ConwayLife.com

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: February 19th, 2021, 6:14 pmWhat do you think we should work on now then? I say we should keep talking about multicellular organisms.

I think that we should discuss some of the other developments that will occur in the explosion of diversity. They could make multicellular life more or less likely to arise.

MathAndCode wrote: February 19th, 2021, 6:34 pm I think that we should discuss some of the other developments that will occur in the explosion of diversity. They could make multicellular life more or less likely to arise.

Life could start using chemical signals to communicate. I can't really think of any useful messages other than "danger" and perhaps "food". Can you? Also, organisms might also start making deceptive messages, e.g. sending a danger signal to make others eating food you want to go away.

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: February 19th, 2021, 6:43 pmLife could start using chemical signals to communicate. I can't really think of any useful messages other than "danger" and perhaps "food". Can you? Also, organisms might also start making deceptive messages, e.g. sending a danger signal to make others eating food you want to go away.

That would be more likely with a higher population density, but there is no reason for it to happen unless the organism sending the message and the organism receiving the message each benefit.
Perhaps mobile organisms could learn to interpret an increased concentration of reactive oxygen species in the water as a sign that danger is near and swim away from them?

MathAndCode wrote: February 19th, 2021, 7:02 pm That would be more likely with a higher population density, but there is no reason for it to happen unless the organism sending the message and the organism receiving the message each benefit.
Perhaps mobile organisms could learn to interpret an increased concentration of reactive oxygen species in the water as a sign that danger is near and swim away from them?

Wouldn't more biodiversity imply higher population densities? I think that if any organism evolves a two-way signalling system, it would proabably be more succesful, too. I would also think that any organism that doesn't flee higher concentrations of harmful subsatnces would be greatly selected against. Maybe as a danger signal they could repurpose non-harmful but detectable amounts of reactive oxygen species.

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: February 20th, 2021, 11:47 amWouldn't more biodiversity imply higher population densities?

I suppose so to a certain extent, but higher population densities wouldn't imply biodiversity, although they would likely lead to it because increased competition would likely drive specialization.

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: February 20th, 2021, 11:47 am I think that if any organism evolves a two-way signalling system, it would proabably be more succesful, too.

Yes, but there can't be an evolutionary pressure for the receiver to evolve a signal reception mechanism until the sender has evolved a signal emission mechanism, and vice versa.

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: February 20th, 2021, 11:47 amI would also think that any organism that doesn't flee higher concentrations of harmful subsatnces would be greatly selected against. Maybe as a danger signal they could repurpose non-harmful but detectable amounts of reactive oxygen species.

Keep in mind that the only reason that they would detect reactive oxygen species is that prey organisms would release them when a predator approaches in order to ward the predator off, and also this wouldn't happen yet because predation hasn't arisen yet. It likely will develop soon due to the increase density of potential prey, though.

MathAndCode wrote: February 20th, 2021, 5:23 pm Yes, but there can't be an evolutionary pressure for the receiver to evolve a signal reception mechanism until the sender has evolved a signal emission mechanism, and vice versa.

MathAndCode wrote: February 20th, 2021, 5:23 pm Keep in mind that the only reason that they would detect reactive oxygen species is that prey organisms would release them when a predator approaches in order to ward the predator off, and also this wouldn't happen yet because predation hasn't arisen yet. It likely will develop soon due to the increase density of potential prey, though.

Let's find a way of making our decisions official. I never thought we had completely agreed on predation, but I still thought we had it a bit.
I think that any prey would have a way of at least detecting reactive oxygen species so what they excrete doesn't kill them. They might evolve resistance or they might just flee the area. Wouldn't reactive oxygen species just kill predators instead of simply deterring them?

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: February 21st, 2021, 4:57 pmI think that any prey would have a way of at least detecting reactive oxygen species so what they excrete doesn't kill them. They might evolve resistance or they might just flee the area.

They already need resistance to reactive oxygen species because they produce them during photosynthesis—although the predator may as well if it has an electron transport chain.

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: February 21st, 2021, 4:57 pmWouldn't reactive oxygen species just kill predators instead of simply deterring them?

That would also save the prey.

MathAndCode wrote: February 21st, 2021, 6:34 pm They already need resistance to reactive oxygen species because they produce them during photosynthesis—although the predator may as well if it has an electron transport chain.

They would definitely have some resistance because they (both predator and prey) originated from the same group (I think), but the secretion of reactive oxygen species would still be useful because it would be in higher quantities. Would there be organisms that still don't have the electron transport chain?

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: February 22nd, 2021, 11:10 amThey would definitely have some resistance because they (both predator and prey) originated from the same group (I think).

Yes, but that was before they developed photosynthesis or an electron transport chain.

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: February 22nd, 2021, 11:10 amWould there be organisms that still don't have the electron transport chain?

Yes. None of the organisms upcurrent or downcurrent of the hydrothermal vents have electron transport chains, and not all of the organisms at the hydrothermal vents have electron transport chains.

MathAndCode wrote: February 22nd, 2021, 11:14 am Yes, but that was before they developed photosynthesis or an electron transport chain.

MathAndCode wrote: February 22nd, 2021, 11:14 am Yes. None of the organisms upcurrent or downcurrent of the hydrothermal vents have electron transport chains, and not all of the organisms at the hydrothermal vents have electron transport chains.

From your timeline post, this is the only group of organisms that develop an electron transport chain.

MathAndCode wrote: February 1st, 2021, 2:18 pm 209 million years after the planet's formation: Polysulfate-building organisms develop an electron transport chain, which they use for the reaction SO₄²⁻+10H⁺+8e⁻→H₂S+4H₂O, using the energy to attach other free sulfate to sulfate chains.

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: February 22nd, 2021, 11:59 amFrom your timeline post, this is the only group of organisms that develop an electron transport chain.

MathAndCode wrote: February 1st, 2021, 2:18 pm 209 million years after the planet's formation: Polysulfate-building organisms develop an electron transport chain, which they use for the reaction SO₄²⁻+10H⁺+8e⁻→H₂S+4H₂O, using the energy to attach other free sulfate to sulfate chains.

Yes. I checked with the timeline before posting.

MathAndCode wrote: February 22nd, 2021, 12:00 pm Yes. I checked with the timeline before posting.

Would one group have a more high-energy lifestyle? If so, they might become more successful predators.

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: February 22nd, 2021, 12:08 pmWould one group have a more high-energy lifestyle? If so, they might become more successful predators.

The organisms with the electron transport chain would likely be able to live a higher-energy lifestyle.

MathAndCode wrote: February 22nd, 2021, 12:19 pm The organisms with the electron transport chain would likely be able to live a higher-energy lifestyle.

So should we create predation now then?

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: February 22nd, 2021, 12:28 pmSo should we create predation now then?

We should create scavengers first (or have we already finalized those?). Once that is done, we can create predators.



Edit: Actually, we should figure out what the potential food sources will be first.

MathAndCode wrote: February 22nd, 2021, 12:33 pm We should create scavengers first (or have we already finalized those?). Once that is done, we can create predators.



Edit: Actually, we should figure out what the potential food sources will be first.

Scavengers could start out with already abiotically decayed biomass with simpler molecules and then try and get higher-quality food from recently deceased cells.

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: February 22nd, 2021, 12:41 pmScavengers could start out with already abiotically decayed biomass with simpler molecules and then try and get higher-quality food from recently deceased cells.

That's a good idea especially because of evolution. Which molecules would they seek out?

MathAndCode wrote: February 22nd, 2021, 12:46 pm That's a good idea especially because of evolution. Which molecules would they seek out?

They could start with methane, ethane and other simple organic compounds and then would then try to eat longer molecules. Do these organisms use polymers at all?

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: February 22nd, 2021, 12:54 pmThey could start with methane, ethane and other simple organic compounds and then would then try to eat longer molecules. Do these organisms use polymers at all?

Yes, we can assume that they use polymers for information storage and structural support.

MathAndCode wrote: February 22nd, 2021, 1:37 pm Yes, we can assume that they use polymers for information storage and structural support.

What type of polymers might they be? Alkanes are the simplest, or they could maybe chain many monomers (like sugars) together.

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: February 22nd, 2021, 1:43 pmWhat type of polymers might they be? Alkanes are the simplest, or they could maybe chain many monomers (like sugars) together.

There are a variety of possibilities, but I think that it's best to stick with the biomolecules that our cells use except for replacing phosphate with sulfate and either replacing proteins or using a different set of R groups.

MathAndCode wrote: February 22nd, 2021, 1:48 pm There are a variety of possibilities, but I think that it's best to stick with the biomolecules that our cells use except for replacing phosphate with sulfate and either replacing proteins or using a different set of R groups.

Wikipedia wrote: About 500 naturally occurring amino acids are known as of 1983 (though only 20 appear in the genetic code) and can be classified in many ways.

Are the 20 amino acids life on Earth use used for a reason or are they random?

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: February 23rd, 2021, 4:36 amAre the 20 amino acids life on Earth use used for a reason or are they random?

They are random.

MathAndCode wrote: February 23rd, 2021, 9:24 am They are random.

So I guess which ones we choose or how many won't matter much.

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: February 23rd, 2021, 12:06 pmSo I guess which ones we choose or how many won't matter much.

That's correct.