Slashdot Mirror
Did Life Emerge In Ponds Rather Than Ocean Vents?
ananyo writes "The prevailing scientific view holds that life began in hydrothermal vents in the deep sea. But a controversial study (abstract) suggests that inland pools of condensed and cooled geothermal vapor have the ideal characteristics for the origin of life. The study hinges on the observation that the composition of the cytoplasm of modern cells is very different to that of seawater. On the other hand, the mix of metal ions in cytoplasm is (almost exclusively) found where where hot hydrothermal fluid brings the ions to the surface — places such as geysers and mud pots. There are a number of problems with the study, however — for instance, a lack of land 4 billion years ago would have made it difficult for life to start in such pools."
First you college boys, with your fancy book smarts, try to tell me my grandpa was a monkey. Now you're calling him pond scum! Jesus will make you commie elitists pay when you die!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I know that a River can come from Ponds.
Does this mean that life on exoplanets without deep seas and hydrothermal vents is still possible? Perhaps a more arid world, where water isn't quite as common as on Earth. I'm interested to see what implications this has for the search for life. It could expand the possible amount of planets that are likely to evolve life.
There are a number of problems with the study, however — for instance, a lack of land 4 billion years ago would have made it difficult for life to start in such pools.
But did land exist 6000 years ago? Hah!
Even if you take that sh!t seriously, how would "Let the waters bring forth..." rule out ponds as compared to oceans?
The gist I got from Robert Hazen's course on the Origin of Life is that the metabolic citric cycle and protein polymerization does not require enzymes in high pressure and in certain mineral substrates. Otherwise you have the chicken-egg problem of how to elvolve these special enzyme proteins first. Dr. Hazen generated many of these results in the lab.
I'm pretty sure he's being sarcastic, you insensitive clod. This is Slashdot, after all.
This is actually a bit surprising to me. Years ago, which admittedly was the last time I payed any attention to such things, the theory that life first formed in little pools was the common explanation. Up near the surface is where a lot of the energy was from sources such as the sun, volcanos, lightning, etc. I could be wrong in remembering this, but the primordial soup was always depicted as fairly shallow pools (though, perhaps, saltwater tide pools).
-mrxak
Onions Will Kill You
just ask River
Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters... [snip]
I said no such thing. Don't believe everything they wrote about me.
In the final episode of TNG we saw that life began in some sort of pond or tidal pool, not deep under the surface of the ocean.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
Ponds at the time were not powerful enough to run Forth. Only ocean vents had enough power for the early Forth implementations.
This explains most of the population of Philadelphia.
Life began in skin care products? Bizarre.
/ducks
Discussion System prefs link: http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=editcomm
Not science
Ummmmm.... why in the hell are you posting this here? And what is "crimminal"?
Judging from my experiments, the early conditions for life must have been similar to the Chinese food containers in the back of my refrigerator. From which two questions remain. 1. How did the refrigerator originate 4.5 billion years ago? 2. Who ordered Chinese?
Anyway, everyone knows the aliens seeded the planet with DNA and stuff and then...LIFE!
But God created the Aliens. However, we created God in our own image, so it's all one big circle of life.
No, I'm not trying to be snarky. This, I believe.
But I also took the Patriots, giving the points, so what the fuck do I know?
You are welcome on my lawn.
... this planet is not the only thing existing. Meaning life may have come into being in some other, yet to realize, environment and transferred here and else where in any number of ways. Perhaps its more interesting how there are those of the human species bent on killing life.
Or we can go all the way back to before the beginning where there was an absence of anything and all, until that absence became aware of itself and split into the blackboard of existence and the whiteboard of consciousness bot with plenty of space to put and change content. And if you are all that is, how do you know you are or will continue? You have to expand and change the content as a matter of experience..... where life in its limited view of all, provide additional experience.
So, where did life originate? On the blackboard of existence when it became content on the whiteboard of consciousness.
So go forth and multiply life so we can help save the creator of all. And hope the creator doesn't repent their sin against the absence.
Depends on perspective. If movement is life then electrons move inside an atom and septillions+ of complex combinations of these movements gives rise to the so called life from human perspective. From non-human universal perspective it appears that the whole universe is alive.
When will you all realize that these scientific hypotheses are all human myths. Slartibartfast had it all right.
There are so many chicken-and-egg problems in Origin of Life research. Everything is screaming "design" but that's rule out from the outset. So we are left with each hypothesis trying to explain a part but then falling on all the other evidence. Its like playing whack-a-mole.
Good luck to all the naturalistic scenarios.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Why is this idea that life happened *once*? Precursor reactions invariably happened many times all over the place. Who knows how many time it almost began and didn't quite make it, or began and got wiped out. Eventually, obviously, it happened and life fanned out from there. But I'm guessing it happened all over the place and not just one time in one place. The odds would seem to be against that.
Need Mercedes parts ?
Are we talking plant or animal? I was under the impression that ocean stromatolites were first.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Darwinism certainly isn't science. Darwin was one fella, whose theories very significantly influenced a scientific discipline known as Biology. I think that the term "Darwinism" is used widely in only two instances: 1) In natural language, when people refer to something/someone stupid that will probably disappear soon due to obvious reasons (see Darwin Awards). 2) By religious people who call evolution theory Darwinism in order to make it appear somehow separate from biology (They know how stupid it'd sound to say "The prevailing theories in Biology are bogus, thus the discipline of Biology is pretty much bogus" so they instead say "Darwinism is jut replacing JESUS with this DARWIN prophet. We can totally refute that without refuting biology!").
Q: You see this? This is you. I'm serious! Right here, life is about to form on this planet for the very first time. A group of amino acids are about to combine to form the first protein - the building blocks... ...of what you call "life". Strange, isn't it? Everything you know, your entire civilization, it all begins right here in this little pond of goo. Appropriate somehow, isn't it? Too bad you didn't bring your microscope; it's really quite fascinating. Oh, look! There they go. The amino acids are moving closer and closer, and closer. Ooh! Nothing happened. See what you've done?
[chuckles]
Q:
There is no "ideal" condition for the spontaneous generation of life because there is no situation where mere rules can separate laevo-rotary from dextra-rotary amino acids. Randomness = death.
Cranky educator.
Listen, strange chemicals lyin' in ponds distributin' ions is no basis for a system of life. Supreme biological diversity derives from a mandate from the creator, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!
Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
I'd tell a UDP joke, but you may not get it. I'd tell a TCP joke, but I'd have to keep repeating it until you got it.
You would think extremely turbulent conditions would be necessary for the emergence of life. Thus, it seems likely to me that life emerged near black hole accretion disks, where the black hole was part of a binary star system and its partner went supernova. That would seem to be the ideal condition for the formation of life. All the elements and turbulent conditions you need right there.
Hey, give me $12,000,000 in funding and I'll have an answer for you in 10 years: Which was first, life or land? :>
"The study hinges on the observation that the composition of the cytoplasm of modern cells is very different to that of seawater." Seawater now or seawater 4 billyun years ago?
Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, or trolling or whatever, BUT...
The Big Bang Theory (a theory of how the universe in its present state came into being) is not the same as the theory of abiogenesis (the theory of life arising from non-living matter)
Neither the Big Bang theory nor abiogenesis have anything do with the theory of evolution, as evolution has nothing to do with how life or the universe got started. It simply details how life develops once it exists. That you confuse these three theories, and apparently think that they are all the same theory, indicates to me that you really don't understand any of them.
The story of Darwin recanting his theory on his deathbed is false, and was made up by someone who was not even in the room when he passed away. Even if that story were true, that would be no reason to discard the theory, as evidence for it comes from many different sources, and not just from Charles Darwin. He was a scientist, not a prophet.
You don't know that God created man, in his image or not. Assuming there is a God, we could be an unintended by-product of the initial creation of the universe. You simply don't know, and can't know. That it says so in the Bible isn't enough. The contents Bible can't be proven to be true by it simply stating that it's true in those same contents.
I have no problem with you believing whatever you want if it makes you happy. Don't expect me to buy into it as well, though. I certainly don't expect you to believe all the things that I believe, and that includes evolution. It's just a pity that you can't hold on to your faith AND accept that there may be things that the Bible doesn't cover, and that evolution may be one of them. You might lead a happier life that way.
psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo
I like to know where they determined that there was no dry land then? They weren't living then so where do the writer get the presumption from?
for instance, a lack of land 4 billion years ago would have made it difficult for life to start in such pools."
Unless, of course, land wasn't lacking.
There are two problems with this assertion. First, the near complete absence of any evidence. The oldest unmodified rock is a bit over 3 billion years old. And some heavily modified rock nears four billion years in age. I imagine the most definitive evidence out there would be four billion year old meteors on the Moon (and perhaps other bodies in the Solar System) from Earth. We haven't gotten those yet.
Second, the real problem with this assertion of no land is the idea that the Earth's surface would be level enough that water would cover it all. My take is that continental drift would be operating even back then (though perhaps just starting to push things around). And there would be volcanoes which contribute to an uneven surface. And that gets us to the main point here, namely, that water pools in the lowest places and there probably wasn't all that much of it around then (else there'd be a lot more around now). So I think it's unreasonable to assert that there wouldn't be land, the highest parts of Earth.
Who says there was no land 4Billion years ago? I'm standing near some of that age right now.
The study hinges on the observation that the composition of the cytoplasm of modern cells is very different to that of seawater.
I always thought this was the whole point.
In animals, the inside our cells has high levels of potassium and low levels of sodium. Outside the cells the sodium concentration is higher (~140mmol/L) and potassium lower (~4mmol/L); there is also an electronegativity difference (i.e. stick a tiny probe inside and one outside the cell membrane and you'll see a voltage). It is like this because of the Na K ATPase pump. The difference between the two concentrations acts as a source of potential energy for other things the cell does. The obvious examples are neurons and muscle cells, but the kidneys, liver, and every other cell uses this concentration gradient.
I imagine that in a primordial soup, the simple lipid micelle that formed with pieces of self-catalysing RNA would use an ion gradient to accomplish reproduction and survival. And when this eventually evolved into a early cell we'd see that difference between cytoplasm and the sea persisting.
Lack of land is not a problem... There is no evidence for life on earth 4 Billion years ago. Earliest evidence of life is 2.5 BYA.