Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 01:54:49 UTC No. 16136797

>>16136791
>Can someone explain these holes I'm seeing in abiogenesis?
No

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 02:02:00 UTC No. 16136803

>>16136791
>Where are the self replicating non-living proteins in nature?
Prions

>Why did only one type molecule that contains genetic code (DNA) emerge?
It's not. RNA also exists.

>Why aren't there thousands?
There are chemically sound reasons, but it could just be that DNA and RNA were the first ones to emerge. Once life begins it changes the context of it's environment. There's no reason to expect a second abiogenesis event to happen because the environment is constantly changing after the first one.

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 02:02:45 UTC No. 16136804

>>16136791
Abiogenesis is false. The truth is we don't know.

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 02:06:04 UTC No. 16136808

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYDef_ZugcA

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 02:07:36 UTC No. 16136811

>>16136803
SPBP

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 02:11:24 UTC No. 16136812

>>16136803
What are the chemically sound reasons?

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 02:34:03 UTC No. 16136827

>>16136791
>Where are the self replicating non-living proteins in nature?
They get eaten immediately bu the living creatures that they share an environment with.

>Why did only one type molecule that contains genetic code (DNA) emerge?
There are in fact two, DNA and RNA.

>Why aren't there thousands?
Because these two are the best, and everything else got outcompeted.

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 02:35:50 UTC No. 16136831

>>16136791
abiogenesis is extraordinarily rare, but it just needs to occur once on some planet anywhere. You need a partial turing machine.

>>16136803
Prions are generated using existing replication mechanisms within existing systems accessing existing substrates. You misunderstand what abiogenesis is.

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 02:44:56 UTC No. 16136842

>>16136827
>They get eaten immediately bu the living creatures that they share an environment with.
No, creatures are only capable of eating one another *because* they are from the same abiogenesis event. That's basic organic chemistry.

>There are in fact two, DNA and RNA.
There are identical enantiomers for both of them and neither has ever emerged despite earth being the perfect environment for them. Same thing with amino acids being present on every planet but life not emerging.

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 02:56:13 UTC No. 16136856

>>16136842
>There are identical enantiomers for both of them and neither has ever emerged despite earth being the perfect environment for them.
since life modified the environment how do we know they haven't emerged but were out-competed by current ones?

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 03:08:03 UTC No. 16136869

>>16136842
>No, creatures are only capable of eating one another *because* they are from the same abiogenesis event.
Animals are. Plants and funghi and especially bacteria are much more willing to digest anything with vaguely biotic structure.

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 03:08:50 UTC No. 16136870

>>16136856
Because we would have evidence of such a geneline if it emerged and yet do not have such evidence. I wrote a long ass post but ultimately you should look up what the actual biochemistry is and what is meant by theoretical biochemistries if you want to learn more.

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 03:16:30 UTC No. 16136876

>>16136870
what evidence can still remain in 4 billion years? if they were outcompeted? as far as I remember our sugar's chirality is (most likely?) due to earth's magnetic field or something like that. we wouldn't be able to digest the mirror one.
so where exactly would we find this evidence?

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 03:18:11 UTC No. 16136878

>>16136869
No, as in my example, the theoretical opposite chirality life is not only nutritionally worthless but actually toxic to the other line.

Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 00:59:02 UTC No. 16138164

Well, you see *points to gap in fossil record* that's where God intervened and made Adam and Eve. *points up* see that? No aliens. *smugs* If abiogenesis was real then it would happen more than once, no? *turns 360 degrees and ascends to heaven away from you*

Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 08:04:10 UTC No. 16138509

>>16136876
>what evidence can still remain in 4 billion years? if they were outcompeted?
>so where exactly would we find this evidence?
You misunderstand, he’s saying that IF a second independent form of life had emerged from a second abiogenesis event then it would be entirely unrelated to all known organisms because it shares no common ancestor with them. If that had occurred and they weren’t outcompeted then we should find life that is entirely unrelated to everything else, but we don’t because everything on earth as far as we know is related to some extent. Life from a second abiogenesis event would be equally unrelated to you or any other organism as an alien would be

Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 08:06:32 UTC No. 16138513

>>16136791
Once life first popped up, anything that was behind in terms of complexity would be immediately outcompeted. New lines of self replicating proteins would be too busy getting turned into food by the first organisms to get anywhere

Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 09:10:39 UTC No. 16138573

>>16138513
>too busy getting turned into food by the first organisms to get anywhere
but he says the opposite here >>16136842
>No, creatures are only capable of eating one another *because* they are from the same abiogenesis event. That's basic organic chemistry.

Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 18:33:01 UTC No. 16139198

>>16138164
Kek

Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 18:52:14 UTC No. 16139220

>>16136791
non living proteins are suboptimal and get outcompeted by completed life

thats to say, the incredible amount of abundent resources needed to make life happen is being hogged by, well, life

imagine that

Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 18:58:46 UTC No. 16139227

>>16136791
The process that turned dead matter into archaic cells started 9 billion years before Earth, when the universe was warm enough to support life everywhere except close to stars. This can be verified once alien life is found and we found is not different from life in Earth.

Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:33:14 UTC No. 16139344

>>16136791
https://newatlas.com/biology/life-merger-evolution-symbiosis-organelle
>Last time this happened, Earth got plants.

Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 21:28:53 UTC No. 16139428

>>16136791
>where are
They are extinct. Once a few protists had an advantage they managed to eat all the primordial replicating proteins. Where did they live is still subject to debate. The most ancient hint of life are stromatolites in australia, which were aggregates of archea, though themselves must be like a billion years after the replicating proteins started.

>why did only one type emerge
Many emerged. What stood around are the ones that replicated the best, more reliable, more durable for their environment at the time. There are non-canonical nucleobases that could have formed simultaneously and bent in shitty ways, or maybe could have contributed to the formation of the canonical nucleobases, but the ones we have now are the more reliable of the bunch.

Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 21:37:37 UTC No. 16139449

>>16136870
Do we have evidence that cyclops hominids existed? Other cyclops animals?

No? That's because the gene that turns vertebrates into cyclops fucks them up and die quickly, then another vertebrate eats it and turns it into shit.

You can't be sure shit so fragile like alternate nucleobases and alternate self replicating nucleic acids didn't emerge but became extinct from overcompetition.

There are things in life that have happened outside of the genetic level, such as the predation between procarionts that ended up forming organelles. that now give the different lines of protists we have today.

Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 21:45:28 UTC No. 16139459

>>16136791
>Where are the self replicating non-living proteins in nature?
Can't exist in a world of microscopic and macroscopic protein eaters. They would just be eaten.
>Why did only one type molecule that contains genetic code (DNA) emerge?
We don't know. But once there are DNA replicators, it might be impossible for a different kind to arise. Resources all taken by DNA replicators.

https://youtu.be/hvDcm6KGuuo?si

Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 21:47:17 UTC No. 16139464

>>16136831
>You need a partial turing machine
Particular environments can act as Turing machines by making certain kinds of reactions more favourable. Temperature, pressure, pH, electric charge, can all change which direction chemical reactions move in.

Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 21:52:03 UTC No. 16139472

>>16136876
>far as I remember our sugar's chirality is (most likely?) due to earth's magnetic field or something like that. we wouldn't be able to digest the mirror one.
>so where exactly would we find this evidence?
We can't, but fast reproduces like bacteria will always evolve the ability to each some opposite chirality stuff if it began to appear in large enough amounts.
>l-Glucose does not occur naturally in living organisms, but can be synthesized in the laboratory. l-Glucose is indistinguishable in taste from d-glucose,[1] but cannot be used by living organisms as a source of energy because it cannot be phosphorylated by hexokinase, the first enzyme in the glycolysis pathway.
>One of the known exceptions is in Burkholderia caryophylli, a plant pathogenic bacterium, which contains the enzyme d-threo-aldose 1-dehydrogenase which is capable of oxidizing L-glucose.

Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 21:55:20 UTC No. 16139477

>>16138573
>but he says the opposite here
He's wrong. Doesn't matter what abiogenesis event your life stems from, it can adapt to consume nearly anything.