I understand in detail how evolution works in all forms, but I'm at an impasse at how the FIRST cell structure was formed.
The ability to continue on is what drives the evolution argument, but the atomic ingredients in cells cant follow that same principle so how did the FIRST stage of evolution begin.
Its annoying me halp
>>7733176
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeVk9yC0_vk
It isn't possible, evolution isn't real
It's quite obvious isn't it?
>>7733176
Slowly. Very slowly.
Abiotic synthesis
>>7733251
What he said, molecules from the earliest underwater vents. The theory is that mitochondria were around before the actual cell. You basically had a molecular cauldron of all these different components that could make life.
>>7733299
Mitochondria are derived from cellls though. It is accepted that, like chloroplasts, they were once free cells that were engulfed by early eukaryotes and via some unknown mechanism became permanent fixtures in the cells.
>>7733183
Evolution and abiogenisis are two separate fields.
Elements collided, molecules were formed without reason or purpose, molecules collided, amino acids were formed without reason or purpose, amino acids collided, proteins were formed without reason or purpose, proteins collided and on and on and on.
Eventually simple organic widgets as dead as viruses were formed by shit just randomly bumping into each other for hundreds of millions of years.
Then god descended from the heavens and said what's all this stupid shit, and arranged it coherently into all men and animals.
>>7733176
Nobody really knows; bacteria don't leave fossils and we just don't know much about the chemistry of extremely early Earth.
The most promising idea right now is the RNA world hypothesis - that early life consisted only of RNA, possibly captured in natural lipid micelles. The fundamental infrastructure of all life runs on RNA - the ribosome's functional surfaces are all RNA, DNA must be translated to RNA to make proteins, and it serves a wide array of other fundamental functions in basic machinery.
The discovery that RNA strands can bond with themselves to fold into protein-like "ribozymes" that can also catalyze chemical reactions, and the fact that RNA can self-reproduce under the right conditions by providing a template for its complement and vice versa, suggests that pure RNA life is possible - doing the work of both proteins and DNA.
It's imperfect - getting the RNA to stably replicate is difficult and there's open questions about some of the chemistry. Maybe there were other natural variables, like temperature cycling or mineral catalysts; maybe it was some other nucleic acid.
But that is perhaps how life started - a strand of RNA, that happened to form a ribozyme that made it replicate more efficiently or otherwise gave it an advantage over other blobs of RNA.
>>7733176
it wasn't. omnis cellula ex cellula.
>>7733176
Jesus
>>7733176
One hypothesis suggests that the first cell inhabited a cell like structure commonly found in quick clay, a beneficial structure for early biologically active chemicals that did not yet grow their own cell membranes.
>>7733685
the most promising idea right now isn't actually RNA world - there just hasn't been enough time for RNA alone to have done the job
rather, the most promising idea is "RNA+Protein" world - that randomly created proteins and randomly created RNA, in concert, combined to create life
>>7733765
That still leaves the question of cell STRUCTURE open. Sure, what yoyu propose would result in free floating bioactive chemicals but that is not a cell by a mile.
>>7735326
Natural lipid micelles and bilayer vesicles very like cell membranes form naturally. That's just what fatty acids in water do. They have notable cell-like properties, like naturally growing by incorporating more fatty acids and large vesicles splitting in two when disturbed.
We know that a compartment to concentrate chemicals, a way to catalyze reactions, and a form of genetic material is needed to create life as we know it. It's not certain what order these occurred in, or what took each place.
The RNA-Lipid world, where RNA molecules in fatty acid vesicles (plus some other element to reproduce the RNA, like temperature cycling) made up the first protocells is a popular hypothesis. (Fatty acid bilayers are much more porous to small molecules like individual nucleotides than current phospholipid membranes)
>>7733176
It was never created. Some molecules have a profitiency too bind at certain environments. Like acid, or in the presence of a catalyst. Well so in time more complex chains forms. And these chains have a proficiency to bind with others at certain parameters. To form even more complex chains. This long level up of complex takes milllllllions of years. Ok? Eventually some chains have a profiency to ball upp. Form a shell. And in this shell other molecules have a proficiency too like, because of the physical difference of the inside to outside. Like polarity of the magnetism or osmotic pressure. One day. You look at the process and you can say that this looks like a cell. Though nothing like a cell today. Eventually some cells take up a form of protein chains that we call DNA. And I'm the cell they have a proficiency to form other proteins by their mere structure .and so on and so on.
Every stave is accompanied by another chain. Making itore complex. And then something else that can benefit from the new complexity joins in. And makes the new complexity even more complex. And so on and so on.
And whips. You are standing here.
>>7735347
Still, in case I sound too confident, I wish to point out that there are still massive unknowns. A recent paper demonstrating nucleotide, peptide, and lipid precursor synthesis under plausible prebiotic conditions helped clear some stuff up, but there's a LOT of uncertainty. Could RNA really be stable enough? Could it really replicate on its own? What if we added citrate, or clay? Was it free-floating or bound to a surface? Did metabolism come first, to provide energy and complex molecules for all this? Could these steps plausibly have happened fast enough to explain the extremely rapid appearance of life?
I think we're 60% of the way to the answer, and perhaps the first synthetic protocell, but there's a long way to go.
>>7735371
this. are you a female or male?
Molecules are either positively or negatively charged. Like charges repel, and opposite charges attract. So, if you put carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen together in the same solution (Let's say water) they stick together in certain inevitable ways.
These elements are the basic building blocks of organic chemistry, and combine with elements like sulfur, fluorine, calcium, silicon and metals to form the vast library of enzymes and proteins that compose and construct the cell wall and organelles.
One of the basic components of a cell are lipids. Have you ever seen a soap bubble? Different molecules, but cells form because of the same principle. DNA/RNA self-replicates, whether it's in a cell or not. When it winds up in a cell, it obtains protection from exposure to other molecules that might change it - so there's a tendency to find functional DNA/RNA inside a cell rather than on the pavement.
Cells are as natural as fog and snow. You're literally like the sun, the wind and the rain. And you can be like they are - unafraid of death. When you die, the DNA/RNA inside of you will break up into amines and polymerize into amino acids, and microorganisms will uptake the molecules and incorporate it into their cytoskeletons and even their own DNA/RNA - your entire body will be torn apart and forged into alien lifeforms.
>>7733176
Life probably started when water came to earth. Life was all ready in the water and it evolved when it came to earth.
>>7733176
the beef starts at 3:00, kill the music
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lQrCsPrh11M
>>7735464
Yes.
>>7733310
It's not an unknown mechanism. It's evolution.
Those chloroplasts and mitochondria that bounded and remained in a symbiotic relationship with the host cell survived harsher environments and outnumbered those that did not.
>>7735529
If that is ture that should be able to reproduce in a lab.
>>7735477
>Molecules are either positively or negatively charged.
That's wrong though.
>>7733299
Free membranes form from lipids quite easily in the lab. The latest theory of warm-water (not hot-water) hydrothermal vents in the ocean is probably the best one to follow. Read some Nick Lane (a leading biochemist).
>>7733310
Take cell A going into cell B. When cell A dies, it's called "eating". When cell B dies, it's called "infection". When cell A survives inside B, it's called "symbiosis". That's the simple explanation of how we gained mitochondria and possibly other cell organelles.
There's an advantage for the mitochondria (and the plant equivalent of chloroplasts) going into another cell to live. The cell's inner environment is fairly predictable. That's a form of stability that the invasive cell can take advantage of. In return, the host cell could harvest anything the invasive cell produced. In this fashion, we ended up with mitochondria which produce our ATP.
>>7735568
It's long and complicated to get into it in greater depth. In chemistry, there're acids and there're bases, and they form salts. Metals don't covalently bond at all - they just sit in formation, and we call ionic bonding.
We could descend from chemistry and speak of electrons, or even quarks - a true expression of the physical facts would require it. There are times when I do this, and few people ever reply to my walls of text - and moreover, some people find it annoying and pretentious.
I didn't mention neutral charges, but a neutral charge is created by adding together equal numbers of positive and negative charges - do they really exist, or are they just composites?
Does the OP need all this information?
>>7733176
RNA world theory is interesting. Conditions of prebiotic earth were able to synthesise functioning nucleotide bases, polymerised using gene-clay theory to RNA strands and RNAzyme (holds genetic information and allows enzymatic functions) which evolved to the first prebiotic proteins and cells
>>7735728
Freeman Dyson has promoted a "dual origin" theory of the start of life. Breaking down life into hardware (proteins) and software (DNA and RNA), he speculates that living systems could have started out as proteins, needing no particular software to function, only reacting in a hardware fashion. Then some infection by early DNA occurred, and it became useful for the hardware to make use of DNA to store information.
We already know amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) form naturally. RNA seems to be able to self-assemble under certain conditions. Did life have a dual origin? Did purely information-carrying molecules infect life's basic hardware, a fortunate event since it allowed life to encode information and become more structurally flexible?
>>7733176
>>7733176
phospholipid layer/fat surfactant pool
+ the original RNA replicating structure, which was floating in the vast bio-pool for a long time before it was protected
>repeat
>>7735745
very unlikely but possible, as there are not proteins that create more proteins, but there are prions that alter given proteins into their isoform
basically its 100x more likely it was entirely an RNA world, with RNA structures and RNA replicators than proteins would be likely. However, the idea that protein could bind in an oft repeated way to the RNA scaffolding's 2nd structure is very likely.
>>7735635
The inland geothermal field theory addresses several issues surrounding the hydrothermal vents theory, namely a method for ionic amplification which would not be present on the proposed inflated iron sulfide 3D structure used to address problems of concentration in the hydrothermal theory.
Hadean water samples seem to show a potassium ion / sodium ion concentration ratio that is just not feasible to produce modern cell cytoplasm.
It's notable that humors other than cytosol have a composition more similar to sea water than anything else, while cytosol contents tend to be vastly different indicating a non-marine environment for the formation of the first protocells.
We think it has to be some kind of concentrating mechanism because the highest k+/na+ ratio found to date has been about 4, around rivers with highly potassium containing rocks which are otherwise unsuitable for protocell formation.
The Kamchatka volcano system has a variety of underground caverns which would be washed with meteoric water in gaseous form that could provide water steadily while also providing a solid surface for chemical concentration and eventually protocell formation.
>>7735565
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqPGOhXoprU
>>7733176
Pure Luck
>>7737493
What? No.
>>7733176
The first "cell" wasn't a "cell," probably. It was something that was kind of cell-like.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocell
