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.
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.
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
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)
Life began in skin care products? Bizarre.
/ducks
Discussion System prefs link: http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=editcomm
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.
You will be getting to the point of this at some point in time, won't you?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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 ?
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!").
"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