Do stars create life?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Do stars create life?

Not by themselves.

They are part of the process, since we are star dust.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Do stars create life?

no, it’s all gravity’s fault.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Do stars create life?

Not by themselves.

They are part of the process, since we are star dust.

ok its more correct then to say a star planet system.

Its not surprising really if you have a suitable star and a suitable planet

that over billions of years of energy that is streaming energy and light onto a chemical based world that at some point something has to happen with the right conditions

How does life form from innate elements and chemicals?

Is it as simple as stir and mix? Elements and chemicals come together and start arranging themselves into more complex forms.

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Do stars create life?

Not by themselves.

They are part of the process, since we are star dust.

ok its more correct then to say a star planet system.

I wouldn’t say that either.

In fact I wouldn’t say life was “created” at all.

I’d say life was initiated by random processes (that we don’t understand in any detail).

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Not by themselves.

They are part of the process, since we are star dust.

ok its more correct then to say a star planet system.

I wouldn’t say that either.

In fact I wouldn’t say life was “created” at all.

I’d say life was initiated by random processes (that we don’t understand in any detail).

Like yesterday with the weird haircut coincidences.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Not by themselves.

They are part of the process, since we are star dust.

ok its more correct then to say a star planet system.

I wouldn’t say that either.

In fact I wouldn’t say life was “created” at all.

I’d say life was initiated by random processes (that we don’t understand in any detail).

ok, create has human connotations .

Life forms from a process.

Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

ok its more correct then to say a star planet system.

I wouldn’t say that either.

In fact I wouldn’t say life was “created” at all.

I’d say life was initiated by random processes (that we don’t understand in any detail).

Like yesterday with the weird haircut coincidences.

I missed yesterday’s weird haircut coincidences, so I can’t comment on their significance regarding the meaning of life.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Its not surprising really if you have a suitable star and a suitable planet

that over billions of years of energy that is streaming energy and light onto a chemical based world that at some point something has to happen with the right conditions

How does life form from innate elements and chemicals?

Is it as simple as stir and mix? Elements and chemicals come together and start arranging themselves into more complex forms.

maybe good starter for you, look up in wiki Prigogine’s self-replicating dissipative structures

We are all made of stars: half our bodies’ atoms ‘formed beyond the Milky Way’

Ask Ethan: How Fast Could Life Have Arisen In The Universe?

The story of how the Universe came to be the way it is today, from the Big Bang to the vast void of space littered with clusters, galaxies, stars, planets, and life, is the one story we all have in common. From our perspective here on Earth, it took about 2/3rds of our shared cosmic history before the Sun and Earth were even created. Yet life appeared on our world as far back as we’re able to measure: perhaps as much as 4.4 billion years ago. It makes one wonder if life in the Universe predated our planet, and, for that matter, how far back life could possibly go? That’s what Matt Wedel wants to know, as he asks:

more…

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Not by themselves.

They are part of the process, since we are star dust.

ok its more correct then to say a star planet system.

I wouldn’t say that either.

In fact I wouldn’t say life was “created” at all.

I’d say life was initiated by random processes (that we don’t understand in any detail).

Agree, almost. Life is more likely to originate underground than above ground.

As for understanding it, I … I do and I don’t.

I understand where cells came from, where proteins, lipids came from.

I think I understand the first life, and the origins of carbohydrates and nucleic acids.

What I don’t understand at all is the transition from protein-based life to RNA-based life.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Ask Ethan: How Fast Could Life Have Arisen In The Universe?

The story of how the Universe came to be the way it is today, from the Big Bang to the vast void of space littered with clusters, galaxies, stars, planets, and life, is the one story we all have in common. From our perspective here on Earth, it took about 2/3rds of our shared cosmic history before the Sun and Earth were even created. Yet life appeared on our world as far back as we’re able to measure: perhaps as much as 4.4 billion years ago. It makes one wonder if life in the Universe predated our planet, and, for that matter, how far back life could possibly go? That’s what Matt Wedel wants to know, as he asks:

more…

“Once we have carbon, however, 1-to-1.5 billion years after the Big Bang, all the steps we need to take to produce organic molecules and the first steps towards life are inevitable. Whatever life processes took place to lead to humanity’s existence, as best as we understand them, could have begun when the Universe was just one-tenth the age it is now.”

So life (as we know it) started some time between 1 billion years after Big Bang and 4.5 billion years ago.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

ok its more correct then to say a star planet system.

I wouldn’t say that either.

In fact I wouldn’t say life was “created” at all.

I’d say life was initiated by random processes (that we don’t understand in any detail).

Agree, almost. Life is more likely to originate underground than above ground.

As for understanding it, I … I do and I don’t.

I understand where cells came from, where proteins, lipids came from.

I think I understand the first life, and the origins of carbohydrates and nucleic acids.

What I don’t understand at all is the transition from protein-based life to RNA-based life.

Well I guess “we” have some sort of vague understanding, but I don’t think anyone knows even one detailed mechanism that would actually work.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I wouldn’t say that either.

In fact I wouldn’t say life was “created” at all.

I’d say life was initiated by random processes (that we don’t understand in any detail).

Agree, almost. Life is more likely to originate underground than above ground.

As for understanding it, I … I do and I don’t.

I understand where cells came from, where proteins, lipids came from.

I think I understand the first life, and the origins of carbohydrates and nucleic acids.

What I don’t understand at all is the transition from protein-based life to RNA-based life.

Well I guess “we” have some sort of vague understanding, but I don’t think anyone knows even one detailed mechanism that would actually work.

How do elements break down into chemicals?

transition said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Its not surprising really if you have a suitable star and a suitable planet

that over billions of years of energy that is streaming energy and light onto a chemical based world that at some point something has to happen with the right conditions

How does life form from innate elements and chemicals?

Is it as simple as stir and mix? Elements and chemicals come together and start arranging themselves into more complex forms.

maybe good starter for you, look up in wiki Prigogine’s self-replicating dissipative structures

I wonder if any significant simulations using supercomputers have been done to see if life can be created from chemicals, elements and energy.
They might not be up to it yet plus unknowns exist, still you might be able to add various hypnotised starting conditions and see.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

ok its more correct then to say a star planet system.

I wouldn’t say that either.

In fact I wouldn’t say life was “created” at all.

I’d say life was initiated by random processes (that we don’t understand in any detail).

Agree, almost. Life is more likely to originate underground than above ground.

As for understanding it, I … I do and I don’t.

I understand where cells came from, where proteins, lipids came from.

I think I understand the first life, and the origins of carbohydrates and nucleic acids.

What I don’t understand at all is the transition from protein-based life to RNA-based life.

A few more thoughts.

• I don’t know where protein-based life came from either.

• It could be that the collision of planetesimals was a necessary precondition for the formation of life as we know it. Wild hypothesis. The extra heat would result in far more chemical reactions, geographic variation of environment, and the necessary loss of hydrogen.

• We may just be able to analyse the origin of life using an analogy – the origin of photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is a complicated chemical process, but where did it come from? Is half a photosynthesis an evolutionary advantage (there are two cycles, a light cycle and a dark cycle) or did it have to form by an extremely unlikely combination of events all coming together at the same time?

Chlorophyll is in the same group of chemicals as the heme group of hemoglobin.

“The electron flow produced by the reaction center chlorophyll pigments is used to pump H+ ions across the thylakoid membrane, setting up a chemiosmotic potential used mainly in the production of ATP (stored chemical energy) or to reduce NADP+ to NADPH. NADPH is produced by ferredoxin-NADP+ reductase”

“The thylakoid membranes of higher plants are composed primarily of phospholipids”.

So, which came first – the chlorophyll, the NADP+, the protein ferredoxin-NADP+ reductase, or the phospholipid membrane?

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Agree, almost. Life is more likely to originate underground than above ground.

As for understanding it, I … I do and I don’t.

I understand where cells came from, where proteins, lipids came from.

I think I understand the first life, and the origins of carbohydrates and nucleic acids.

What I don’t understand at all is the transition from protein-based life to RNA-based life.

Well I guess “we” have some sort of vague understanding, but I don’t think anyone knows even one detailed mechanism that would actually work.

How do elements break down into chemicals?

They don’t.

Cymek said:

transition said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Its not surprising really if you have a suitable star and a suitable planet

that over billions of years of energy that is streaming energy and light onto a chemical based world that at some point something has to happen with the right conditions

How does life form from innate elements and chemicals?

Is it as simple as stir and mix? Elements and chemicals come together and start arranging themselves into more complex forms.

maybe good starter for you, look up in wiki Prigogine’s self-replicating dissipative structures

I wonder if any significant simulations using supercomputers have been done to see if life can be created from chemicals, elements and energy.
They might not be up to it yet plus unknowns exist, still you might be able to add various hypnotised starting conditions and see.

I doubt any existing models of chemical reaction at the atomic level are sufficiently accurate todo a meaningful simulation. I mean we can’t even model something as simple as a planetary climate with any sort of accuracy.

Tell me more of these hypnotised starting conditions :)

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

transition said:

maybe good starter for you, look up in wiki Prigogine’s self-replicating dissipative structures

I wonder if any significant simulations using supercomputers have been done to see if life can be created from chemicals, elements and energy.
They might not be up to it yet plus unknowns exist, still you might be able to add various hypnotised starting conditions and see.

I doubt any existing models of chemical reaction at the atomic level are sufficiently accurate todo a meaningful simulation. I mean we can’t even model something as simple as a planetary climate with any sort of accuracy.

Tell me more of these hypnotised starting conditions :)

Look into my eyes
That should have been hypothesised, but various simple chemicals and energy.
Looking it up I found out about this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_Simulator

> So, which came first – the chlorophyll, the NADP+, the protein ferredoxin-NADP+ reductase, or the phospholipid membrane?

Organic bilayer membranes are older than life itself, much older.

“NADPH is an essential electron donor in all organisms, including archaea and bacteria”. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26284036

“The dehydrogenase reactions of the oxidative pentose phosphate pathway (oxPPP), the Entner–Doudoroff (ED) pathway, and the isocitrate dehydrogenase step of the tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle have been considered the major sources of NADPH. However, the importance of other NADPH-generating enzymes, such as transhydrogenases, glucose dehydrogenases, and non-phosphorylating glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPN), is becoming clear.”

“To assess the feasibility of various NADPH-generating reactions, we calculated the Gibbs energies (ΔrG′m) using the biochemical thermodynamics calculator eQuilibrator 2.0”

I wish I’d had that calculator back when I was looking into the calculation of the origin of macromolecule precursors of life.

So, I can answer the above question about photosynthesis.

Membranes came first. Generated abiologically.

NADPH came second. We know that it can be generated abiologically in a cyanide (HCN) atmosphere with phosphorus. (Note that a cyanide atmosphere requires a loss of environmental hydrogen and oxygen).

Proteins that make NADPH came third. There are 12 different proteins known, which evolved slowly to greater effectiveness over hundreds of millions of years.

Chlorophyll came last, and fitted neatly into a system that was already in operation.

——————

The slow development of a complex chemical cycle like photosynthesis argues for a similar slow development of the complex chemical cycle that we call life. The early prebiotic stages of this evolution have all been lost, so have to be reconstructed by experiment and theory.

Causality is complex.

To be sure, though, without stars there’d be no carbon, oxygen or nitrogen in the universe so the advent of stars was a necessary step.

Thinking a bit more out loud.

“Let us not forget avery basic knowledge. Polymers are synthesized mostly by two chemical reactions, condensation and other polymerization. In the first case the functional groups(e.g. -COOH, -OH, -NH2,and others) of the monomers react and H2O is separated. In the second case the reaction goes via opening double or triple bonds, or cycles and no low molecular weight product is separated.”

Condensation polymerisation occurs naturally by evaporation in an appropriate environment and at appropriate temperature.

It is also the dominant polymerisation method in biological organisms.

It appears in making polyester, proteins, etc.

So, can we think of enzymes as just methods to speed up and purify what already happens abiologically?

mollwollfumble said:

So, can we think of enzymes as just methods to speed up and purify what already happens abiologically?

Sure, go ahead

For Moll to add to his musings in this thread:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-07/what-is-umes-the-ideal-temperature-for-life/10786632

Michael V said:

For Moll to add to his musings in this thread:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-07/what-is-umes-the-ideal-temperature-for-life/10786632

Thanks, I had been looking for something like that and hadn’t found it.

> Dr Corkrey said E.coli’s Umes, for example, was 35 degrees Celsius. And that all organisms began to slow down after reaching 42C.

That would be about right. There aren’t many places on Earth where the ambient mean temperature is above 42 ˚C. Thermophiles have been observed at temperatures up to 122 °C, they live underground.

> “We found that as the temperature increases, natural selection is more likely to favour microorganisms that grow at faster rates,”

Um, yes and no. Organisms that grow fastest, grow fastest at high temperatures, that’s true. But the organisms that grow fastest at high temperatures grow slowest at low temperatures. So the Earth’s temperature differences help towards maximising biodiversity.

The problem with enzymes at high temperature tends to be “denaturing”, which means changing shape from the shape that originally comes off the assembly line.

I’m trying to put in words why that’s not an upper limit for all carbon-based life. Perhaps I can express it this way. Suppose an organism was to evolve in a constant high pressure environment (eg. 200 bar) with liquid water at 200 ˚C. Then the protein shape that comes off the assembly line would be one that is compatible with that high temperature, and that high temperature conformation would evolve to make its enzymatic action improve.

The development of life as we know it, on Earth, passed through a number of crises, each of which could have stopped life in its tracks.

The sequence below is my favourite, other people will disagree on the order.

• The reducing atmosphere crisis

We can only get carbon-based life in a reducing atmosphere. The higher the ratio of hydrogen to oxygen, the easier it is for life to form. The pre-Earth before the Sun switched on was bathed in hydrogen from the solar nebula. After the Sun switched on, collisions with planetesimals must have been relatively gentle.

• The energy crisis

We can’t get chemical reactions without energy. Any sort of energy will do at a pinch, but the higher the local temperature the better. This produces small molecules, including amino acids.

• The polymerisation crisis

There is a tendency of abiological creation of organic chemicals to either stay small, or become an infinite network like charcoal. Getting large finite chemicals requires fine-tuning. These large organic molecules are variantly known as tholins, asphaltenes and kerogens.

• The evaporation crisis

Most chemical polymerisations in Earth-based life involve the condensation reaction, which is to say water loss. This is an essential step in the formation of proteins.

I have an image in my mind here of an ocean surface, hydrogen atmosphere above heavily laced with methane and ammonia. A thick tarey layer on top of the ocean which has evaporation from the surface and is periodically broken up by wind and waves and rain. A soup of small organic molecules in the ocean. And a layer between the soup and the tar that contains what will end up as life.

• The cell crisis

Bacteria size vesicles and membranes that isolate what is on one side from what is on the other side.

All the above has been demonstrated to form abiologically in the lab. What follows is often more speculative.

• The enzyme crisis

• The baby crisis

Cyclic chemical reactions that reproduce, extremely inaccurately.

• The encapsulation crisis

At this stage most cells are empty. They need to contain a complete set of cyclic chemical reactions.

We are now up to the first life as we know it.

• The hydrogen loss crisis

Bases such as adenine cannot form abiologically in the same environment as proteins. The same would be true of carbohydrates. For adenine, the dominant chemical in the atmosphere would be HCN, not CH4 and NH3. This necessitates a massive loss of atmospheric hydrogen. Take it as a given that the first A, T, C, G bases

This atmosphere loss is highly probably due to a major collision with a planetesimal. In OOL speak, we’re talking about the loss of the primary atmosphere to be replaced by a secondary atmosphere by outgassing from the interior.

• The phosphate crisis

• The carbohydrate crisis

• The biological polymerisation of carbohydrate crisis

Polymerisation of carbohydrates would have begun as an energy storage mechanism by protein-based cells

• The ATP crisis

In-cell creation of ATP and similar combinations of nucleic bases with carbohydrate and phosphate to form nucleotides

• Nucleotide polymerisation crisis

The precursors to RNA would have begun as an energy storage mechanism, to tide cells over when food was scarce.

• RNA formation crisis

• Genetic code crisis

The standardisation of tRNA

At this stage we’re just about there, all the chemical tools necessary for the progenitors of bacteria/archaea as we know them today. I’ve skipped the lipid production crisis, because it could have occurred anywhere in the above sequence, but probably in a hydrogen atmosphere.

The development of life as we know it on Earth could have stopped at any stage of the above, at any crisis point.

So far, the Sun has made two appearances, once in the evaporation crisis because heat from the Sun is by far the easiest way to get evaporation. And once in the hydrogen loss crisis, because if the Sun hadn’t switched on then the UV and solar wind wouldn’t have cleared to Solar Nebula of hydrogen.