Origin of Life: Hypothesis Traces First Protocells to Rock

[Skwim]

Although the origin of life is not an evolution/creationism issue, because many creationists like to make it one, I thought this forum would be a better place than the Science and Technology forum to present the following:

Dec. 20, 2012 — A coherent pathway -- which starts from no more than rocks, water and carbon dioxide and leads to the emergence of the strange bio-energetic properties of living cells -- has been traced for the first time in a major hypothesis paper in Cell this week
​

*SNIP*

Humans consume more than a kilogram (more than 700 litres) of oxygen every day, exhaling it as carbon dioxide. The simplest cells, growing from the reaction of hydrogen with carbon dioxide, produce about 40 times as much waste product from their respiration as organic carbon (by mass). In all these cases, the energy derived from respiration is stored in the form of ion gradients over membranes.

This strange trait is as universal to life as the genetic code itself. Lane and Martin show that bacteria capable of growing on no more than hydrogen and carbon dioxide are remarkably similar in the details of their carbon and energy metabolism to the far-from-equilibrium chemistry occurring in a particular type of deep-sea hydrothermal vent, known as alkaline hydrothermal vents.

Based on measured values, they calculate that natural proton gradients, acting across thin semi-conducting iron-sulfur mineral walls, could have driven the assimilation of organic carbon, giving rise to protocells within the microporous labyrinth of these vents.
​

*SNIP*

For the first time, says Lane, "It is possible to trace a coherent pathway leading from no more than rocks, water and carbon dioxide to the strange bioenergetic properties of all cells living today.
source
​

Thoughts?

 

[Sunstone]

Although the origin of life is not an evolution/creationism issue, because many creationists like to make it one, I thought this forum would be a better place than the Science and Technology forum to present the following:

Dec. 20, 2012 — A coherent pathway -- which starts from no more than rocks, water and carbon dioxide and leads to the emergence of the strange bio-energetic properties of living cells -- has been traced for the first time in a major hypothesis paper in Cell this week
​

*SNIP*

Humans consume more than a kilogram (more than 700 litres) of oxygen every day, exhaling it as carbon dioxide. The simplest cells, growing from the reaction of hydrogen with carbon dioxide, produce about 40 times as much waste product from their respiration as organic carbon (by mass). In all these cases, the energy derived from respiration is stored in the form of ion gradients over membranes.

This strange trait is as universal to life as the genetic code itself. Lane and Martin show that bacteria capable of growing on no more than hydrogen and carbon dioxide are remarkably similar in the details of their carbon and energy metabolism to the far-from-equilibrium chemistry occurring in a particular type of deep-sea hydrothermal vent, known as alkaline hydrothermal vents.

Based on measured values, they calculate that natural proton gradients, acting across thin semi-conducting iron-sulfur mineral walls, could have driven the assimilation of organic carbon, giving rise to protocells within the microporous labyrinth of these vents.
​

*SNIP*

For the first time, says Lane, "It is possible to trace a coherent pathway leading from no more than rocks, water and carbon dioxide to the strange bioenergetic properties of all cells living today.
source
​

Thoughts?

Mr Spinkles! Painted Wolf! Help! What does it mean?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

This is quite interesting. I think it gives us a clue, and a really good one at that, how life came from non-life. All it takes is the right elements combining at the right time for it to happen. Given the amount of time it took, it's not only possible, but highly probable, that it happened this way.

 

[gnostic]

To dyanaprajna2011:

I believed that you wanted to use the word "possible", not "impossible" in your post.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

To dyanaprajna2011:

I believed that you wanted to use the word "possible", not "impossible" in your post.

Yeah, you're right. It's been fixed. Thank you.

 

[Willamena]

I always knew "You rock!" is more than just an expression.

 

[lunamoth]

Thanks for pointing this one out. I read a similar, less complete hypothesis in NewScientist a couple of years ago.

The line between life and non-life is quite indistinct. While the theory of evolution and the hypotheses of abiogenesis are not the same, they both involve processes of self-replication, variation, and selection. I have always felt that too big a deal is being made by some in the evolution-creation debate about how the theory of evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. It's as if one is saying "no supernatural entities allowed after life formed, but before that all bets are off." Seems rather weak and self-refuting.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Thanks for pointing this one out. I read a similar, less complete hypothesis in NewScientist a couple of years ago.

The line between life and non-life is quite indistinct. While the theory of evolution and the hypotheses of abiogenesis are not the same, they both involve processes of self-replication, variation, and selection. I have always felt that too big a deal is being made by some in the evolution-creation debate about how the theory of evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. It's as if one is saying "no supernatural entities allowed after life formed, but before that all bets are off." Seems rather weak and self-refuting.

They're both part of biology, true, and I think you may have a point, but you have to remember, to creationists, the source and sustainer is all one superhuman being, while science makes distinctions between different disciplines and specialties. I think the distinction between evolution and abiogenesis needs to be made, and stressed, but you may be right in that sometimes that distinction is taken a bit too far.

 

[gnostic]

Thanks for pointing this one out. I read a similar, less complete hypothesis in NewScientist a couple of years ago.

The line between life and non-life is quite indistinct. While the theory of evolution and the hypotheses of abiogenesis are not the same, they both involve processes of self-replication, variation, and selection. I have always felt that too big a deal is being made by some in the evolution-creation debate about how the theory of evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. It's as if one is saying "no supernatural entities allowed after life formed, but before that all bets are off." Seems rather weak and self-refuting.

Every single field in science, each have their own theory, their own knowledge, methodology. And each field has a specific scope or limit to its knowledge. And despite evolution and abiogenesis both falls under the broad umbrella of branch of biology, there are distinction and boundary between the 2 fields, which should be recognized.

Evolution doesn't deal with how life was first formed from inorganic (or non-life substances) into organic (life), hence it is not about origin of (first) life. And that boundary or scope should be recognized.

Often when creationists speak out against evolution, when they are actually talking about abiogenesis or the scientific hypothesis on the origin of life; this speaks volume of the creationists' ignorance and misunderstanding the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution.

When I was younger and studying civil engineering (about 20 years ago), I realized that we shared some things in common with those who were studying mechanical engineering. A lot of physics and maths used in both civil and mechanical courses were more or less the same. When getting the degree, both fall under the Bachelor of Applied Science. And when it comes to design, we both used the same tools (eg drafting pens, drafting machine or AutoCAD software) when drawing or modelling, even though what we were actually drawing or modelling were quite different.

My point is that though, there may be something in common between evolution and abiogenesis, they should be treated differently.

 

[idav]

Thanks for pointing this one out. I read a similar, less complete hypothesis in NewScientist a couple of years ago.

The line between life and non-life is quite indistinct. While the theory of evolution and the hypotheses of abiogenesis are not the same, they both involve processes of self-replication, variation, and selection. I have always felt that too big a deal is being made by some in the evolution-creation debate about how the theory of evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. It's as if one is saying "no supernatural entities allowed after life formed, but before that all bets are off." Seems rather weak and self-refuting.

Evolution is just change. Your talking about a difference between chemical evolution and biological evolution. While life does use chemistry, chemistry isn't exclusive to life.

Its a great article. The emergence shows that life and non-life aren't as different as we like to think.

 

[Ouroboros]

Dang! Hovind was right. Evolution does teach life came from rocks!!! LOL

And when it comes to the separation of church and state, sorry, I mean evolution and abiogenesis, even if they both talk about change, it's two different systems. Evolution is about change in biological systems (DNA, etc), while abiogenesis is more biochemistry. It's an overlap, like pre-calculus takes you from algebra and trig into calculus, neither here nor there.

Abiogenesis is very important for the theory of evolution, but only in the sense of anchor the beginning to physics/chemistry.

No one asks how the printing press was invented in Macro-Economics, even though it was a major breakthrough for printing money...

 

[Iti oj]

I read about a hypothesis with self replicateing crystals leading to organic life. Does not sound so far fetched.now.

 

[dust1n]

IF I only knew chemistry.

 

[Ouroboros]

IF I only knew chemistry.

Yeah. You would have more girlfriends if you did... Just kiddin'

Chemistry was never my strong subject in school. My dad was a chemist, and very good one. I inherited his scientific mindset, but not that part.

Oh, but I realized, I do brew beer and cook good food and candy, so maybe the chemistry skills only transfered there?

 

[painted wolf]

Mr Spinkles! Painted Wolf! Help! What does it mean?

Ok... so from what I'm gathering from the article, what they have found is how the first protocells would bring in energy.

So, every cell needs to bring energy inside itself from the outside world... Modern cells have several ways of doing this some of which spend energy to produce more energy. But there is a way to do it that doesn't spend any energy at all... and that is through an ion gradient.

This is very important when you don't have enzymes that can reduce the energy needs of chemical reactions.

Basically what these guys have shown is that the kinds of ion gradients that would be needed in the earliest protocells are capable of forming naturally under the right conditions... and that in this case the chemistry behind life is capable of getting started before life arrives.

They found a way for an essentially self-sustaining chemical reaction to form naturally and how they could be incorporated into the first protocells.

I hope that's helpful.

wa:do

 

[dust1n]

Yeah. You would have more girlfriends if you did... Just kiddin'

Chemistry was never my strong subject in school. My dad was a chemist, and very good one. I inherited his scientific mindset, but not that part.

Oh, but I realized, I do brew beer and cook good food and candy, so maybe the chemistry skills only transfered there?

Not even that could help in the gf department.


Chemistry is just straight up rigid and tough. You really got to love miniature details in science to be a chemist (and some people really do).

 

[dust1n]

Ok... so from what I'm gathering from the article, what they have found is how the first protocells would bring in energy.

So, every cell needs to bring energy inside itself from the outside world... Modern cells have several ways of doing this some of which spend energy to produce more energy. But there is a way to do it that doesn't spend any energy at all... and that is through an ion gradient.

This is very important when you don't have enzymes that can reduce the energy needs of chemical reactions.

Basically what these guys have shown is that the kinds of ion gradients that would be needed in the earliest protocells are capable of forming naturally under the right conditions... and that in this case the chemistry behind life is capable of getting started before life arrives.

They found a way for an essentially self-sustaining chemical reaction to form naturally and how they could be incorporated into the first protocells.

I hope that's helpful.

wa:do

I figured it was something along these lines, but do you think you could explain the ion gradient anymore? How exactly is energy brought in a cell without expending any?

 

[painted wolf]

I figured it was something along these lines, but do you think you could explain the ion gradient anymore? How exactly is energy brought in a cell without expending any?

I can try. It's not my area of expertise, so forgive me if it's not very good.

The simplest ion gradent is a passive system that uses diffusion to draw in ions of particular atoms... such as K+ (potassium). Proteins in the cell membrane have open channels that are shaped in such a way that single atoms of a particular ion can pass through. Potassium is a larger atom than sodium for example.
It also allows for faster movement across the cell wall than diffusion.

This changes the electrical charge of the cell. And thus provides energy. Since all energy is, in a chemical sense, is the build up of ions.

It's not a lot of energy by modern Eukaryote standards, and it doesn't let you build up higher concentrations than your surroundings, but it would probably be just fine for the first cells.

Modern cells have several different ion channels that can actively move ions based on the cells requirements at any given time.

wa:do

 

[Orias]

Mr Spinkles! Painted Wolf! Help! What does it mean?

A rock carried water to our rock.

 

[painted wolf]

A rock carried water to our rock.

we are all stardust...

ultimately we are just atoms trying to understand atoms.

wa:do