ConwayLife.com

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: February 2nd, 2021, 10:19 amYeah, up until the Avalon explosion that led to the Ediacaran biota there wasn't much change. There were only simpler multicellular organisms like cnidarians and sponges and unicellular ones.
Edit: The timeline is asking for a start and end date in the form of DD/MM/YYYY. What should I do?

You don't need to use that particular site in order to make a timeline. If you want, you can set Year 0 (or rather, Year 1) to be the planet's formation and pretend that the planet has the same year length as Earth.

MathAndCode wrote: February 2nd, 2021, 8:13 pm You don't need to use that particular site in order to make a timeline. If you want, you can set Year 0 (or rather, Year 1) to be the planet's formation and pretend that the planet has the same year length as Earth.

I could either make every year equal to a million years or I could just add the timeline to my user page.

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: February 3rd, 2021, 6:12 amI could either make every year equal to a million years or I could just add the timeline to my user page.

I frankly don't think that having a perfectly formatted timeline is very important.

MathAndCode wrote: February 3rd, 2021, 10:23 am I frankly don't think that having a perfectly formatted timeline is very important.

User page it is then.

Can we make the first multicellular organisms now?

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: February 3rd, 2021, 11:53 am Can we make the first multicellular organisms now?

Should we add anything else to the timeline first? My list was not intended to be complete.

MathAndCode wrote: February 3rd, 2021, 2:22 pm Should we add anything else to the timeline first? My list was not intended to be complete.

Yes. Sorry. We can make the glycerol photosynthesizers.

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: February 3rd, 2021, 2:33 pmYes. Sorry. We can make the glycerol photosynthesizers.

Besides the simple energy-making reactions, do we need to worry about the exact compounds and reactions?

MathAndCode wrote: February 3rd, 2021, 3:09 pm Besides the simple energy-making reactions, do we need to worry about the exact compounds and reactions?

What other reactions might there be?

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: February 3rd, 2021, 4:28 pmWhat other reactions might there be?

Plants use a different intermediate.

MathAndCode wrote: February 3rd, 2021, 4:53 pm Plants use a different intermediate.

I thought you meant reactions not having to do with energy like growth or defense.

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: February 3rd, 2021, 5:09 pmI thought you meant reactions not having to do with energy like growth or defense.

I meant that we should decide on the base reaction, but we don't have to figure all of the intermediate steps.

MathAndCode wrote: February 3rd, 2021, 5:17 pm I meant that we should decide on the base reaction, but we don't have to figure all of the intermediate steps.

Oh ok. I don't think it's absolutely necessary. but it might help. What do you think?

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: February 3rd, 2021, 5:28 pmOh ok. I don't think it's absolutely necessary. but it might help. What do you think?

I would prefer to not spend time on that (mainly because I know that I would be plagued by indecision), but I will do so if you wish.

MathAndCode wrote: February 3rd, 2021, 5:31 pm I would prefer to not spend time on that (mainly because I know that I would be plagued by indecision), but I will do so if you wish.

No, you don't need to. You're right, it would take some time to do it.

So is the next step glycerol photosynthesizers or something else?

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: February 3rd, 2021, 5:35 pmSo is the next step glycerol photosynthesizers or something else?

We should decide how quickly the atmosphere will change. When carbon monoxide gets depleted, that will likely drive the photosynthesizers to gain the ability to use carbon dioxide instead.

MathAndCode wrote: February 3rd, 2021, 5:48 pm We should decide how quickly the atmosphere will change. When carbon monoxide gets depleted, that will likely drive the photosynthesizers to gain the ability to use carbon dioxide instead.

That's obvious. Would it cause any important changes?

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: February 3rd, 2021, 5:53 pmThat's obvious. Would it cause any important changes?

It would likely make multiple reactions that the organisms currently use to create energy unfeasible.

MathAndCode wrote: February 3rd, 2021, 6:04 pm It would likely make multiple reactions that the organisms currently use to create energy unfeasible.

We have these two reactions that use CO:
CO+H₂O→CO₂+H₂
3CO+4H₂O→C₃H₈O₃+2O₂

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: February 4th, 2021, 11:07 amWe have these two reactions that use CO:
CO+H₂O→CO₂+H₂
3CO+4H₂O→C₃H₈O₃+2O₂

Like I said before, the organisms will have to evolve a way to start with carbon dioxide for the second reaction instead of carbon monoxide. I suppose that they'll have to simply drop the first reaction.

MathAndCode wrote: February 4th, 2021, 11:49 am Like I said before, the organisms will have to evolve a way to start with carbon dioxide for the second reaction instead of carbon monoxide. I suppose that they'll have to simply drop the first reaction.

Other than that is there anything? Also, I already said that 3CO+4H₂O→C₃H₈O₃+2O₂ would become 6CO₂+8H₂O→2C₃H₈O₃+7O₂.

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: February 4th, 2021, 12:24 pmOther than that is there anything? Also, I already said that 3CO+4H₂O→C₃H₈O₃+2O₂ would become 6CO₂+8H₂O→2C₃H₈O₃+7O₂.

What I think is more likely is that photosynthetic organisms will gain the ability to use either carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide, at least for a while. In the Calvin cycle, using carbon monoxide instead of carbon dioxide would theoretically allow the plant to convert one molecule of ribulose 1,5-biphosphate into one molecule of 3-phosphoglycerate and one molecule of glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate without having to expend a molecule of ATP or a molecule of NADPH (although it would have to use a different enzyme). The organisms on the alien planet might do something similar, although they may eventually lose the ability to use carbon monoxide.

MathAndCode wrote: February 4th, 2021, 1:07 pm What I think is more likely is that photosynthetic organisms will gain the ability to use either carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide, at least for a while. In the Calvin cycle, using carbon monoxide instead of carbon dioxide would theoretically allow the plant to convert one molecule of ribulose 1,5-biphosphate into one molecule of 3-phosphoglycerate and one molecule of glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate without having to expend a molecule of ATP or a molecule of NADPH (although it would have to use a different enzyme).

So what's your point? (I don't understand much of this unfortunately.)

MathAndCode wrote: February 4th, 2021, 1:07 pm The organisms on the alien planet might do something similar, although they may eventually lose the ability to use carbon monoxide.

It would probably become a vestigial trait and disappear at some point.

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: February 4th, 2021, 3:57 pmSo what's your point? (I don't understand much of this unfortunately.)

It's possible to be able to use either carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide as a source of carbon for the same pathway.

MathAndCode wrote: February 4th, 2021, 4:32 pm It's possible to be able to use either carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide as a source of carbon for the same pathway.

Would you like that to happen?