Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by adrian_b 2006 days ago
It is pretty certain that the first life did not use any kind of genetic material, because that is impossible.

When RNA or any other kind of genetic material first appeared, the first thing that must have been possible to do with it was to copy it, a.k.a. to replicate it.

If the genetic material was used first to do anything useful, e.g. to control protein synthesis or to catalyze directly any useful reaction, that genetic material would have disappeared immediately, because it could not be replicated.

So the first genetic material must have been able of being replicated without doing any useful function, therefore is was actually an RNA virus.

The useful functions must have appeared later and then the genetic material was integrated as an essential part of the living beings, allowing a much faster evolution towards levels of complexity that would have been impossible to reach without having a genetic material.

To be able to replicate the first genetic material, there must have already existed some life forms able to exploit an energy source to reproduce themselves.

You have noticed a correct analogy, exactly like the control automaton of a CPU, which can be either hard-wired, having a dedicated structure that cannot be easily changed to perform other functions, or it can be microprogrammed, using a control memory, whose content can be easily rewritten to implement a very different CPU, a self-reproducing living being can use genetic material, in which case it can easily evolve into a different living being, or it may use no genetic material, but consist, like how it seems to be said in Gánti's work, of which I was not aware until now, by a cycle of reactions, where in each reaction some cell component assembles another cell component, until the last component, which assembles the first component.

Such a living being, without a genetic material, could not evolve easily, because almost any change would have damaged the cycle of reactions, most likely stopping the reproduction.

Regarding RNA, before the first RNA molecule was ever assembled, the existing life forms must have been using ATP and the other nucleotides as dehydrating agents able to condense smaller molecules into larger molecules, e.g. for creating peptide bonds.

Therefore ATP (with some of it current uses) is certainly older than RNA.

The polymerization of nucleotides into RNA must have been initially an undesirable side reaction consuming the useful nucleotides.

1 comments

Have you seen the research of Ribosomes being quine-like? (the structural nucleic acids and genes for the protein parts are related).
While that is an interesting fact about the evolution of ribosomes, no kind of ribosome could have ever appeared, except after the process of RNA replication was already a perfected process.

Otherwise the first ribosome would have disappeared soon after it was first assembled, without leaving any descendants.

The first ribosome was probably made only of RNA, as there were no other ribosomes to assemble the ribosomal proteins, so it is not surprising that at some point some of the ribosomal RNA segments were replaced by proteins transcripted also from some ribosomal RNA segments, if that happened to improve the ribosome structure.

Many statements made with certainty about an era about which we know absolutely nothing for sure.
While there are many things that we do not know about that era, there are also many other things about which we are completely sure.

For example we know for sure that all the chemical reactions required to assemble the components of a living being required the same amount of energy then as they require now, so either there was a source of energy large enough to enable them, or they were impossible.

Other things may not be completely certain, but they are overwhelmingly plausible, for example if we know that the transition from a more primitive structure to a more complex structure required 5 improbable mutations, we can be pretty sure that there is no chance that all those changes happened simultaneously, but they must have happened in a certain sequence, one by one.

If moreover, there are some causal links between those events, so that some of them cannot happen unless others already happened, then we may be able to determine which was the sequence of those 5 events, with considerable certainty.

While we are unable yet to estimate confidently which of many possible things really happened in the distant past, we can actually exclude with great certainty many other things, about which we can say for sure that they did not happen, because they contradict fundamental laws, like the conservation of energy.

Among these things that certainly did not happen are some previously popular theories about the origin of life, whose authors did not attempt to analyze them in enough detail to see if they are compatible with the known chemistry and physics, e.g. the ancient theory of the "organic soup" or the more recent theory of the "RNA world".

It's good to make bold statements, because if anything it enables clear and convincing counter-arguments to show up.
Couldn’t one take the view point that the formation of a transient ribosome could have created the conditions to solve replication?

This route would be much more of a dance than what you’ve implied. A transient ribosome makes a protein-based RNA replicase, replicase copies all local the RNAs including the RNA ribosomes. This process would eventually result in a large number of ribosome RNAs and replicase proteins without the need to have a “perfected process” prior to either step.

The whole process would be much messier than what we see today after millions of years of refinement, of course. The stability of an arbitrary RNA polymer is also increased by the presumed lack of RNases as well.

It has been a few years since I took a grad course covering the ribosome, so excuse my lack of currentness if new research has discounted this.

I haven't seen that research but I find the idea fascinating. Where can I read more about this?