CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Scientific evidence for abiogenesis?
When one cuts through all the BS, it is obvious that scientists have no idea how life began. They have nothing but some stories that they made up. That's it. They make the assumption that abiogenesis is correct simply because life exists. This is not science. It's nothing but wishful thinking. So. Where is this evidence? I must have missed it.
You mean except for the fact that we've observed it happening the in the lab... and that we've seen complexity arising from simplicity, throughout nature?
Just because you don't understand the evidence does not mean that the evidence is wrong or does not exist.
Besides if any explanation is good, you can't provide any evidence that abiogenesis isn't correct. In which case, even having the argument is pointless from your point of view.
Which begs the question why worry about it if you believe that nothing can be known about it with any certainty?
Answer me this, genius. Proteins are made from left handed amino acids. If just one is right handed, the protein will be useless. Amino acids exist in nature in equal quantities of left and and right. The chances of getting a protein with all left handed amino acids are effectively zero. Then there is the three dimensional structure of proteins, of which there are many. Proteins also require chaperones to help them achieve the correct shape. So. A protein needs a chaperone in order to exist, which needs a smaller chaperone for it to exist. proteins will also fit in one location. The one they were designed to fit. Each protein also has a genetic tag that tells it where to go. Then there is also a system that tells the cell when to stop making a certain protein. This is a two part system, in which both parts are useless without each other. Are you getting the picture yet? Do you still believe that all of this could happen without help?
The chance of these things might be very small. But it is not zero. When the possibility has billions of years in which to work then even tiny probabilities can happen.
And once they do the process starts generating ever more complexity with ever more ease. We see this with humanity for example. For hundreds of thousands of years we've been creating technology, but in the last hundred years our base of knowledge and available talent pool has enabled our knowledge to accrue at phenomenal rates.
As has been pointed out here genetic is an information system.
Check out the Infinite monkey theorem.
So all of this didn't happen randomly or without help. It happened as a result of natural selection or some ideas very similar to it.
If you look at the evolution of the eye you can see a clump of light sensitive cells developing in many separate environments in very similar ways. This is likely because the underlying rules governing biological detection and usage of light simply demand this course. Not because God is actively directing such occurances.
The chances of winning the lottery is worse than the chances of being hit by lightning, 3 times, at the same spot. Yet it is statistically possible. Statistics says that I should be able to eventually win the lottery. But I can still prove that it is impossible for me to ever win the lottery.
Do you have slightest understanding of just how complex even the simplest cell is? Even with all of the knowledge science has at its disposal, we cannot even come close to creating a self replicating organism. What makes you think that random chance can accomplish it? If you can believe that, you'll believe Anything.
Do you have slightest understanding of just how complex even the simplest cell is?
I do, do you have any idea how the cell is actually just made up of a bunch of little things.
Even with all of the knowledge science has at its disposal, we cannot even come close to creating a self replicating organism.
Do you have the slightest understanding of just how complex even the simplest self replicating organism is? :)
What makes you think that random chance can accomplish it?
The alternative is way harder to believe. Plus, it isn't random chance. That's the whole point in the experiments that I provided. All of the smaller pieces happen by chance. Given that even at the single cell level organisms have the ability to adapt and change the environment. The idea that the more advanced peptides and RNA molecules working together without a cell wall is not ridiculous.
Thought I'd offer this little tidbit of information.
Did you know that you can stop all life processes in a cell, without damaging it? Once this is done, there is no way to restart it. Now, consider this. Where did that first spark of life come from? There is a delicate balance between thousands of cellular components. If this balance is disrupted, the cell dies. How did all of these components come together and create life in the first place? It's easier to believe that God did it. ;)
Lightning created an electrical impulse that started it.
You think it is easier to believe God did it, but it is only lazier. How did God start life? You have no idea. Now we are back to square 1, but we have an impossible to explain deity.
Your reading comprehension is flaring up again. I said impossible to explain.
What makes you think that matter and energy coming into existence all by themselves is any more reasonable than God?
Because God makes matter and energy come into existence without anything there. It is the same exact statement except you need the supernatural realm as well as the natural realm.
Matter and energy come into existence coming into existence all by themselves is less of a stretch than God coming into existence all by himself, in my opinion.
Did you know that you can stop all life processes in a cell, without damaging it?
Would you care to elaborate on this little tidbit? How do you define 'life processes' and how do you define 'damage,' and what is the method used to stop all 'life processes' without causing any 'damage' in the process?
I read it in an article a few days ago. Can't find it again. If I remember correctly, they used a chemical that disrupted the cell without causing any damage.
If a chemical disrupted a cell without visibly damaging the cells structures, it's because it interfered with a chemical process in the cell- either by itself reacting with one of the reagents, serving as a catalyst for a reaction, inhibiting a reaction, or a combination thereof. In this case, the 'life processes' of a cell are essentially a massive, branching chain of chemical reactions. The chemicals normally involved in these reactions can react with (or because of, or not) unusual chemicals in the aforementioned way, in such a manner that the cell cannot reverse the reaction. It's not a 'spark of life' that's lost, in that case- it's an important link in the chain of reactions that is lost.
As an example here for both chemical interference and difficulty reversing reactions, let's look at the reaction of hydrogen and oxygen to form water:
2(H2)+O2+energy(low) -> 2(H2O) + energy(high)
It is a very exothermic reaction, releases a large amount of energy as heat in the process, and only takes a small amount of heat to start the reaction.
Reversing it, however, is far more difficult; instead of putting in a low amount of energy to release a large amount, a large amount of energy must be supplied to release a little amount. It's not nearly as simple as just exposing it to sufficient heat- the best method we've found is to supply energy in the form of an electric current that also serves to separate the polarized molecules, releasing the appropriate gas at the anode/cathode as appropriate. A cell that hypothetically could handle the reaction to form water is not likely to be able to handle reversing it.
Ignoring that for a moment, and assuming our cell converts hydrogen and oxygen to and from water as part of its basic life processes. What could interfere with that?
The normal cycle would proceed as follows:
2(H2)+O2+energy(low) -> 2(H2O) + energy(high)
2(H2O)+energy(high) -> 2(H2)+O2+energy(low)
...
Introduce some sodium into the mix, though, and...
2(H2)+O2+energy(low) -> 2(H2O) + energy(high)
2(H2O)+2Na -> 2NaOH + H2 + energy
2NaOH+H2 -> ... chain broken.
I would consider disrupting the reagents in a reaction in this or any way as damage to the cell. Perhaps the physical structures of the cells aren't directly damaged in every case, but they don't need to be- We consider rust (a chemical change) to constitute damage to iron objects, and as such this chemical cessation of 'life processes' would certainly constitute damage to the cell itself, I would think.
Mess about with this for very long and you will see reproducible complexity developing from four very simple rules.
"Any live cell with fewer than two live neighbours dies, as if caused by under-population.
Any live cell with two or three live neighbours lives on to the next generation.
Any live cell with more than three live neighbours dies, as if by overcrowding.
Any dead cell with exactly three live neighbours becomes a live cell, as if by reproduction."
This is on a grid using an algorithm. Other varieties of this type of exercise exist. In fact, such games are the subject of a whole area of Math, and so complexity has developed in another dimension, if you were, from a simple algorithm develop about forty-five years ago.
I really do urge you to check out the game site and watch what happens. If you are concerned that the game online might be rigged you can accomplish the same thing with pencil and grid paper by following the rules. It's just very slow.
I found out that he doesn't actually look at the argument you are responding to. In another debate someone called him a thumper. He started with "what is a thumper?", and I responded with "Bible Thumper". He basically called me unintelligent for that being my only argument.
All they have done is modify an existing RNA sequence which could already translate other sequences. To be able to translate itself, it would have to bind and cycle through its own pieces. Essentially, an Ouroboros.
Several years ago they had R18 which could copy 14 bases long, four years ago it was tC19Z - copied 95 bases (about half of its own length), then 2 years ago RNA that could copy lengths even longer than itself (ref), etc. etc.
His argument is a God of the gaps and the gaps are shrinking.
Your last reference about a 202 RNA copying a 206 sequence: "It's great progress, but the result still comes far short of a molecule that can copy itself."
Like I said. Ouroboros. It seems to me they are coming at this from the wrong angle. The current genetic system relies on an assembly line system. Functions are compartmentalized. How will they resolve the issue of self-replication? These experiments are all about translation length of one sequence on another.
I didn't say that it did copy itself - only that it copies sequences longer than itself. (longer than itself would by definition not be the same as itself...)
These experiments are all about translation length of one sequence on another.
Only the ones I mentioned - there are certainly other factors that they are working on (like this), etc.
I didn't say that it did copy itself - only that it copies sequences longer than itself. (longer than itself would by definition not be the same as itself...)
Like I pointed out already. You made a comment that suggested self-replication.
Self-replicating molecules created in the lab
Someone once said this to me: "And I like how you forget your own post by the time you click the submit button:"
You said that I made a comment that suggested self-replication (referring to comment 1 - thus the circle) in response to comments where I made no such claim (comments 5 and 7)
You said that I made a comment that suggested self-replication (referring to comment 1 - thus the circle) in response to comments where I made no such claim (comments 5 and 7)
After I pointed our your first error, you claimed: "Indeed. Though the principles involved are the same." (C1)
I responded with: "Not even close.
All they have done is modify an existing RNA sequence which could already translate other sequences. To be able to translate itself, it would have to bind and cycle through its own pieces. Essentially, an Ouroboros." (R1)
We have been arguing this point since then. You claimed they were the same principle without showing how. I even asked how translating longer sequences will lead to self-replication. Where have you shown they are the same principle?
In the latest comments, you linked C1 so I linked R1. Where is this circle?
Me(c5):Here is one that creates sequences longer than itself
You(c6):That's not copying itself
Me(c7):My comment 5 doesn't say that it does copy itself
You(c8):Hey, remember comment one (creating circle)
c3: "Indeed. Though the principles involved are the same."
You admit your source in c1 was misleading while claiming longer translations shares the same principle as self-replication.
This links your entire discussion on longer translations to self-replication. How is it my circle if you were the one to make the connection as support for your original erroneous comment (c1)?
If that was cleared up in c3/c5, how does it become relevant anew in c8?
I thought you were referring to actual scientific principles. I am not sure how showing progress in one scientific field relates to progress in a different field.
Lets try one of your debate tactics.
The question clearly asks for evidence regarding abiogenesis. You should create a new debate for your separate topic.
Also, how long must something be known for it to become irrelevant?
Ribosomes are relevant and studied all the time. Your claim that known ribosomes contribute scientific evidence for abiogenesis is irrelevant.
Every article you have cited is just some upgraded version of a ribosome. They have not introduced new functionality that would indicated any progress towards soup abiogenesis. Just longer and longer copies...
At least the cross-chiral translation was an interesting read.
Your claim that known ribosomes contribute scientific evidence for abiogenesis is irrelevant.
Which you then immediately rescind...
You seem to be confused about what a ribosome is. It is an essential part of cell function in modern cells. You are attributing some sort of abiogenetic function to them that does not make sense.
Which is a stage between prebiotic material and cells - thus relevant to abiogenesis.
No. Look up what a ribosome is first.
I am so tired of people on both sides of an scientific issue claiming to understand the science without putting in the effort. Go find someone else to teach you high school biology.
It is an essential part of cell function in modern cells.
Quite a spurious argument to say what it does today disproves its role in abiogenesis.
Look up what a ribosome is first.
"Ribosomes are prerequisites to all cellular life, ubiquitously conserved, with genetic roots that pre-date LUCA, and therefore entities that had to evolve prior to cellular life itself (Mushegian, 2008, Wang et al., 2009 and Fox, 2010)."
"Ribosomes are prerequisites to all cellular life, ubiquitously conserved, with genetic roots that pre-date LUCA, and therefore entities that had to evolve prior to cellular life itself (Mushegian, 2008, Wang et al., 2009 and Fox, 2010)."
The line directly preceding your quote: "We suggest that a ribosome-like entity was one of the key intermediaries between prebiotic and cellular evolution."
The first line in the abstract for your reference: "Hypothesize that ribosome was self-replicating intermediate between compositional or RNA-world and cellular life."
This was a review article proposing the idea that some early form of ribosomes could be self-replicating. No data. No date-based conclusions. Maybe you should start reading your own references before posting them. This way, you won't cite a hypothesis as scientific fact. It is clear that you do not know what a ribosome is.
You have repeatedly cited sources that contradict your point. Your just cherry pick some line that goes along with your argument because all you have done is google for evidence to support your arguments. You don't even read the entire article. You are suppose to come up with conclusions after reviewing evidence, not search for evidence to back up your conclusions.
Perhaps arrogance doesn't quite suit your own level of knowledge...
Arrogance suits me fine because I don't just google around for a tiny piece of the puzzle and make some random claim based on limited information.
You did the exact same thing with CO2 absorption spectrum. Spent 10 comments convincing you that IR absorption is only one part of the entire absorption spectrum. I am still not sure if you understand what a quantized energy state is and why it is essential to understanding every part of the spectrum.
This was a review article proposing the idea that some early form of ribosomes could be self-replicating.
Which references several other papers (I noted the 3 references for the comment I included)
You have repeatedly cited sources that contradict your point.
The article, and its references, and the other papers that cite those references, and other papers, etc. are all congruent with idea that early ribosomes played a part in abiogenesis.
This way, you won't cite a hypothesis as scientific fact.
And you said that this (not only plausible, but favored) hypothesis "does not make sense" to you. (So, at least you got something right.)
Arrogance suits me fine because I don't just google around for a tiny piece of the puzzle and make some random claim based on limited information.
Instead you make random claims based on limited information with no sources at all. (Here and in the other debate.) I wouldn't have to google it for you if you were willing/able to cure your own ignorance.
You did the exact same thing with CO2 absorption spectrum.
If, by that, you mean I provided sources which explicitly back me up contrary to your claims without any valid rebuttal from you - yes, I did do the same thing.
And here's a link back to that debate since you seem to have forgotten a reply...
I'll leave you with the same request I made there - provide your own hypothesis and relevant support.
Which references several other papers (I noted the 3 references for the comment I included)
You should probably look up what a review article is and how/why they use references.
The article, and its references, and the other papers that cite those references, and other papers, etc. are all congruent with idea that early ribosomes played a part in abiogenesis.
You cited a review article that proposed a hypothesis to support something you were claiming as fact. How are you not understanding the problem with this?
And you said that this (not only plausible, but favored) hypothesis "does not make sense" to you. (So, at least you got something right.)
Which is a stage between prebiotic material and cells - thus relevant to abiogenesis.
This is the part that doesn't make sense. The ribosome is a compartmentalized translator. It fits into an assembly line as I already pointed out. You are mis-interpreting studies like you did with the CO2 absorption spectrum. Further compartmentalization will not result in a predecessor. You should look for studies that combine an mRNA with a ribosome not souped-up ribosomes. Increased compartmentalization is a trend that shows up in higher organisms.
This is the problem with internet debates. People just google for something and paraphrase/quote the first thing they find without more background knowledge regarding the subject.
Instead you make random claims based on limited information with no sources at all. (Here and in the other debate.) I wouldn't have to google it for you if you were willing/able to cure your own ignorance.
I am lazy. There is no doubt about that. But your lack of background knowledge regarding our recent scientific debates is obvious. This is why you continue to misinterpret google results.
If, by that, you mean I provided sources which explicitly back me up contrary to your claims without any valid rebuttal from you - yes, I did do the same thing.
And here's a link back to that debate since you seem to have forgotten a reply...
I'll leave you with the same request I made there - provide your own hypothesis and relevant support.
Replied 9 hours ago according to the time stamp.
You did provide several sources. The problem was your interpretation of your sources. All you do is google for stuff, find some line that agrees with you and paste it. Without doing further research on the fundamentals, you come up with crazy interpretations.
Before I started correcting you, you were claiming that all absorption spectrum depended on dipole moments.
After some back-and-forth, that was altered to IR band only, then vibrational transitions in the IR band, and so on.
You also made a claim about 4 absorption ranges even though I pointed out quantized energy states beforehand.
Then, you even made two claims about the number of CO2 vibrational transitions in the same comment. First, you claimed it was 3. A few lines later, you claimed it was 2.
This happened because you were just scanning your google results for something that might support your uninformed conclusions and pasting whatever showed up.
"Examination of the gene content of these clusters revealed multiple associations with genes involved in the initiation of protein synthesis, transcription or other cellular processes. The lack of such associations in the universal clusters suggests that initially the ribosome evolved largely independently of other processes."
and:
"In summary, unlike those of the universal genes, the nonuniversal r-protein gene clusters contain many non-r-protein genes. If these gene clusters are regulatory groupings, then the expression of the newer r-protein genes is likely to be more strongly coordinated with other cellular processes. In particular, there is a significant increase in the amount of coordination with transcription. In addition, there is likely to be significant coordination with the initiation of protein synthesis, and to a lesser extent RNA processing and nucleotide synthesis. The overall picture suggests an evolutionary history in which the core ribosome and transcription machinery initially arose before LUCA."
something you were claiming as fact
I gave the predominant scientific theory - one that "does not make sense" to you.
The ribosome is a compartmentalized translator.
And cell walls are not required to do translation
At this point you just seem to be ignoring the obvious - abiogenesis is the evolution from the prebiotic to a cell which replicates. Whether the cell wall came before or after translation, translation still falls under abiogenesis.
You mean like you did - "The dipole moment has nothing to do with the absorption spectra" - completely false
You should look for studies that combine an mRNA with a ribosome not souped-up ribosomes.
Again - you should (try to) support your own argument - note, if mRNA combines with a ribosome, then ribosomes already exist.
This is the problem with internet debates. People just google for something and paraphrase/quote the first thing they find
Except people like you who consistently find/reference nothing.
But your lack of background knowledge regarding our recent scientific debates is obvious.
You've been wrong in both.
Replied 9 hours ago according to the time stamp.
Just looked again, no response. (You may need to click "Show All Replies")
My post starts:
You are misinterpreting your sources.
I'll quote them directly.
...
I am lazy. There is no doubt about that.
See - we can agree.
The problem was your interpretation of your sources.
Nope.
All you do is google for stuff
I've posted on global warming for years, and you can tell by the way I phrased my initial post that I knew exactly what I was saying though I kept it simple because it was not likely that johnkokulak knew. When people such as you challenge my assertion, I back it up - notice that you haven't yet.
that was altered to IR band only
As I said there - Global warming gasses by definition are only concerned with the IR band (energy that would otherwise escape to space)
vibrational transitions in the IR band
Again, through a shift in the dipole moment.
You also made a claim about 4 absorption ranges and First, you claimed it was 3. A few lines later, you claimed it was 2.
No, I said "There are four vibration modes for linear molecules, only one is symmetrical." The symmetrical one is not IR Active. Additionally the two bend modes are degenerate - leaving only two affected IR bands. If you knew what you were talking about you would either have already known that or at least would have been able to understand it or gather that from the supplied sources. Unfortunately you still didn't/don't.
The GW discussion should continue over there (if you can find it.)
I gave the predominant scientific theory - one that "does not make sense" to you.
This is a review article. It provided a possible interpretation of previous data. It is just a hypothesis. The paper even says this is just one interpretation. This is not the predominant theory.
And cell walls are not required to do translation
At this point you just seem to be ignoring the obvious - abiogenesis is the evolution from the prebiotic to a cell which replicates. Whether the cell wall came before or after translation, translation still falls under abiogenesis.
Compartmentalized refers to separation of function, not just cell walls. Cell walls do separate reactions, but separation of function just means an assembly line configuration. Translation currently follows transcription. This is compartmentalization. Read my comment again.
You mean like you did - "The dipole moment has nothing to do with the absorption spectra" - completely false
It is the transition dipole moment. Dipole moment refers to the classical interpretation taught in basic chemistry. It does not explain transition states which accounts for measured IR wavelengths.
Again - you should (try to) support your own argument - note, if mRNA combines with a ribosome, then ribosomes already exist.
Not really. The current theory is that multi-cellular organisms evolved to compartmentalize function because it is more "efficient" so it had a better chance for survival.
No, I said "There are four vibration modes for linear molecules, only one is symmetrical." The symmetrical one is not IR Active. Additionally the two bend modes are degenerate - leaving only two affected IR bands. If you knew what you were talking about you would either have already known that or at least would have been able to understand it or gather that from the supplied sources. Unfortunately you still didn't/don't.
Look at your quotes again. One claims two, the other claims three. Either you didn't even bother reading your own quotes or you just didn't notice. The two notes the degenerative bonds, the three doesn't. You are just mashing all the sources together.
EDIT:
I've posted on global warming for years, and you can tell by the way I phrased my initial post that I knew exactly what I was saying though I kept it simple because it was not likely that johnkokulak knew. When people such as you challenge my assertion, I back it up - notice that you haven't yet.
Posting about stuff online for years does not mean you understand the science. You just mashed together several random questionable sources together. Even the peer review ones you cite turn out to be review articles, but somehow you think they represent the current "predominant scientific theory".
Just go read a scientific wiki about quantum states. I already mentioned it fairly early in the global warming debate. The limit to absorption comes from the gaps between states. The wave function must resolve to those gaps.
If you expect someone to have to provide a source for a well-known experiment that took place then you really are making yourself seem like a total mong.
The original Miller-Urey experiment was flawed. Used gases that did not exist in early Earth.
Never heard of 1995 Miller experiment. Interested in learning about it. The only thing I could find was this which he co-authored basically saying RNA stability at high temperatures makes the soup model unlikely.
Miller's student, Jeffrey Bada, actually re-did the experiment with different parameters. With the correct gases and iron/carbonate to neutralize the acidity caused by the process, amino acids were detected.
The original Miller-Urey experiment was flawed. Used gases that did not exist in early Earth.
But, the concept of abiogenesis was still demonstrated.
Never heard of 1995 Miller experiment. Interested in learning about it. The only thing I could find was this which he co-authored basically saying RNA stability at high temperatures makes the soup model unlikely.
There is a range of temperatures that might have worked. 85 - 99
Miller's student, Jeffrey Bada, actually re-did the experiment with different parameters. With the correct gases and iron/carbonate to neutralize the acidity caused by the process, amino acids were detected.
That's something, right?
I am just trying to point out that there have been experiments.
Well, the crappiness of his argument doesn't actually substantiate any of the current results. I am not saying it is not possible, just that the science is not as far long as some people might think.
The purpose is to show how life started on Earth. Even for panspermia, you still have to demonstrate how life got on Earth, not just that life can come from non-life. Proving the possibility for abiogenesis without reference to Earth would a great discovery, but it would not answer the actual question of how life started on Earth.
Me - abiogenesis did not need to start (inorganic to organic) on Earth for life to arise on Earth; it could start elsewhere (Mars, asteroids, etc) and have subsequently been brought to Earth - still a valid path for abiogenesis.
abiogenesis did not need to start (inorganic to organic) on Earth for life to arise on Earth; it could start elsewhere (Mars, asteroids, etc) and have subsequently been brought to Earth - still a valid path for abiogenesis.
This is panspermia which I actually addressed in a previous comment.
I hope so. It would be hilarious if these are the same person. Diogenese repeated what FromWithin was saying and FromWithin agreed with him and said he has been saying that all along.
I would say he is much worse. I don't think even FromWithin would say he wants human testing to be performed on liberals. But I would be surprised if they were not the same person. They are probably both the Christian troll Jc41218.
Some good points have been made so far in this Debate:
Yes--up until fairly recently a lot of Abio-genesis proponents thought the Miller_Urey experiment back in the 50s actually showed a fair amount of success. And conventional thinking told us Biologists that we would one day improve upon that work, and actually create rNA or even DNA in lab settings which mimicked the atmospheric and oceanic conditions on Earth some 3.5 BYA.
But, sadly we have not. Not even close, really. So far we have not been able to create anything more than amino acids, which are the pre-cursors, the building blocks of proteins. Somebody mentioned Bada's work. I personally know Jeff. He has been little more successful in this work than his mentor, Dr. Miller.
And it is also true that the veracity of the Miller-Urey experiment has been called into high question now, as we are pretty sure that the botched the atmospheric gas composition in their work. Insofar as matching it accurately to what it should have been like some 3.5 BYA.
So....we have some new players on the field for our ideas on Abiogenesis. Two main ones I like: Panspermia--which is you realize the Universe is all but certainly teeming with Life, makes some good sense. And....the second idea being that deep-sea geo-thermal vents were vital in creating microbial life in the Primordial Soup.
We think it all began at the bottom. Down low. IN those undersea rocks and that hot water. Perfect conditions for creating life, right? Like nice little liquid cocoons.
In that spirit....check out this excerpt from an Article on Abiogenesis in Nature Magazine............
Rocks, water and hot alkaline fluid rich in hydrogen gas spewing out of deep-sea vents: this recipe for life has been championed for years by a small group of scientists. Now two of them have fleshed out the detail on how the first cells might have evolved in these vents, and escaped their deep sea lair.
Nick Lane at University College London and Bill Martin at the University of Düsseldorf in Germany think the answer to how life emerged lies in the origin of cellular ion pumps, proteins that regulate the flow of ions across the cell's membrane, the barrier that separates it from the outside world. Their hypothesis is published today in Cell.
Life in the rocks
In all cells today, an enzyme called ATP synthase uses the energy from the flow of ions across membranes to produce the universal energy-storage molecule ATP. This essential process depends in turn on ion-pumping proteins that generate these gradients. But this creates a chicken-and-egg problem: cells store energy by means of proteins that make ion gradients, but it takes energy to make the proteins in the first place.
Lane and Martin argue1 that hydrogen-saturated alkaline water meeting acidic oceanic water at underwater vents would produce a natural proton gradient across thin mineral 'walls' in rocks that are rich in catalytic iron–sulphur minerals. This set-up could create the right conditions for converting carbon dioxide and hydrogen into organic carbon-containing molecules, which can then react with each other to form the building blocks of life such as nucleotides and amino acids.
The rocks of deep-sea thermal vents contain labyrinths of these tiny thin-walled pores, which could have acted as 'proto-cells', both producing a proton gradient and concentrating the simple organic molecules formed, thus enabling them eventually to generate complex proteins and the nucleic acid RNA. These proto-cells were the first life-forms, claim Lane and Martin.
It is assumed that the rocky proto-cells would initially be lined with leaky organic membranes. If the cells were to escape the vents and become free-living in the ocean, these membranes would have to be sealed. But sealing the membrane would cut off natural proton gradients, because although an ATP synthase would let protons into the cell, there would be nothing to pump them out, and the concentration of protons on each side of the membrane would rapidly equalize. Without an ion gradient “they would lose power,” says Lane.
Proteins that pump protons out of the cell would solve the problem, but there would have been no pressure for such proteins to evolve until after the membranes were closed. In which case, “They would have had to evolve a proton pumping system in no time, which is impossible,” says Lane.
Modern microbes
Lane and Martin think that proto-cells escaped this dilemma because they evolved a sodium-proton antiporter — a simple protein that uses the influx of protons to pump sodium ions out of the cell. As the proto-cell membranes started closing up, they became impermeable to the large sodium ions before the smaller protons. This would have provided advantages to cells that evolved a sodium-pumping protein, while they could still rely on the vents’ natural proton gradients to generate energy. The antiporters created sodium gradients as well, and when the membrane closed up completely, the cells could run on the sodium gradient, and be free to leave the vent.
Lane and Martin drew inspiration for their hypothesis from bacteria and archaea that live in these extreme environments today. “Their biochemistry seems to emerge seamlessly from the conditions in vents,” says Lane. These microbes use iron–sulphur-containing proteins to convert hydrogen and carbon dioxide into organic molecules. They rely on sodium–proton antiporters to generate ion gradients, and their membrane proteins, such as the ATP synthase, are compatible with gradients of sodium ions or protons.
Wolfgang Nitschke, a biochemist at the French National Center for Scientific Research in Marseille, praises the duo for using knowledge of modern microbes to produce detailed scenarios for the origin of life. “In stark contrast to basically all other origin-of-life hypotheses, research in the framework of the alkaline-vent scenario is empirical,” he says. “It is an outstanding paper.”
