Modern thoughts on the origin of organisms.

  • Thread starter Thread starter wasteofo2
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Origin Thoughts
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the origins of life on Earth, specifically the transition from inorganic and organic molecules to the first living cells. It highlights that while there is a general understanding that prebiotic conditions on Earth allowed for chemical reactions driven by energy sources like heat and light, leading to the formation of complex molecules such as amino acids and RNA, the exact processes remain largely speculative. The term "prebiotic" refers to the period before life, suggesting that a form of molecular evolution occurred prior to the emergence of the first cells. The conversation acknowledges the ambiguity surrounding the definition of life, particularly in relation to entities like viruses. Despite ongoing experiments aimed at simulating the conditions for abiogenesis, there is no definitive proof of how life originated, making this a significant area of scientific inquiry still full of conjecture. The discussion encourages further exploration of terms like "prebiotic" and "abiogenesis" for deeper understanding.
wasteofo2
Messages
477
Reaction score
2
So, I'm a teenager, and have always been interested in precisely how life began on earth. Is there any widely accepted and thuroughly proven theory about how you got from inorganic molecules, or even organic molecules, to the first cell? All I've ever gotten as a respons was pretty much this:

Earth had a bunch of atoms and molecules before life existed. Through heat/light/electrical energy, these atoms and molecules began to react and bond and whatnot. Eventually, because of the sheer amount of stuff out there, complex things like Amino acids began to form. This kept going on for a while, until you had stuff like RNA, that could self-replicate. Then you had cells.

There must be a better theory out there...
 
Biology news on Phys.org
Google on prebiotic. Of course that is a word from Greek meaning before life, and the modern theory is that a stage of pre-life based on molecules in some way preceded the first appearance of life. You need to be aware that the definitin of life itself, at the boundary like this, is somewhat shaky. We don't consider viruses to be alive, but the things immediately prior to the first protocell might have been very like simple viruses, that is to say protein/RNA molecular combinations.

Anyway prebiotic is the buzzword used for this epoch and prebiotic evolution is a conjectured evolution of molecules that may have taken place then. It is all conjecture, although there are efforts to make things happen in test tubes that could support different hypotheses.
 
As selfAdjoint stated, it's pretty much all conjecture still. This is one area where science does not have answers. Even if we could experimentally induce the formation of life from non-living precursors, we still have no way, at least at this time, of knowing that's how it actually happened when life on Earth came into existence; we could only say it's one way it might have happened.
 
You might want to check this article.
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=12077305
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Deadly cattle screwworm parasite found in US patient. What to know. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2025/08/25/new-world-screwworm-human-case/85813010007/ Exclusive: U.S. confirms nation's first travel-associated human screwworm case connected to Central American outbreak https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/us-confirms-nations-first-travel-associated-human-screwworm-case-connected-2025-08-25/...
Chagas disease, long considered only a threat abroad, is established in California and the Southern U.S. According to articles in the Los Angeles Times, "Chagas disease, long considered only a threat abroad, is established in California and the Southern U.S.", and "Kissing bugs bring deadly disease to California". LA Times requires a subscription. Related article -...
I am reading Nicholas Wade's book A Troublesome Inheritance. Please let's not make this thread a critique about the merits or demerits of the book. This thread is my attempt to understanding the evidence that Natural Selection in the human genome was recent and regional. On Page 103 of A Troublesome Inheritance, Wade writes the following: "The regional nature of selection was first made evident in a genomewide scan undertaken by Jonathan Pritchard, a population geneticist at the...

Similar threads

Back
Top