all 16 comments

[–]privatejoker11 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The world as we know it is going tits-up, and you're sitting around wondering about what happened 5 billion years ago?

Get your priorities straight.

[–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

god sneezed. that's the source. One source, infinite.

Why do you find it 'ridiculous'. do you not understand the time scales? do you not understand the rapidity of mutation and selection?

If environmental conditions resulted in the creation of life once, then it must have happened a second time.

Ah. what is "life" to you? is it consciousness reorganizing matter, or some kind of 'self-replicating' cascade? because the chemical basis for life on earth as seen by scientists who consider cellular replication by RNA and DNA as 'life' would have occurred in many places, over a period of time, so there's probably a huge swamp of very very basic building blocks form which it all evolved, here on earth. But once it started to get going, the feeding started, and after that, all new competition is now in a very hostile environment and doesn't stand a chance of gaining the billions of years it needed to get cellular.

[–]fschmidt 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I have no opinion on this, but I can see a valid argument for single origin. If the creation of life is rare, then the first time it happened, life would have become quite developed before it could happen again, and so this second round would have no chance in competing with the more advanced first round.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Modern science believes life came into existence exactly once in the history of Earth.

No it doesn't?

I am sure that some different species of animals share common ancestors, but not all of them.

When you get a piece of alien DNA from horizontal gene transfer, does it count as receiving a new ancestor? If yes, then everyone should be related by now.

When everyone absorbs members of some very common and useful specie and turn them into organelles, does it count as becoming relatives? These organelles have their own DNA.

[–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

i love that the eukaryotes (us, fungi etc) are basically a symbiotic species, a blending of DNA and RNA based cells into a self-replicating monster that can metabolise oxygen for energy. Won't have evolved until long after the GEO (Great Oxidation Event or oxygen holocaust) got going and the oxygen eating cells started to get a toehold in the p.soup. I wonder how it went? Some voracious DNA based mono-cellular organisms with a mutation that restricted their digestion of mitochondria chomped the new kids on the block, then survived subsequent waves of oxygen posioning? How many mutations and failures did it take for the mitosis step to correctly split the organelles too? Was it at the monocellular stage that it happened, or did it occur with multicellular organisms too?

I think siphonophores make a great thing to study now to watch the evolution of multicellularlism. I wonder how many labs maintain siphonophore breeding labs to watch the way changes propagate

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Melanin is rumored to be older than mitochondria. It is possible that even before the GEO, we were already making oxygen from water, to get energy for our cells. We still have this ability today. Like plants, but with less waste I guess.

It is possible that by the time of the GEO everyone, at least all the survivors, already had mitochondria in them, they were simply used more sparingly.

So, we already had some oxygen tolerance, and ways to use it. We just had to start using these ways more.

[–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

of course we were making oxygen before the GEO. that's what led to the GEO

It is possible that by the time of the GEO everyone, at least all the survivors, already had mitochondria in them, they were simply used more sparingly.

Why do you think this? the geo waves - and there were many of them - were followed by huge time periods with almost no organic life activity, at least according to geological records. If 'we all had them' then the oxygen would not have been toxic. Maybe you know a lot more than me, but my understanding was that the GEOs are the selection pressure that drove the evolution of oxygen consuming species.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I know nothing ☹️.

Maybe GEOs simply had killed all the species that couldn't work with oxygen. And the survivors were forced to become better at it. So, no new adaptations, just a change in priorities.

[–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

the geo came about because life was photosynthetic, and was poisoned by the oxygen. Go learn about it and enjoy :D Making assumptions is cool, but there is a lot of existing knowledge that says you are incorrect

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

because life was photosynthetic

It still is. Photosynthesis has been demoted to a secondary method, but we still use it. Turtles use it more, and they live longer. Just because we don't dump our oxygen into the environment, doesn't mean we can't make it. Maybe we just care about the environment. Unlike those... plants.

learn about it and enjoy

I can't. There are countless articles saying different things in a complicated way. Unless someone really really cares.

[–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

because life was photosynthetic

It still is

this is a very bizarre conversation. Of course life still is. but for us? we are not photosynthetic. yes, we use the sun to make vitamin D< but we lack chlorophyll, so cannot photosynthesize CO2 and water into sugar and oxygen.

I can't. There are countless articles saying different things in a complicated way

Understanding complicated language is just a matter of effort. Don't you care? or do you just want to make statements based on nothing but your imagination, as you seem to be doing here

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

we lack chlorophyll

We have melanin. It's like chlorophyll, but more environmental-friendly. Or less.

complicated language

This isn't about language. It's about the way it is used and the replication crisis.

[–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

well, that lead me down a random road: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31267880/#:~:text=We%20have%20reported%20an%20unsuspected%20intrinsic%20property%20of%20melanin%20to%20dissociate%20water.&text=We%20hypothesise%20that%20most%20likely,via%20dissociating%20with%20water%20molecules.

The language is muppet level. https://www.oatext.com/The-unsuspected-intrinsic-property-of-melanin-to-transform-light-energy-into-chemical-energy-and-the-Warburg-effect-Connotations-in-cancer-biochemistry.php

goes down the same road.

I'd like to see a paper written by a regular scientist (who isn't rejecting the entirety of modern biochemistry) that shows melanin splitting oxygen from water, and the chemical process involved. Because these papers do not.

Therefore, the sacred role of glucose as source of energy by excellence of cell now is broken into small pieces.

They even have melanin producing hydrogen gas at the same time. This needs to be demonstrated in vitro, or it is just 'we wuz kangs' level nonsense.

lol

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/njos/2014/498276/

melanin making oxygen is considered "pseudoscience". If it really did, there'd be a hundred chemists proving it in laboratories and using to to split water for u/chop_chop 's hydrogen plants.