Theories - Origin of Life

[chilipanda]

Hey guys,

I'm writing a paper on the origin of life, and I need some suggestions about which theories to write about. Obviously there are tons of them, so any suggestions, information, or references you guys can give me would be great.

[alextemplet]

Most biologists believe RNA was one of the first biochemical molecules to develop, and experiments have shown that under the right conditions it can perform the functions of itself as well as those of DNA and proteins. In fact there is an entire hypothesis called the "RNA world" that has been developed around these concepts; look it up on google or wikipedia and you'll find plenty of info.

At my university, a group of students recently conducted experiments in which RNA was found to spontaneously isolate itself inside protective spheres of phospholipids. I'll have to see if I can get a copy of the research paper; they think this could lead to explaining the formation of the first cells.

[MrMistery]

basically when you're writing something like this, you wanna look up what the mainstream belief is and write about that. You may also include a chapter on "alternative hypothesis" but it should be best to stick with the mainstream one

[YashArya]

Guyz, has anyone here heard of "Carin Smith's" theory on the Origin of life?
It tries to prove that the initial replicators was not RNA or some other molecule, but actually "clay replicator".

Check this website dedicated to the theory.
[http://originoflife.net/crystals/index.html]

I haven't read Carin Smiths book but I've been reading Richard Dawkins - "The Blind watchmaker" (currently in Ch:8)

I was quite impressed by the theory, it is logical. However I don't know if there is much evidence for it.

[canalon]

It is Cairn-Smith, but if I remember some people that know their chemistry better than I do have been able to point multiple flaw in that otherwise interesting and elegant theory.

[chilipanda]

Carins-smith has two books about the clay theory, "seven clues to the origin of life", and "genetic takeover" i believe. seven clues is very well and easy written, in a sherlock holmes style that is somewhat enjoyable to read. genetic takeover is much more in depth, but has been given very positive reviews. i havent had time to read either myself but i plan on finishing seven clues when i finish my paper.

[Alberts]

I think you'd better write about "protein-first and nucleic acid-first" paradox. The research articles of Joyce, Orgel, Eigen and Dyson can be an useful reference for you. Best wishes.

[mcar]

I remember some; Biblical, biogenesis, spontaneous, physico-chemical and cosmozoic theories.

alextemplet wrote: At my university, a group of students recently conducted experiments in which RNA was found to spontaneously isolate itself inside protective spheres of phospholipids. I'll have to see if I can get a copy of the research paper; they think this could lead to explaining the formation of the first cells.

I have thought if they're viruses but since you have said "phospholipids" my thought lead me to a true cell. It just reminded me of some questions like what made the certain elements to react with one another and form such first biomolecules of life or perhaps their interactions were spontaneous indeed.

[MrMistery]

by the way alex, i hope your peers published their results, cause if not jack szostack beat them to it
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 07018.html

[futurezoologist]

I am assuming you mean how it started and the above posts pretty much sum it up but if you mean where it started youve got:

panspermia hypothesis: life came from another planet on meteorite etc.

Bible: you know

or the mainstream - it originated on earth because the early earths atmoshere had no oxygen=no oxydisation=organic compunds are able to exist(e.g. Nucleic acids, proteins, carbs etc) and were created by energy discharges like lightning or using the heat from volcanism.

Google and you will find loads on any of these.

ps. sorry for any typos... im running late for an appointment.

[believer]

Everyone that has ever commented on the origins of life are reduced to their opinions, even the great Richard Dawkins is left to speculation. The last time I saw Dawkins he said no one knew how the first lifeform started and speculated that it could have come from Aliens. The chances of DNA occuring in nature by accident were put at "No mathematical possibility" That's 0 for you that have trouble with numbers, The problem with those of us who dont believe in evolution is all the steps it would take to get to advanced life without the species dieing out.All the vital organs that each species have that without any of them "no life". What happened on Earth even 10,000 years ago is really a mystery because there are no written records of those events, of course evolutionists will disregard any other explanation of life as foolish. The Bible says that the proof of God is in Nature, look at the beauty and complexity and then reason.

[madriley]

You should read the first chapter of Nick Lane's new book "Life Ascending." He discusses the reasons why the "primordial soup" idea is not feasible (mostly because there is very little evidence and there are problems with thermodynamics) and discusses more recent research into life evolving in hydrothermal vents.