Abiogenesis

[Subduction Zone]

Not so much a misconception: more a deliberate misrepresentation.

It produced a range of amino acids - the building block of proteins - from an entirely inorganic gas mixture.

Correct, it is almost always the creationists that try to claim that it was an attempt to create life. But I have had to facepalm myself a few times when I have heard those on the side of science say "Miller-Urey proved abiogenesis". As you and I well know it did no such thing. It only demonstrated that a process thought to be impossible, that of the natural formation of amino acids, was not impossible at all. It allowed research into abiogenesis continue. And of course we found that the mechanism that they used was not the only one that works. Somehow they form in space. Amino acids are found in some meteorites. And even more important for the Earth, some are found to form naturally at black smokers even today. I can probably dig up an article for you on it. Black smokers have various other traits that would help in abiogenesis and they may be where life first started. Amino acids, a continual source of energy. I am fairly sure that they would be a source of vesicles in the water that are natural "cells". Just a cell wall that grows on its own until they divide. Amino acids. Clays for them to react on. For abiogenesis they may be the perfect environment.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I don't see why not, though it would be more difficult now the atmosphere is full of a corrosive, very reactive gas.

The 1ry problem would be proliferation. The simple prototypes would be very challenged just to survive, nourish themselves, and reproduce, since, as prototypes, natural selection would have had no chance to iron out the various kinks and design flaws. They'd be exquisitely fragile.
Then there would be competition and predation from the teeming, robust organisms all around them-The original life forms had no competitors or predators. New life would be wiped out almost immediately.

Good points. Maybe someday we will find out.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

It's probable that abiogenesis happened multiple times but only once was it successful.

This makes sense. I wonder if it was just inevitable that life would form with whatever conditions it needed or if it was one improbable event.

I'm not sure it can happen today, environment conditions are vastly different.

Very likely so.

 

[exchemist]

I don't see why not, though it would be more difficult now the atmosphere is full of a corrosive, very reactive gas.

The 1ry problem would be proliferation. The simple prototypes would be very challenged just to survive, nourish themselves, and reproduce, since, as prototypes, natural selection would have had no chance to iron out the various kinks and design flaws. They'd be exquisitely fragile.
Then there would be competition and predation from the teeming, robust organisms all around them-The original life forms had no competitors or predators. New life would be wiped out almost immediately.

Yes any newly formed proto organism would immediately be food for many of the teeming bacteria and protozoa which pervade the biosphere. It could not possibly survive.

 

[ChristineM]

This makes sense. I wonder if it was just inevitable that life would form with whatever conditions it needed or if it was one improbable event.

Very likely so.

Judging by the relative ease in which the conditions for life can form I'd say it was inevitable

 

[exchemist]

How different was "way different?" Do you see chemical evolution as a more difficule process nowadays? If so, in what ways?

"Fully developed?" This implies some developmental goal.
Is today's atmosphere more "developed" than it was four or five billion years ago?

I suppose the biggest difference is the highly oxidising environment, due to the high concentration of free oxygen.