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.
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)
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.
Sure. So far we (seem) to have only one data point for conditions that allow for biological activity. We can postulate many others but until we get probes on Mars, Arcturus and other heavenly bodies, it's just a guess.
As, of course, is TFA. Interesting theory - that current ion concentrations within the cell more or less faithfully represent the ion concentrations of some ancient ancestor due to the inherent conservation bias found in living organisms (if it works, it works, keep it around). The big problem with that idea, IMHO, is that it can just as easily be postulated that very early life was unable to keep ion gradients within the cell (because they did not have an established, complicated cell membrane) but didn't need to because, well, because they were barely conscious pond scum and didn't need the ion gradient (or whatever) found inside modern cells because they were dumb and primitive and did nothing besides make a couple more copies of themselves. Perhaps the folding and unfolding of the primitive nucleic acid (likely RNA or something similar to it) was more tolerant to ion fluxes than the complicated machinery we have now.
Interesting however. Much better than the typical PR piece.
Thus, they may have evolved anywhere where conditions were favorable for the primordial pond scum, be it hydrothermal vents or whatnot.
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!").