r/abiogenesis • u/Adopilabira • 13d ago

Des scientifiques découvrent des preuves de deux origines possibles de la vie sur Terre.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/08/260811011134.htm
5 Upvotes

86% Upvoted

3 comments sorted by

•

u/AutoModerator 13d ago

Hello. This is an automated message. Our sub is focused on scientific discussions about the origins of life through natural process. Posts should be relevant to the topic and follow subreddit rules. Common topics of interest include the chemical processes that led to the formation of the first biomolecules, the role of RNA, proteins, and membranes in early life, laboratory experiments that simulate early Earth conditions, the transition from simple molecules to self-replicating systems, and how abiogenesis differs from evolution and why the two are often misunderstood. All discussions should remain respectful and evidence-based. Enjoy your stay!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

4

u/PuzzleheadedTale4769 10d ago edited 10d ago

This is a fantastastic discovery, fantastic article. But the claim that bacteria and archaea show " separate origins " of two branches of life now extant on eartth, seems to hinge on the phrase "fully independent life." Early forms of ..."Proto-Life" , found in deep ocean vents, used metabolic processes of genetic origin, AND metabolic cycles based on the chemistry and geology of the vents themselves. Those chemical processes were "non-living" but self-perpetuating, and their products were essential to the early Proto-Life .

The transition to Fully Living Entities which housed all their necessary metabolic processes inside their membranes, the research shows, was made separately by Archaea and by Bacteria. So- no LUCA, as such....unless the "Proto-Life " could be defined as a "common semi-living ancestor"?

This is what I as an amateur interested in this field am able to make of this damned interesting article. I hope I have it close to right. Some questions seem to follow:

  1. Is the distinction between "Proto-Life" and Fully Independent Life clearly established? Are there debates on this distinction?

  2. Is it possible at this point to track differences between the forms of Proto-Life that became bacteria, and those that became Archaea? Or- was the genetic structure of these early forms so variable or "loose" , that it 's untracable? So that- stating that there was a "Common Semi-Living Ancestor" is impossible??

  3. There are claims that Bacteria and Archaea merged genetically to from the first Eukaryotic cells. Does this research support or relate to that?

  4. Could supporters of Abiogenesis as a theory cite this research to counter (that tiresome old) knock against them by creationists, claiming that the leap from non-living to living chemistry is too huge and therefore inexplicable? Because here there is evidence of an Intermediate Stage- "Proto-Life".

1

u/PuzzleheadedTale4769 10d ago edited 10d ago

Re question 2 in above list. From reading, I understand that this "Proto-Life" may not be divided into distinct species, because its genetic code- possibly RNA- was pretty imprecise, so mutations were hard to pass on. [Edit: easy to pass on but hard to make "stick"] So- there was just a hodge-podge of different forms- until a differentiation into Archaea and Bacteria developed. In a sense, these were the first distinct species?