• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Another step towards answering the question of life's origins - science

... Earth biochemistry primarily depends on these six elements - H, C, N, O, P, S -...
The P (Phosphorus) is the rarest of these six elements and is used by life mainly in special forms based on (PO4)3-; this provides the special properties of nucleic acid backbones and of ATP.

Carbon is especially important; its valence of four is probably necessary to allow the complex chemicals that lead to life. (And 12C is plentiful because it has the same nucleon counts as three 4He atoms joined together.)

Biochemists now have software to guess protein folding and so on. When can we expect the carbon atom to be modeled well enough to predict the shapes of amino acids, etc.? I imagine a detailed model which starts from fundamental parameters like the Fine Structure Constant
α = 0.0072973525693.​
Over how broad a range of α would carbon's chemistry be versatile enough to support complex life?

Silicon is sometimes compared to carbon, but the details of their chemistry are very different. Carbon oxidizes to CO2, the fizz in soda pop. SiO2 is quartz rock. 6-rings of silicon exist ( Silabenzene#Hexasilabenzene) but their shapes are quite different from carbon rings.

How much would the parameter α need to change before it is Silicon, and not Carbon, which allows the complex chemistry needed for life?
 
This is a good video to watch discussing carbon versus silicon as a basis for life.


I don't have time to watch it right now but I do agree you can't have silicon-based life.

We can't rule out cold biochemistries yet. But beyond that we are left with Hydrogen, Carbon, Nitrogen and Oxygen being the only available atoms for the backbone of life. Anything else can only be used in reasonably small quantities. And the solvent must be liquid water.
 
The highest-level classification of organisms has changed over time.  Tree of life (biology) and  Kingdom (biology) and  Domain (biology) and   and  Two-empire system and  Three-domain system

The first division is premodern, between animals and plants, and was formalized by Carolus Linnaeus in 1735.

Microorganisms did not fit in very well, and in 1866, Ernst Haeckel created another high-level taxon for them: protists.

Looking closely revealed a big structural difference, and in 1937, Édouard Chatton invented the terms prokaryote "before nucleus" and eukaryte "true nucleus". Protists were restricted to eukaryotes, with prokaryotes sometimes being called by another Haeckelian term, monera.

"Protist" is nowadays a wastebasket taxon, a term of convenience, like "reptile", "amphibian", "fish", "invertebrate", and "alga".

Robert Whittaker split fungi away from plants, and in 1969, he proposed a five-kingdom system: animals, plants, fungi, protists, and monera. But the first four are all eukaryotes, and the eukaryote-prokaryote distinction is more fundamental than the first four distinctions.

Carl Woese discovered a deep split in Monera in the 1970's, and in 1977, proposed splitting it into Eubacteria and Archaebacteria. In 1990, he proposed his three-domain system: Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukarya.

Something like it has stuck, though Eukarya is nowadays recognized to be a hybrid of Archaea and Bacteria.
 
I watched a little bit of that video, but its author/narrator seemed to barely know what she was talking about.

A much better video:
Why is All Life Carbon Based, Not Silicon? Three Startling Reasons! - YouTube

I agree that the first video is useless, but the 2nd is also incomplete. He points out that -Si-Si-Si- produces a weaker backbone than -C-C-C- but Si-Si bonds are NOT the alternative. Instead expect silicon-based life to use -Si-O-Si- or -Si-C-Si backbones.

I agree that silicon-based life is unlikely, even allowing for complex molecules that contain BOTH silicon and carbon.

Off-topic(?): IIRC a biochemistry team has evolved a strain of bacteria which produce an amino acid incorporating a Silicon atom!
 
 Cofactor (biochemistry) Both coenzymes (organic) and metal ions.

The RNA world had developed an elaborate biochemistry by the time that it developed proteins, meaning that a lot of evolution had taken place in it before then. Numerous coenzymes can be traced back to it with varying degrees of confidence, and a common feature of many of them is that many of them are  Heterocyclic compound - having rings with more than one element of atom in them. Nucleobases have carbon-nitrogen rings, and ribose, like other sugars, has a carbon-oxygen ring, and many coenzymes are like nucleobases in having carbon-nitrogen rings.

Cofactors are Remnants of Life’s Origin and Early Evolution - PMC
The RNA World is one of the most widely accepted hypotheses explaining the origin of the genetic system used by all organisms today. It proposes that the tripartite system of DNA, RNA, and proteins was preceded by one consisting solely of RNA, which both stored genetic information and performed the molecular functions encoded by that genetic information. Current research into a potential RNA World revolves around the catalytic properties of RNA-based enzymes, or ribozymes. Well before the discovery of ribozymes, Harold White proposed that evidence for a precursor RNA world could be found within modern proteins in the form of coenzymes, the majority of which contain nucleobases or nucleoside moieties, such as Coenzyme A and S-adenosyl methionine, or are themselves nucleotides, such as ATP and NADH (a dinucleotide). These coenzymes, White suggested, had been the catalytic active sites of ancient ribozymes, which transitioned to their current forms after the surrounding ribozyme scaffolds had been replaced by protein apoenzymes during the evolution of translation. Since its proposal four decades ago, this groundbreaking hypothesis has garnered support from several different research disciplines and motivated similar hypotheses about other classes of cofactors, most notably iron-sulfur cluster cofactors as remnants of the geochemical setting of the origin of life. Evidence from prebiotic geochemistry, ribozyme biochemistry, and evolutionary biology, increasingly supports these hypotheses. Certain coenzymes and cofactors may bridge modern biology with the past and can thus provide insights into the elusive and poorly-recorded period of the origin and early evolution of life.
I'll try to summarize. Much of RNA-world research has been on the catalytic ability of RNA. But another important piece of evidence is in coenzymes, organic cofactors of enzymes. Many of them are RNA-like, pointing to a RNA-world ancestry. But other kinds of cofactors are now also proposed for the RNA world, like iron-sulfur clusters.

Noting
Coenzymes as fossils of an earlier metabolic state - PubMed
with PDF version
Coenzymes as fossils of an earlier metabolic state - cofactors_molecular_fossils.pdf
Coenzymes are complex organic molecules which are essential for many enzyme-catalyzed reactions. At least 52% of the nearly 1750 enzymes recently catalogued (IUPAC-IUB, 1972) require a coenzyme for activity. Although there have been discussions of the evolution of coenzymes (Handler, 1963; Eakin, 1963), none have explained the curious fact that many coenzymes are nucleotides (NAD, NADP, FAD, coenzyme A, ATP, etc.) or contain cyclic nitrogenous bases which could be derived from nucleotides (thiamin pyrophosphate, tetrahydrofolate, pyridoxal phosphate, etc.) (Dixon & Webb, 1955) .
Then noting
The degree to which contemporary coenzymes reflect the proposed nucleic acid ancestry varies considerably. At one extreme are the tRNAs which Brewin (1972) has considered as polynucleotide enzymes, They also can be viewed as very large coenzymes which participate in the group transfer of amino acids. Another group of coenzymes are the mono and dinucleotide coenzymes whose structure contains catalytically inactive portions which presumably are retained for binding to proteins. The most cryptic group of coenzymes are those which are no longer nucleotides but rather are modified cyclic nitrogenous bases which could be derived from nucleotides. One such example is the hypothetical thiamin nucleotide shown in Fig.1.

There are coenzymes such as biotin and lipoic acid which do not bear any resemblance to nucleotides or nucleotide bases.
Many of them transfer something.
  • Thiamine (B1) - RNA world (?) - 2-carbon groups, does "alpha-cleavage" (breaking a C-C bond near some part)
  • Riboflavin (B2) - RINA world - Electrons
  • Niacin (B3) - RNA world - Electrons
  • Pantothenic acid (B5) - RNA world - Acetyl, other acyl groups (attachment at carboxyl groups)
  • Pyridoxine (B6) - RNA world (?) - Amino, carboxyl groups
  • Folic acid (B9) - RNA world (?) - Methyl, related groups
  • Cobalamin (B12) - RNA world - Hydrogen, alkyl groups (alkanes: saturated hydrocarbons)
  • S-adenosylmethionine (SAM) - RNA world - Methyl group
  • ATP - RNA world - Phosphate group
  • Biotin (B7) - (?) - CO2
  • Lipoic acid - (?)
The protein-forming amino acid histidine has a nucleobase-like side chain, and it is the only one synthesized from a nucleotide. It is often found in the active sites of enzymes, where it does acid-base chemistry.

The palimpsest paper notes additional evidence: biosynthesis of porphyrins and terpenes. The authors of that paper then propose that both of them were in the RNA world.

Porphyrins and related compounds are rings of carbon-nitrogen rings, and they have two biosynthesis pathways. They converge at delta-aminolevulinic acid (or 5-), which goes the rest of the way.
  • C5, Beale: glutamyl transfer RNA - Archaea, Bacteria except for alpha-proteobacteria, photosynthetic Eukarya
  • C4, Shemin: glycine, succinyl coenzyme A - Alpha-proteobacteria, non-photosynthetic Eukarya
So the C5 pathway was the original one, and C4 was invented by some alpha-proteobacterium and then transmitted to eukaryotes when one of its descendants became a mitochondrion. C5 got back into eukaryotes when a cyanobacterium became a plastid / chloroplast.

Terpenes were likely the first membrane lipid, with fatty acids coming later.

That remnant paper mentioned prebiotic synthesis of porphyrins and some nucleobases, and possible prebiotic synthesis of pyridoxal (pyridoxine). It also mentioned some inorganic cofactors that are in early proteins and likely in the RNA world:

Fe-S clusters, Zn, Mo

Wikipedia's cofactor article mentions at least some organisms using these metal ions:

Mg, Ca, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Mo, Cd, W
 
 Chemiosmosis is a kind of metabolism that likely dates back to the RNA world. It involves pumping protons (hydrogen ions) outside of a cell and then letting them back them in through ATP-synthase protein complexes to make ATP, an energy intermediate that is a RNA nucleotide with extra phosphate ions attached.

Most cyanobacteria and all plastids / chloroplasts have an alternative: pumping the protons into structures in the cells called thylakoids. Topologically, thylakoid interiors are equivalent to cell exteriors, however.

The pumping of protons is done by the  Electron transport chain This chain accepts electrons from various donors and transmits them to various acceptors, with the transmission process pumping protons. This chain has cofactors niacin (NAD), riboflavin (flavins), quinones, and heme (cytochromes). Of these, niacin and riboflavin go back to the RNA world, though I'm not sure about that for quinones and heme.

A minimal estimate for the gene content of the last universal common ancestor—exobiology from a terrestrial perspective - ScienceDirect - PDF: A_minimal_estimate_for_the_gene_content.pdf

Ubiquinone biosynthesis and cytochrome genes go back to the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) even if quinones and heme don't go back to the RNA world.

So at least some of electron-transport metabolism likely goes back to the RNA world.
 
Revisiting the Extinction of the RNA World | Biochemistry
The ribozyme world is thought to have evolved the burdensome complexity of peptide and protein synthesis because the 20 amino acid side chains are catalytically superior. Instead, I propose that the Achilles heel of the RNA world that led to the extinction of riboorganisms was RNA’s polyanionic charges that could not be covalently neutralized stably by phosphotriester formation. These charges prevented development of hydrophobic cores essential for integration into membranes and many enzymatic reactions. In contrast, the phosphotriester modification of DNA is stable. So, the fact that the charge was never removed in DNA evolution gives further credence to proteins coming before DNA.
So the difficulty with RNA is that not enough of it is water-repellent (hydrophobic), while some protein-forming amino acids have water-repellent side chains, and thus can fit into cell membranes very easily.

A history of the RNA world hypothesis - discusses RNA as an enzyme, doesn't get into the evidence from metabolism. No mention of ATP or NAD, for instance.
 
How did LUCA make a living? Chemiosmosis in the origin of life - 26 March 2010 - Nick Lane, John F. Allen, William Martin

PDF: How did LUCA make a living? Chemiosmosis in the origin of life - document

The authors first take on a common notion about early energy metabolism, that it was fermentation. That is a chemically complex process that requires several enzymes, a process that evolved more than once: "Perhaps most strikingly of all, bacteria and archaea differ markedly in the gene sequences and crystal structures of enzymes that catalyse the individual steps of fermentation."

By contrast, chemiosmosis is a widespread process, occurring in all known autotrophs and many heterotrophs, including essentially all fermenters.

They also state that
... there is currently no viable alternative to the idea that some kind of ‘RNA world’ existed, that is, there was a time before proteins and DNA, when RNA was the molecular basis of both catalysis and replication. Some elements of the RNA world concept are almost certainly correct. However, there is a strong version of this theory which states that RNA was once the only catalyst as well as the only replicator and so all the basic chemistry of life was invented by RNA.
Meaning that a weak version of the RNA world is the only "viable" hypothesis for the immediate predecessor of proteins and DNA, even if it had some predecessor replicator.

The authors then mention metalloenzymes, enzymes with metal ions in them. But ribozymes can also have metal ions in them: metalloribozymes.

They then get into an alternative to the primordial soup, a sort of primordial pizza: alkaline hydrothermal vents. Alkaline means a low proton concentration, so it increases from the inside to the outside of the vent. Chemiosmosis also has a proton gradient, and one can imagine a very early organism being powered by its environment in that fashion.

Iron-sulfur groups and metal ions are also easily provided by hydrothermal vents, like on the surfaces of vent materials.

The authors conclude
Far from being too complex to have powered early life, it is actually nearly impossible to see how life could have begun in the absence of proton gradients, provided for ‘free’ as the natural result of a global geochemical process.
 
I watched a little bit of that video, but its author/narrator seemed to barely know what she was talking about.

A much better video:
Why is All Life Carbon Based, Not Silicon? Three Startling Reasons! - YouTube

I agree that the first video is useless, but the 2nd is also incomplete. He points out that -Si-Si-Si- produces a weaker backbone than -C-C-C- but Si-Si bonds are NOT the alternative. Instead expect silicon-based life to use -Si-O-Si- or -Si-C-Si backbones.

I agree that silicon-based life is unlikely, even allowing for complex molecules that contain BOTH silicon and carbon.

Off-topic(?): IIRC a biochemistry team has evolved a strain of bacteria which produce an amino acid incorporating a Silicon atom!
Si-O-Si-O-Si backbones are the simple answer that doesn't work. I don't know how to draw a proper 2D molecule on here so we will have to imagine. Take that backbone--what's the most common thing attached to backbones? -H. The reaction of breaking the chain and releasing an H2O molecule produces a lower energy state. In other words, your creature is made out of high explosive. Is it stable enough to exist? AFIAK we don't have an answer.
 
I watched a little bit of that video, but its author/narrator seemed to barely know what she was talking about.

A much better video:
Why is All Life Carbon Based, Not Silicon? Three Startling Reasons! - YouTube

I agree that the first video is useless, but the 2nd is also incomplete. He points out that -Si-Si-Si- produces a weaker backbone than -C-C-C- but Si-Si bonds are NOT the alternative. Instead expect silicon-based life to use -Si-O-Si- or -Si-C-Si backbones.

I agree that silicon-based life is unlikely, even allowing for complex molecules that contain BOTH silicon and carbon.

Off-topic(?): IIRC a biochemistry team has evolved a strain of bacteria which produce an amino acid incorporating a Silicon atom!
Si-O-Si-O-Si backbones are the simple answer that doesn't work. I don't know how to draw a proper 2D molecule on here so we will have to imagine. Take that backbone--what's the most common thing attached to backbones? -H. The reaction of breaking the chain and releasing an H2O molecule produces a lower energy state. In other words, your creature is made out of high explosive. Is it stable enough to exist? AFIAK we don't have an answer.
If you want really explosive critters, try Nitrogen based life ;)
 
Si-O-Si-O-Si backbones are the simple answer that doesn't work. I don't know how to draw a proper 2D molecule on here so we will have to imagine. Take that backbone--what's the most common thing attached to backbones? -H. The reaction of breaking the chain and releasing an H2O molecule produces a lower energy state. In other words, your creature is made out of high explosive. Is it stable enough to exist? AFIAK we don't have an answer.

I'm no chemist but I assume silicone breast implants are non-explosive! They are based on poly-dimethylsiloxane I think, (OSiCH3CH3)k. Complex molecules might arise by replacing some of the methyl groups with variable, larger (probably carbon-based) groups.
 
This is a good video to watch discussing carbon versus silicon as a basis for life.


I don't have time to watch it right now but I do agree you can't have silicon-based life.

We can't rule out cold biochemistries yet. But beyond that we are left with Hydrogen, Carbon, Nitrogen and Oxygen being the only available atoms for the backbone of life. Anything else can only be used in reasonably small quantities. And the solvent must be liquid water.

You can absolutely have silicon based life, you just can't have life start there.

The process for getting to silicon based life, in my estimation, is always going to involve some OTHER form of life figuring out how to make sand think and move and act and self-replicate the configuration through some creative act.
 
I watched a little bit of that video, but its author/narrator seemed to barely know what she was talking about.

 Hypothetical types of biochemistry
Alternative biochemistry | Speculative Evolution Wiki | Fandom

A much better video:
Why is All Life Carbon Based, Not Silicon? Three Startling Reasons! - YouTube
I will watch that video you cite, but what specifically (or at least give an example or two) did she get wrong to the point of "barely" knowing what she was talking about? I know that she's a physicist not a chemist, so perhaps it's a bit of a stretch out of her area of expertise, but I am a physicist too and watch more videos by physicists than chemists.
 
I feel responsible for this thread going on for nearly 400 posts, almost none of them dealing directly with the article I referenced (fee access to which has expired by now). I fear the fault lies in my careless wording and over simplifications in the OP.

Here is what I wrote:

An interesting article in the Washington Post adds momentum to the RNA world theory. Self-replicating RNA has been created in a lab. The copies made are quite similar to the original, which has apparently been a stumbling block to earlier efforts. We are inching forward to the creation of life in a test tube.

Let me rephrase and expand on that with a number of quotes from the article. (I have re-shared the article so it will be accessible again hopefully).

An interesting article in the Washington Post adds momentum to the RNA world theory. Self-replicating RNA has been created observed in a lab copying other types of RNA molecule.

The copies made are quite similar to the original, but not absolutely identical.

An RNA molecule must make copies very close to the original to achieve the same delicate balance that governs Darwinian evolution in nature. If the copies change too much, the RNA’s abilities degenerate, and things go downhill quickly. Imagine a malfunctioning photocopier that makes a fuzzy or faded copy of an image. When placed in the machine, the fuzzy copy produces a new one that is even worse.

“If the error rate is too high, you can’t maintain the [genetic] information,” Joyce said. “It just blows up.” The errors happen too quickly to allow Darwinian selection to pick the winners, those best equipped to survive, and “round by round of evolution you just see the population dissipate into no man’s land.”

In the new work, the Salk scientists created an RNA that makes copies of something called a hammerhead RNA. Instead of copying other RNA molecules, the hammerhead chops them. When the RNA made copies of the hammerhead, each new generation could still chop; each also grew easier to copy.

To show that their RNA was getting better at copying, the Salk team tested a 71st-generation version against one of its distant ancestors. The newer generation outperformed its ancestor when it came to making accurate copies.

In other words, scientists created the initial conditions, and then observed over a number of months while a sort of proto-Darwinian evolution took place (my words).

The central point, Joyce said, is that “eventually Darwinian evolution began to operate,” and at some point early in the history of life, RNA fulfilled the crucial roles of holding genetic information and accelerating the chemical reactions needed to make copies of that information.

Should the scientists succeed in generating an RNA that can copy itself, evolution could then proceed largely on its own.
Note the use of “generate.” There’s a subtle difference from the word “create.” There was some initial creation of an environment, but then the scientists let nature take over.

We are inching forward to the creation of life in a test tube.
 
:staffwarn:

This thread is in the science forum. Discussions about “Team Creationism” do not belong here.

A copy of this thread with all the religious talk has been moved to the religion forum. This copy has been cleaned up of all the non-science religious talk. Please stick to the science discussion here.
 
Back
Top Bottom