4 ms·
> There are more prokaryotes than eucaryotes, more singe celled than multi celled etc. but there is nothing in between the primordial chemical soup and the simp
by divbzero 6y ago
> There are more prokaryotes than eucaryotes, more singe celled than multi celled etc. but there is nothing in between the primordial chemical soup and the simplest life forms. I would expect a huge mass of simple RNA based life forms simpler than prokaryotes.
This is an interesting perspective.
Following this line of reasoning, prokaryotes must be close to the simplest unit that can self-replicate and grow to fill the planet. The simpler “proto-life” forms before that built up complex molecules by chance but could never quite achieve a replicative cycle.
Perhaps the closest to a huge mass of simple RNA based life forms that still exist today are viruses.
- pfdietz 6y agoViruses depend on the existence of complex structures (the machinery in cells) to replicate themselves, so I don't think it's valid to point to one as an organism in the same sense as a prokaryote.
- pishpash 6y agoProkaryotes depend on the existence of complex structures (the world outside) to replicate themselves. Yours is not a good example. That aside, people have argued that the viral particle is like a gamete, which is also an incomplete stage of life unable to replicate itself. It would be like calling a sperm a human and saying humans are therefore parasitic and not living. A virus's primary life stage is lived within the environment of the cell which it commandeers, and from where it sends its progeny. The whole commandeered cell is the viral organism, and very much living.
- pfdietz 6y agoInvalid argument. Bacteria exist that can grow in very simple media with low structure. Viruses canmot. They absolutely depend on the existence of a very complex replication machinery.
- reubenswartz 6y agoThey must have achieved many replication cycles, but presumably proto-prokaryotes were much more efficient replicators and outcompeted their ancestors.