Considering that the first proto-computers were not programmable, I can't help but be skeptical that the first life needed genetic material.<p>Certainly there were lipid membranes. Maybe there were spontaneous proteins, maybe there was purely-catalytic RNA.<p>I guess it's also a matter of line drawing. I'm OK with calling crystals life, for example. One should feel bad about breaking up big ones the same as one should feel bad about killing 150 year old lobsters.
Isn’t the question of just-what-is-life-anyway more of a worry for linguists and philosophers rather than scientists?<p>“Life” as it were, is a concept invented with either the intention of distinguishing “us” from the rocks around ourselves, or, if you’re being slightly less charitable, giving “us” a way to insult the, um, others.<p>Sure, drawing some line in the sand between mice and boulders is a great idea, but it’s a pretty arbitrary one, especially if you have to strap a bunch of historical baggage on it.<p>This grand debate is almost as fun as what-constitutes-a-planet. We should do that one again.
I wrote a paper to prove something like this is possible, here's a video and paper link in the description<p><a href="https://youtu.be/UVyTu3o2A9U" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/UVyTu3o2A9U</a>
Has anyone seen a visual tree of life that starts before life on earth?<p>Or in other words, say at some point we discover aliens in a distance galaxy. Would we be cousins? Are there visualizations that show what that kind of family tree would look like?<p>I am a neophyte in this area but I'm sure there's a lot of good research out there.
But isn't there a major flaw here? If you require all 3 components (proteins, RNA, and lipid bilayers) as what classifies "life", then what necessarily created _those_ components? Aren't only basic compounds and elements the only thing naturally occuring in the universe? So where did the amino acids and fats come from? It's back to the chicken or the egg problem.
This template replication reminds me of von neumann cellular automata:<p><a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_cellular_automaton" rel="nofollow">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_cellular_automat...</a>
> many biological molecules can be constructed from just six simple molecules, including water, methane...<p>There is no news here. This is just the same speculation that has been made thousands of times before for decades. Of course we can make big molecules from small ones in a lab. Of course life has to reproduce, metabolize and have a boundary from the environment. Pointing this out is not "the key to the origins of life". It is still an interesting topic, but why cant national geographic discuss these things honestly?
Related to this; Check out the book The Revolutionary Phenotype.<p>"The Revolutionary Phenotype is a science book that brings us four billion years into the past, when the first living molecules showed up on Planet Earth. Unlike what was previously thought, we learn that DNA-based life did not emerge from random events in a primordial soup. Indeed, the first molecules of DNA were fabricated by a previous life form. By describing the fascinating events referred to as Phenotypic Revolutions, this book provides a dire warning to humanity: if humans continue to play with their own genes, we will be the next life form to fall to our own creation.
"I am VERY impressed with this book—very important topic very well treated." - Robert Trivers"<p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Revolutionary-Phenotype-amazing-story-begins/dp/1729861563" rel="nofollow">https://www.amazon.com/Revolutionary-Phenotype-amazing-story...</a><p>fyi: I'm not the author