suddenly, the speculative possibility of intelligent design becomes more plausible as we enter the realm of nanotechnology ourselves. Who knows how, what, or where life had started, but we might be the second version.
buryat 5 hours ago [-]
It seems obvious that if replication of elementary particles appears that everything else will be an emerging property given enough time. And if you look at atoms and math there're definite parallels that once atoms can interconnect stronger than everything else (considering the 3d world) and something like Penrose's tiles where you get repeating interconnecting structures that more higher level structures would be possible. And with energy connected to the particles momentum and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle you get fluctuations in the structures that allow for both new structures and enforcing of the construction rules. You also have clear levels between forces that work on different levels that create boundaries to the structures. 3 spacial dimensions give additional directions of interactions between structures. And voila, given conditions, there's a place for emerging properties. Whether it was RNA who knows. It does seem that the search becomes way murkier toward going into the actual mechanism but the ingredients seem to be in place
Is there a reason why the alternative idea of closed autocatalytic sets from Stuart Kauffman doesn't get nearly as much attention or discussion as the RNA origin hypothesis?
Ever since I first learned about it, it seems to me a much more likely origin of life hypothesis, as it doesn't require something to catalyze itself, which causes inevitable problems with mutation causing loss of catalytic efficiency.
Also, it is not incompatible with RNA being one of the early building blocks. It just doesn't require RNA to be where everything started.
cowlevel 1 hours ago [-]
You need evolution to have life. Why is mutation a deal-breaker?
jacquesm 41 minutes ago [-]
> You need evolution to have life.
I don't think you can say this with certainty. It is assumed that life and evolution go hand-in-hand from the beginning but it is not proven to be the case.
Neb_OoL 4 hours ago [-]
The hardest part of the transition from prebiotic chemistry (assembling the building blocks) to an 'RNA World' is doing so in a way that can support RNA copying. As others have shown the chance of finding one replicator is low - so you need supporting RNA copying chemistry at a pretty substantial level to help that happen.
This is where the hard part of the field is currently: finding chemistry that can support accurate RNA copying that is also both sufficiently high yielding and also compatible with these reactions being inside protocells (fatty acids for example). An RNA genome only really has value when it can be selfish and keep any innovations it makes to itself inside a protocell!
I work in Origins Research - if you have questions please ask and ill try to answer with the current opinions of the field!
durianizok 3 hours ago [-]
For a long time, since I learned about how evolution works at the gene level, I’ve been bedazzled by sharks. Here is a configuration of genes which has reached such a sweet spot in the eyes of evolution that it has cruised mostly uncharged (modulo the shrinking due to change in oxygen composition) for hundreds of millions of years. Then I learned about the code of RNA (credit to Deutsch I think in his treatment of evolution in Fabric or maybe it was Beginning, I don’t recall) and my mind was blown! The actual knowledge encoded in the RNA sequence—†not the physical stuff; but the precise coded sequence—required for replication is actually quite ubiquitous across species and unchanged on timescales vastly larger than I had previously fathomed, mountains look like sand castles and sharks are brand new in the eyes of the code of RNA. This is only an analogy; but it felt like how Unix works: RNA is like the tiny kernel which has spread everywhere due to being tiny and good enough to solve the problem and therefore difficult to replace. Anyways, this is only a day dream since I’m not really in the weeds; but I wonder if you can correct any of my misconceptions. Like: RNA is like code for DNA replication, is it sort of like low-level machinery for life? Has the precise RNA code survived a really long time and it’s sort of like an old operating system which just keeps humming in the background? And it is older than sharks right? Any other cool stuff to recommend pursuing for someone like me who really loves evolution; but is just a layperson?
†one note about my em dashes: I am a real person who thinks evolution AND em dashes are cool and for a total aside: it’s such a bummer people think I’m a bot just because I like tinkering w/ f* punctuation marks.
JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago [-]
> actual knowledge encoded in the RNA sequence—†not the physical stuff; but the precise coded sequence—required for replication is actually quite ubiquitous across species and unchanged on timescales
Good source that develops on this?
Teever 3 hours ago [-]
I'm not 100% but I think they are referring to the fact that ribosomes are highly conserved across species.[0]
There is a chance that before 'LUCA' there were many dead ends and we ended up on the lucky branch by definition, and we don't actually know much about what happened before then so there is some possibility that what you are seeing there is the single largest example of 'survivorship bias'.
chistev 3 hours ago [-]
Dinosaurs were the same.
Taek 4 hours ago [-]
Does the current SOTA believe that it's most likely that life originated on Earth? I know there are some theories that at least one of the critical building blocks was delivered via asteroid or other extra-terrestrial process.
M95D 1 hours ago [-]
But that doesn't answer the origin of life. Even if it came from outer space, it must have an origin somewhere. Currently, the science is focusing on the possibility that life originated here because the problem does not become easier to solve by considering another planet's environment.
zmgsabst 7 hours ago [-]
I don’t understand the objections:
Most mutations are negative dead-ends, not unlikely DNA now where most pregnancies spontaneously abort due to errors. But life has many, many chances — especially at the molecular scale. So what’s the actual problem?
Similarly, if you have a soup of 10-15 nucleotide sequences, what are the odds actually that they’d link into larger segments?
Let’s suppose that density is a million times lower than blood, so you have one picogram per gram of water. There are 10^24 grams of water on Earth’s surface and 10 base pairs weighs 10^-20 grams, giving us approximately 10^32 segments of that length.
Feel free to play with my numbers, but I’m supposed to believe that with ~10^30 pieces, we can’t have ten of them form the right sequence?
red75prime 6 hours ago [-]
> what’s the actual problem?
A combinatorial explosion. To have mutations you need to have replication first. If a smallest viable self-replicator is, say, 100 nucleotides long, and there's not many other such replicators of the same length, the improbability of its spontaneous formation (~4^-100) dwarfs any amount of material available on Earth.
The researchers have found QT45 replicator. But it replicates other RNA strands, that is it needs another replicator nearby to replicate itself, which brings the probability down to 4^-90 range.
And it's not clear from the article whether QT45 is a viable replicator. That is whether it is stable enough and replicates other RNA strands correctly enough to sustain exponential growth instead of petering out due to filling its surroundings with broken copies that don't perform replication before decaying itself.
xyzzy_plugh 5 hours ago [-]
I doubt a replicator came out of thin air. It seems more likely, at least to me, that we started with constructors, that created primitive sequences.
Imagine you have molecules that can form spontaneously, like gliders in Conway's Game of Life. You may have several different molecules that are capable of helping to create one another -- an autocatalytic set.
Eventually this could result in more complex chains, and eventually a self replicating molecule can arise.
Imagine slamming a bunch of gliders together to make a machine that replicates more gliders. It's possible! Not likely, but there are so many variables that can influence the environment substantially. It's not like there was a giant homogeneous soup. Parts from over here and over there would form differently and when they meet, amazing things can happen.
In the Game of Life, this spontaneous event is extremely unlikely, astronomically unlikely.
Unlike Game of Life, the real world has a few advantages that improve performance. For one, it's less fragile. Bonds are much stronger and collisions don't cause everything to break. Another advantage is that bonds are attractive: molecules can rotate and turn to snap together strongly. Gliders just explode violently. And finally, the real world is very dense. We're talking trillions of molecules mixing around millions of times per second per microdroplet. Compound that with a few hundred million years... it certainly doesn't feel as surprising as you might expect.
If there were a highly advanced alien race watching earth over a long period of time, it might be interesting, but not unexpected, that suddenly an Eiffel tower springs forth from the surface of the planet, erected by intelligent organisms.
kannanvijayan 5 hours ago [-]
The simple combinatorial explosion criticism feels reductive to me. It's exceedingly unlikely that a single "self-replicating RNA molecule" formed independently by chance and then propagated.
Let's say that you have some RNA soup with some ribozymes some of which weakly encourage some reaction involving other RNA molecules. The occurrence of a cycle of reinforcing reactions might be sufficient to build a crude evolutionary ratchet.
In fact the "cycle of reactions" perspective feels a bit more robust to me since it allows for the proto-replication process to take place over a longer period of time and over larger areas.
red75prime 4 hours ago [-]
Yeah, it's more probable a priory, but it still can be false. For example, such reaction chains might not lead to a sufficiently probable increase in complexity.
Core wars (1984) strongly favored short replicators, so at least in some possible universes complexity growth is not a given.
9991 6 hours ago [-]
Life didn't have to start on Earth. It could have started on any one of an unbounded number of worlds. It's only in retrospect that this world seems special.
What's the probability of spontaneous formation across an infinite universe?
red75prime 5 hours ago [-]
In an infinite universe even events with probability 0 can happen[1], but it's hard to find this explanation satisfactory. Any hypothesis that raises probability of abiogenesis to make it likely to happen at least in the observable universe looks more satisfactory than "but it could have happened anyway in an infinite universe despite being totally improbable."
If you mean panspermia specifically in respect to earth it's a lot more bounded in space and time to the parts that were close enough to interact with earth, but if not then yes there is probably anything that can be represented by atoms out there somewhere or other.
Neb_OoL 4 hours ago [-]
Your numbers are fine - but RNA is fragile; making one copy of something really rare will not be able to do anything as it will not last long enough to meaningfully contribute.
Interestingly we now are thinking about ways to use mutations in other ways, youve spent a lot of energy making these polymers, so it would be a shame to waste that right? We think that they can be used to assemble larger functional pieces as mutations are mostly deterministic meaning you'll get the same kinds of errors - so why not put them to use!
jacquesm 37 minutes ago [-]
> but RNA is fragile
Early on that may have been a feature though, isn't it?
What strikes me as the most interesting thing about life is that almost immediately (on geological time scales) after Earth had developed an environment where life in theory could exist it came to be. That suggests strongly that the mechanism to do so was relatively simple. Then again, the Earth was a vast laboratory and it only has to happen once.
aside: you have the most interesting job!
jeef_berky 4 hours ago [-]
I also don't understand. Adding billions of years to your numbers probably makes it an even better point.
"Life's first molecule." Take your favorite quantum field theory and consider how it draws a line between a molecule and not a molecule. Consider how it draws a line between life or not. That'd be cool. Consider that it doesn't give a shit who did what first.
"given any word, there's no such thing"
lakt42t 5 hours ago [-]
[dead]
Rendered at 09:24:12 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
Ever since I first learned about it, it seems to me a much more likely origin of life hypothesis, as it doesn't require something to catalyze itself, which causes inevitable problems with mutation causing loss of catalytic efficiency.
Also, it is not incompatible with RNA being one of the early building blocks. It just doesn't require RNA to be where everything started.
I don't think you can say this with certainty. It is assumed that life and evolution go hand-in-hand from the beginning but it is not proven to be the case.
This is where the hard part of the field is currently: finding chemistry that can support accurate RNA copying that is also both sufficiently high yielding and also compatible with these reactions being inside protocells (fatty acids for example). An RNA genome only really has value when it can be selfish and keep any innovations it makes to itself inside a protocell!
I work in Origins Research - if you have questions please ask and ill try to answer with the current opinions of the field!
†one note about my em dashes: I am a real person who thinks evolution AND em dashes are cool and for a total aside: it’s such a bummer people think I’m a bot just because I like tinkering w/ f* punctuation marks.
Good source that develops on this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribosomal_RNA#Sequence_conserv...
Most mutations are negative dead-ends, not unlikely DNA now where most pregnancies spontaneously abort due to errors. But life has many, many chances — especially at the molecular scale. So what’s the actual problem?
Similarly, if you have a soup of 10-15 nucleotide sequences, what are the odds actually that they’d link into larger segments?
Let’s suppose that density is a million times lower than blood, so you have one picogram per gram of water. There are 10^24 grams of water on Earth’s surface and 10 base pairs weighs 10^-20 grams, giving us approximately 10^32 segments of that length.
Feel free to play with my numbers, but I’m supposed to believe that with ~10^30 pieces, we can’t have ten of them form the right sequence?
A combinatorial explosion. To have mutations you need to have replication first. If a smallest viable self-replicator is, say, 100 nucleotides long, and there's not many other such replicators of the same length, the improbability of its spontaneous formation (~4^-100) dwarfs any amount of material available on Earth.
The researchers have found QT45 replicator. But it replicates other RNA strands, that is it needs another replicator nearby to replicate itself, which brings the probability down to 4^-90 range.
And it's not clear from the article whether QT45 is a viable replicator. That is whether it is stable enough and replicates other RNA strands correctly enough to sustain exponential growth instead of petering out due to filling its surroundings with broken copies that don't perform replication before decaying itself.
Imagine you have molecules that can form spontaneously, like gliders in Conway's Game of Life. You may have several different molecules that are capable of helping to create one another -- an autocatalytic set.
Eventually this could result in more complex chains, and eventually a self replicating molecule can arise.
Imagine slamming a bunch of gliders together to make a machine that replicates more gliders. It's possible! Not likely, but there are so many variables that can influence the environment substantially. It's not like there was a giant homogeneous soup. Parts from over here and over there would form differently and when they meet, amazing things can happen.
In the Game of Life, this spontaneous event is extremely unlikely, astronomically unlikely.
Unlike Game of Life, the real world has a few advantages that improve performance. For one, it's less fragile. Bonds are much stronger and collisions don't cause everything to break. Another advantage is that bonds are attractive: molecules can rotate and turn to snap together strongly. Gliders just explode violently. And finally, the real world is very dense. We're talking trillions of molecules mixing around millions of times per second per microdroplet. Compound that with a few hundred million years... it certainly doesn't feel as surprising as you might expect.
If there were a highly advanced alien race watching earth over a long period of time, it might be interesting, but not unexpected, that suddenly an Eiffel tower springs forth from the surface of the planet, erected by intelligent organisms.
Let's say that you have some RNA soup with some ribozymes some of which weakly encourage some reaction involving other RNA molecules. The occurrence of a cycle of reinforcing reactions might be sufficient to build a crude evolutionary ratchet.
In fact the "cycle of reactions" perspective feels a bit more robust to me since it allows for the proto-replication process to take place over a longer period of time and over larger areas.
Core wars (1984) strongly favored short replicators, so at least in some possible universes complexity growth is not a given.
What's the probability of spontaneous formation across an infinite universe?
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely
Interestingly we now are thinking about ways to use mutations in other ways, youve spent a lot of energy making these polymers, so it would be a shame to waste that right? We think that they can be used to assemble larger functional pieces as mutations are mostly deterministic meaning you'll get the same kinds of errors - so why not put them to use!
Early on that may have been a feature though, isn't it?
What strikes me as the most interesting thing about life is that almost immediately (on geological time scales) after Earth had developed an environment where life in theory could exist it came to be. That suggests strongly that the mechanism to do so was relatively simple. Then again, the Earth was a vast laboratory and it only has to happen once.
aside: you have the most interesting job!
"Life's first molecule." Take your favorite quantum field theory and consider how it draws a line between a molecule and not a molecule. Consider how it draws a line between life or not. That'd be cool. Consider that it doesn't give a shit who did what first.
"given any word, there's no such thing"