Paper: From volcanic origins of chemoautotrophic life to Bacteria, Archaea and Eukarya
Robert Karl Stonjek
ISSN: 0962-8436 (Paper) 1471-2970 (Online)
Issue: Volume 361, Number 1474 / October 29, 2006
Pages: 1787 - 1808
DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2006.1904
Special Issue: Discussion Meeting Issue 'Conditions for the emergence of
life on the early Earth' organized by S. Leach, I. Smith and C. Cockell
>From volcanic origins of chemoautotrophic life to Bacteria, Archaea and
Eukarya
Günter Wächtershäuser
Abstract:
The theory of a chemoautotrophic origin of life in a volcanic iron-sulphur
world postulates a pioneer organism at sites of reducing volcanic
exhalations. The pioneer organism is characterized by a composite structure
with an inorganic substructure and an organic superstructure. Within the
surfaces of the inorganic substructure iron, cobalt, nickel and other
transition metal centres with sulphido, carbonyl and other ligands were
catalytically active and promoted the growth of the organic superstructure
through carbon fixation, driven by the reducing potential of the volcanic
exhalations. This pioneer metabolism was reproductive by an autocatalytic
feedback mechanism. Some organic products served as ligands for activating
catalytic metal centres whence they arose. The unitary structure-function
relationship of the pioneer organism later gave rise to two major strands of
evolution: cellularization and emergence of the genetic machinery. This
early phase of evolution ended with segregation of the domains Bacteria,
Archaea and Eukarya from a rapidly evolving population of pre-cells. Thus,
life started with an initial, direct, deterministic chemical mechanism of
evolution giving rise to a later, indirect, stochastic, genetic mechanism of
evolution and the upward evolution of life by increase of complexity is
grounded ultimately in the synthetic redox chemistry of the pioneer
organism.
Source: The Royal Society
http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/link.asp?id=2121378M32741UR3
Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek
Perplexed in Peoria
"Robert Karl Stonjek" <rsto...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message news:efjs76$ggc$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
Thx, as always, RKS. It looks like this special issue of RoyalSocB
is something I want to buy, and not just for the Wachtershauser
paper. Now all I have to do is figure out how to buy it.
Tom Hendricks
The next origin scenario that comes up - let's look for three points
(I've added one) that I don't think will be there
1. The energy source for these chemical reactions is listed as _____
Thermal vents. But how does condensation occur?
2. The chemicals involved are stable in that environment and stable
throughout the period of the origin in their altered states because
No mention here. Apparently these thermal vents are stable for millions
of years on an earth that never changes with no UV etc?
There is too little relation of all this to the actual envrionment.
3. Does the writer see life as a reaction to , instead of a beginning
of?
No - he sees the origin not as a response, but an independent beginning
of
a process to get to the goals of life as we know it. There is no
mention
of why any of this would happen in this environment.
Tough questions.
Perplexed in Peoria
"Tom Hendricks" <tomhend...@cs.com> wrote in message news:efrgi0$5fg$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
Well, actually, in Wachtershauser's scheme, the energy is chemical,
not exactly thermal. The energy is supplied by a disequilibrium
among H2S, pyrite, CO2, and organics.
If, by condensation, you mean the joining of two or more building
blocks into a macromolecule with loss of water, then I would have
to say that the bare-bones Wachtershauser proposal doesn't deal
with it (and doesn't need to), and the full-scale proposal doesn't
deal with it very convincingly. But then I haven't yet read this
latest paper.
> 2. The chemicals involved are stable in that environment and stable
> throughout the period of the origin in their altered states because
>
> No mention here. Apparently these thermal vents are stable for millions
> of years on an earth that never changes with no UV etc?
> There is too little relation of all this to the actual envrionment.
No mention in the abstract, no. And uv is not a problem for the
early stages of Wachtershauser's abiogenesis because they take place
very deep. And vents (or at least vent systems) do persist for millions
of years.
But, as to stability of biochemicals, I think that that is one of
the great strengths of Wachtershauser's scheme - at least the lipids-
first portion of the scheme that I like most. Even though the
lipid biochemicals produced would have to be considered far from
equilibrium (and hence, in a sense, unstable) in solution, they
are not in solution. They are organized into sheets in which the
hydrophobic parts stabilize each other and the hydrophilic parts
are dynamically stabilized by interactions with the mineral substrate.
> 3. Does the writer see life as a reaction to , instead of a beginning
> of?
>
> No - he sees the origin not as a response, but an independent beginning
> of a process to get to the goals of life as we know it. There is no
> mention of why any of this would happen in this environment.
I have to disagree. But you should probably read Wactershauser's
own words to get the flavor of the philosophy as to the ultimate
'why' of life's origin. Did you even read the abstract carefully?
Did you notice the words "an initial, direct, deterministic chemical
mechanism of evolution". To be honest, that sounds *a lot* like
what you have been saying.
Tom Hendricks
> "Tom Hendricks" <tomhend...@cs.com> wrote in message news:efrgi0$5fg$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
> > Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:
> > (I've added one) that I don't think will be there
> >
> > 1. The energy source for these chemical reactions is listed as _____
> >
> > Thermal vents. But how does condensation occur?
>
> Well, actually, in Wachtershauser's scheme, the energy is chemical,
> not exactly thermal. The energy is supplied by a disequilibrium
> among H2S, pyrite, CO2, and organics.
>
> If, by condensation, you mean the joining of two or more building
> blocks into a macromolecule with loss of water, then I would have
> to say that the bare-bones Wachtershauser proposal doesn't deal
> with it (and doesn't need to), and the full-scale proposal doesn't
> deal with it very convincingly. But then I haven't yet read this
> latest paper.
>
> > 2. The chemicals involved are stable in that environment and stable
> > throughout the period of the origin in their altered states because
> >
> > No mention here. Apparently these thermal vents are stable for millions
> > of years on an earth that never changes with no UV etc?
> > There is too little relation of all this to the actual envrionment.
>
> No mention in the abstract, no. And uv is not a problem for the
> early stages of Wachtershauser's abiogenesis because they take place
> very deep. And vents (or at least vent systems) do persist for millions
> of years.
I think UV is a problem because it is necessary to the mix. There can
be
no mention of RNA without some mention of their response to UV and how
they seem to be built for it or built as a response to it.
Vents do persist - perhaps but this is a much more volatile time, and
the
vent life we have now is AFAIK all derived from surface life.
>
> But, as to stability of biochemicals, I think that that is one of
> the great strengths of Wachtershauser's scheme - at least the lipids-
> first portion of the scheme that I like most. Even though the
> lipid biochemicals produced would have to be considered far from
> equilibrium (and hence, in a sense, unstable) in solution, they
> are not in solution. They are organized into sheets in which the
> hydrophobic parts stabilize each other and the hydrophilic parts
> are dynamically stabilized by interactions with the mineral substrate.
A friend that's better educated than I on these things, dismisses Wach.
ideas because hyperthermal vents cause more decomposition of
amino acids than it makes. What it does bring together in peptides
through
heat and pressure - it also degrades.
>
> > 3. Does the writer see life as a reaction to , instead of a beginning
> > of?
> >
> > No - he sees the origin not as a response, but an independent beginning
> > of a process to get to the goals of life as we know it. There is no
> > mention of why any of this would happen in this environment.
>
> I have to disagree. But you should probably read Wactershauser's
> own words to get the flavor of the philosophy as to the ultimate
> 'why' of life's origin. Did you even read the abstract carefully?
> Did you notice the words "an initial, direct, deterministic chemical
> mechanism of evolution". To be honest, that sounds *a lot* like
> what you have been saying.
He also calls it a 'pioneer organism" . That sounds like a beginning
not a response. He IMO sees a great divide between life and non life.
And sees a point where life seems to begin - 'life started with an
initial..."
No I disagree. Chemicals that we associate
with life responded to energy in ways
that chemically selected them for stability - and this stability
response
led to life as defined now. There is a big difference, and IMO he's
another one in the
'pop and adapt' group. Plus the ventist idea IMO is still 'all wet'.
ErikW
Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
> "Robert Karl Stonjek" <rsto...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message news:efjs76$ggc$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
> is something I want to buy, and not just for the Wachtershauser
> paper. Now all I have to do is figure out how to buy it.
A lot of Royal Society content is free until december if you register
at their site. If you're lucky the above issue might be free too.
Perplexed in Peoria
"Tom Hendricks" <tomhend...@cs.com> wrote in message news:eg3d3l$3sj$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
That appears to be true for the metazoans. I don't know whether it
is true for all of the primary producers (bacteria and archaea).
> > But, as to stability of biochemicals, I think that that is one of
> > the great strengths of Wachtershauser's scheme - at least the lipids-
> > first portion of the scheme that I like most. Even though the
> > lipid biochemicals produced would have to be considered far from
> > equilibrium (and hence, in a sense, unstable) in solution, they
> > are not in solution. They are organized into sheets in which the
> > hydrophobic parts stabilize each other and the hydrophilic parts
> > are dynamically stabilized by interactions with the mineral substrate.
>
> A friend that's better educated than I on these things, dismisses Wach.
> ideas because hyperthermal vents cause more decomposition of
> amino acids than it makes. What it does bring together in peptides
> through heat and pressure - it also degrades.
Stanley Miller is a frind of yours?
> What it does bring together in peptides
> through heat and pressure - it also degrades.
Well, that is even more true of uv. W. has claimed that the pressure
shifts the equilibrium in the direction of condensation for peptides.
I am not qualified to judge, but that is the one part of W's ideas
that I consider mostly irrelevant. Peptides came later.
Tom Hendricks
> > I think UV is a problem because it is necessary to the mix. There can
> > be
> > no mention of RNA without some mention of their response to UV and how
> > they seem to be built for it or built as a response to it.
This line above is worth re-reading - the clue is obvious - RNA has
some connection
with UV - its most likely a selection force that push started a lot of
the
chemical changes. I just don't see vent clues in RNA.
Time will tell but the shift to looking at UV is IMO the shift to
finally
getting at the heart of all this.
> > Vents do persist - perhaps but this is a much more volatile time, and
> > the
> > vent life we have now is AFAIK all derived from surface life.
>
> That appears to be true for the metazoans. I don't know whether it
> is true for all of the primary producers (bacteria and archaea).
As I understand it, it does - but its best to wait for better educated
opinions on this one - anyone out there know about the bacteria and
archae?
>
> > > But, as to stability of biochemicals, I think that that is one of
> > > the great strengths of Wachtershauser's scheme - at least the lipids-
> > > first portion of the scheme that I like most. Even though the
> > > lipid biochemicals produced would have to be considered far from
> > > equilibrium (and hence, in a sense, unstable) in solution, they
> > > are not in solution. They are organized into sheets in which the
> > > hydrophobic parts stabilize each other and the hydrophilic parts
> > > are dynamically stabilized by interactions with the mineral substrate.
> >
> > A friend that's better educated than I on these things, dismisses Wach.
> > ideas because hyperthermal vents cause more decomposition of
> > amino acids than it makes. What it does bring together in peptides
> > through heat and pressure - it also degrades.
>
> Stanley Miller is a friend of yours?
Oh I wish! But don't count Miller out. And isn't it true that he has
NOT won a nobel prize? How bizarre that is to me.
>
> > What it does bring together in peptides
> > through heat and pressure - it also degrades.
>
> Well, that is even more true of uv. W. has claimed that the pressure
> shifts the equilibrium in the direction of condensation for peptides.
> I am not qualified to judge, but that is the one part of W's ideas
> that I consider mostly irrelevant. Peptides came later.
>
UV degrades everything until what's left is what we define as life.
It pushes the chemicals into reactions that are best defined as life.
Perplexed in Peoria
"Tom Hendricks" <tomhend...@cs.com> wrote in message news:ega3re$19pt$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
[snip]
> > > A friend that's better educated than I on these things, dismisses Wach.
> > > ideas because hyperthermal vents cause more decomposition of
> > > amino acids than it makes. What it does bring together in peptides
> > > through heat and pressure - it also degrades.
> > > What it does bring together in peptides
> > > through heat and pressure - it also degrades.
> >
> > Well, that is even more true of uv. W. has claimed that the pressure
> > shifts the equilibrium in the direction of condensation for peptides.
> > I am not qualified to judge, but that is the one part of W's ideas
> > that I consider mostly irrelevant. Peptides came later.
> >
>
> UV degrades everything until what's left is what we define as life.
> It pushes the chemicals into reactions that are best defined as life.
Haven't you just said that what UV does to chemicals is the same
thing as vents do to chemicals?
Oh yeah, I forgot. Vents are wet.