first prototype organism came to be, where only inorganic materials existed before. When you read a paper on abiogenesis, it's almost entirely about evolution by natural selection, only applied to non-living stuff. It's the beginning of evolution, the beginning of our story, and an enormous part of who we are.

If you accept that we're all twigs on a phylogenetic tree, then abiogenesis was the very first step at the base of the trunk.

You've now had three people explain it to you, including our resident biologist.
Can you now please accept that TOE is not about the origin of life?
Again: that is not what it's for.

Now, as I mentioned earlier, if anyone wishes to discuss Abiogenesis, we can do that, and it might even be an interesting discussion, but just be aware that we are not then discussing TOE.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

oh the athiests say evilution isn't the same as abiogenises but what do they think a rock gave birth to an amoeba or something? HAHAHA i just disapproved evilution right there, try to debate me you cant

 

[ScottySatan]

only which of those molecules was able to out compete the others.

wa:do

That is natural selection.

 

[Jose Fly]

Regarding the origins of life, it's a fascinating field of study with multiple hypotheses, some more evidenced than others. Right now, I think the most likely scenario is the formation of simple proto-cells, aided by catalytic clays. The lipid layers are also semi-permeable and allow the basic building blocks of RNA to pass through. Interestingly, the same clays also catalyze the formation of RNA strands. Thus, eventually it's possible to have a self-replicating RNA inside of a primitive "cell". Once you have that, it's been shown that natural selection plays a role in selecting for the most efficient replicators. And my understanding is that going from RNA to DNA is fairly easy.

Here are some links I've accumulated over the years. Some are a bit out of date, but informative nonetheless.


Small RNA can do translation

Multiple translational products from a five-nucleotide ribozyme

The latest (on the verge of life from scratch)

Biologists on the Verge of Creating New Form of Life | Wired Science | Wired.com

What we know

What critics of critics of neo-creationists get wrong: a reply to Gordy Slack - The Panda's Thumb

Evolution of triplet code

http://www.jbsdonline.com/index.cfm?d=3016&c=4155&p=12377&do=detail

Welcome to the Genome Diversity Center

Creation of self-replicating molecules capable of adaptation

BBC News | Sci/Tech | Lab molecules mimic life

Self-sustained RNA replication

Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme

Creation of self-replicating molecules that are “handed” (with many links inside)

NAI: News Stories

Amino acids thermodynamically favored

[0904.0402] A thermodynamic basis for prebiotic amino acid synthesis and the nature of the first genetic code



Amino acids formed in comet-like conditions

http://www.sciencenews.org/20020330/fob1.asp

Large organic molecules found in space

Interstellar Chemistry Gets More Complex With New Charged-Molecule Discovery

Organic chemistry in young planet forming discs

Organic Molecules and Water in the Planet Formation Region of Young Circumstellar Disks

Carl Zimmer article on abiogenesis research

CarlZimmer.com: Articles

(more recent)

Science Magazine: Sign In

Darwinian evolution in RNA protocells (PDF)

http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Chen_et_al_2004.pdf

(Science article for above)

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/305/5689/1474/

DNA replication initiator same in all three domains of life

Research News:

RNA abilities

Something for You RNA World Enthusiasts : Transcription and Translation

Formation of amino acids in hydrothermal vent conditions

α-Hydroxy and α-Amino Acids Under Possible Hadean, Volcanic Origin-of-Life Conditions

Replication of Urey-Miller experiments with more apt conditions

The Panda's Thumb: Primordial Soup's On: Scientists Repeat Evolution's Most Famous Experiment

One step in pre-RNA to RNA

In The Prebiotic Kitchen | The Loom | Discover Magazine

(paper for above)

Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions : Abstract : Nature

 

[Amill]

abiogenesis is an evolutionary model. nothing more, nothing less. I explained why, and provided references to back up my claims. To simply contradict me without rebuttal of the evidence at this point is a non-argument.

It really comes down to what definitions of evolution we're using. If you define evolution as change resulting from various natural mechanisms, then sure you could define abiogenesis as evolution. But you could also lump in a whole lot of other stuff. Just because abiogenesis shared some form of natural selection doesn't mean it's a part of the Theory of Evolution. A sort of important aspect of Evolution is descent with modification. You want to explain how abiogenesis involves genetic inheritance?

 

[ScottySatan]

You've now had three people explain it to you, including our resident biologist.
Can you now please accept that TOE is not about the origin of life?

Shall I just change my mind because three people tell me that I'm wrong without addressing my arguments or the arguments of my peer reviewed references? No, thank you.

I do evolutionary biology research for a living. My passion for the subject is what is making me bother to pursue this here. Let me try another tack to address what I think you might have problems with.

In the context of being a biologist who thinks about the practical benefits of evolutionary science every day, I guess I can say that we think about biological systems as physical and chemical systems. We don't assign any special status to living things. There is nothing particularly different about something that's alive. It's matter and energy applicable to laws of chemistry and physics. In this, the modern researchers paradigm, there is no reason at all to limit evolutionary theory to that which is alive. Especially given that we can't properly define life. Aspects of inorganic chemistry are subject to evolution by natural selection.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Evolutionary biology describes the process of evolution relating to living things. Chemicals are not living things. An evolutionary biologist would probably understand this.

 

[Jose Fly]

"Evolution" refers to changing allele frequencies in populations over time. The Theory of Evolution seeks to explain the processes and pathways by which this occurs.

Thus, evolutionary theory can't apply to something until it starts to evolve.

 

[Gunfingers]

That is natural selection.

You understand that there's more to evolution than natural selection, right?

 

[ScottySatan]

Ok all, I'm not going to ask you to just take my word for it. Let's try something else.

Go find the definition of the theory of evolution that you learned. Go find out all the things that evolution is, and what it isn't. Show me where in that text it says that nonliving things are specifically excluded. Show me where it says that evolution didn't exist until the first cell was made.

I've already provided references to show my point, read it. Give a rebuttal of my references, provide your own references, or you've got nothing.

 

[ScottySatan]

You understand that there's more to evolution than natural selection, right?

yes, but what you've done is define natural selection.

 

[ScottySatan]

Ok all, I'm not going to ask you to just take my word for it. Let's try something else.

Go find the definition of the theory of evolution that you learned. Go find out all the things that evolution is, and what it isn't. Show me where in that text it says that nonliving things are specifically excluded. Show me where it says that evolution didn't exist until the first cell was made. You will find definitions where it says the theory is about organisms, but you will not find in that text or any reference that can say why nonliving things should be excluded. Ask yourself why not.

I've already provided references to show my point, read it. Give a rebuttal of my references, provide your own references, or you've got nothing.

 

[McBell]

I've already provided references to show my point, read it. Give a rebuttal of my references, provide your own references, or you've got nothing.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out the specific part(s) of your references that specifically say that biological evolution started before there were biological entities?

 

[painted wolf]

That is natural selection.

Nice cherry picking, care to address my whole point?

Evolution requires decent with modification and differential selection. The first self replicating bio-molecules likely didn't meet these requirements.

wa:do

 

[ScottySatan]

Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out the specific part(s) of your references that specifically say that biological evolution started before there were biological entities?

Thank you, I should have thought to do that. I'll do the original references I gave plus some more. I'm going to have to reduce these to very minimal quotes to get it all to fit here, but I'll give the link to the article, and you should be able to do a search for the text copied and pasted from here for the context. I'm limiting myself to those journal articles that are free to the public. Most aren't.

One is this article:
Modelling evolution on design-by-contract predicts an origin of Life through an abiotic double-stranded RNA world

which says in the abstract: "It is generally believed that life first evolved from single-stranded RNA (ssRNA) that both stored genetic information and catalyzed the reactions required for self-replication."
The abstract provides no references itself, but the references for this data are one through ten in the journal article.

another reference is this:
The Evolution of Enzyme Specificity in the Metabolic Replicator Model of Prebiotic Evolution
which says:
"Studies of early evolution have long acknowledged the essential role catalysts must have played in the origin of life. It was in Wächtershäuser's hypothesis of the “prebiotic pizza” where inorganic compounds were first assumed to carry the function of early biocatalysts [1]–[3]."

Another:
Formamide as the main building block in the origin of nucleic acids
which says:
"Life is a sturdy phenomenon and its initial steps bona fide originated from robust chemical frames based on firm thermodynamic ground. These assumptions on the simplicity and the necessity of the pre-biogenic processes are mitigated by the consideration that the genetic mechanisms onto which relies life-as-we-know-it today are combinatorially elaborated. In passing from the initial self-organization of chemical information to the potentially infinite complexity of interplaying genotypes and phenotypes that we experience today, evolution did necessarily play the key role."

Another, in an article entidled "Chemical evolution: The mechanism of the formation of adenine under prebiotic conditions": Chemical evolution: The mechanism of the formation of adenine under prebiotic conditions

it says:
"Because there are no quantitative experimental data to match, a highly refined study, for example, by using the approach described by Jorgensen and his coworkers (30) to model the medium effects, is not called for at this initial stage. The computed activation energy is reasonable considering the long time scale of chemical evolution toward complex organic systems on primitive earth. An alternate pathway based on the experimental isolation of 2- and 8-cyanoadenine or adenine 8-carboxamide as adenine precursor suggests a further complex mechanism involving hexamer and heptamers of HCN (31)."

Interestingly, I found an article on how there is a changing paradigm from one that resembles what you people are saying to one that resembles one that I'm saying. Perhaps you learned this stuff a while ago or read it in a textbook based on the older ideas, whereas I learned it from modern experimentation and have mostly had access to the more modern interpretation:
Origin of Evolution versus Origin of Life: A Shift of Paradigm

Finally, I should add that a search through the US federal medical literature database for "prebiotic evolution" gives 654 peer-reviewed scientific journal articles online:
prebiotic evolution - PubMed result