Did Life on Earth Emerge from Non-organic Matter? (Today's Most Popular)

How did life on Earth begin? An giant step toward solving this puzzle was taken in the 1980's with the  Nobel Prize–winning discovery by Tom Cech and Sidney Altman that RNA, the sister molecule of DNA, can catalyze certain chemical reactions inside cells, a job previously thought to be the exclusive domain of proteins. Until their discovery, RNA was thought to have just one function: storing the genetic information cells need to build proteins.

This new revelation about RNA's dual role suggested to some scientists, including Harvard's Jack Szostak, that RNA likely existed long before DNA or proteins because it might be able to catalyze its own reproduction. Their discovery made it easier to think about how life began, Szostak says. "They inspired me to try to think of ways to make RNAs in the lab that could catalyze their own replication."

Szostak and his team is working to recreate a hypothetical model of this process in the laboratory. By building simple cell-like structures in a test tube, they are attempting to establish a plausible path that led primitive cells to emerge from simple chemicals. Ultimately, Szostak hopes to answer fundamental questions about evolution's earliest steps.

Building on earlier work by other scientists, Szostak and colleagues began experimenting with a clay mixture common on early Earth called montmorillonite, which was found to catalyze the chemical reactions needed to make RNA.

So, did life originally spring from clay as some creation myths assert? Not necessarily, but it does provide a possible mechanism for explaining how life initially arose from nonliving molecules. Szostak's team at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Massachusetts General Hospital showed that the presence of clay aids naturally occurring reactions that result in the formation of fatty sacks called vesicles, similar to what scientists expect the first living cells to have looked like. Further, the clay helps RNA form. The RNA can stick to the clay and move with it into the vesicles. This provides a method for RNA's critical genetic information to move inside a primitive cell.

"It's exciting because we know that a particular clay mineral helps with the assembly of RNA," Szostak said. "There certainly would have been lots of environments on early Earth with clay minerals. It's something that forms relatively easily as rocks weather."

The researchers also found that the clay expedited the process by which fatty acids form vesicles that could serve as cell membranes. When RNA and fatty acids were mixed with the montmorillonite, the clay seemed to help transport the RNA inside the vesicles, forming a cell-like structure. Szostak and his team surmised that a similar process could possibly have led to the creation of the first cell.

The Daily Galaxy via hhmi.org

Comments

[KyleGregory]

Why not just give up with all this hard work and say- GOD DID IT!

[YouMayCa11Me V]

@ KyleGregory
Because that wouldn't be science.

Does organic matter emerge from inorganic matter? I always assumed the answer to be yes, given there are no better alternative answers and matter (to my understanding) seems to have a natural drive toward complexity. Having said that, I've also always viewed the line between the "living" and "non-living" to be either blurred or non-existent all together.

Student with a degree in astrophysics in scope and philosophical lean, not a professional. My opinion is worth just that.

[Rocker]

I mean . . . we won't know the answer for quite sometime as science advances (if the system holds up, of course). But, one would think the most obvious explanation for the transition from non-living to alive would be a proper medium, the presence of the right elements, and perhaps a suitable time-frame for complex molecules to form.

I don't totally discount the theory that organic molecules may be present in objects that could impact planets where they can develop further, it seems far more likely life would form on its own in a suitable environment than careen in from the Oort cloud.

[Anthony Sebastian]

Living systems on Earth reside on the slope of an energy gradient, a flow of radiant energy from the sun and from Earth's interior. Living systems capture and utilize some of that energy flow bathing them to generate order within themselves, inevitably generating an exhaust that produces more disorder in their surroundings than the order they generated within themselves. That dissipates the energy flowing from the sources faster than would occur without the action of living systems. Whenever conditions allow it, living systems emerge from energy gradients perforce, helping to relieve the pent-up energy of the sources, as if the downhill energy flow creates its own path of least resistance toward dissipation.

[SB]

It would be a meaningless pontification ending the creation argument at "God did it" with out the proof of why He had to do it and that life isn't the results of a random set of events. Unless you feel the God-made scientific minded people on this planet need to be excluded from your religion.

[Rocker]

@KyleGregory

"Why not just give up with all this hard work and say- GOD DID IT!"

Ummm . . . lemme think. Uhhh . . . oh yeah! Because it's wrong!

The concept of god(s) was invented (probably benignly and with innocent intent) by a race of newly sentient primates in a futile attempt to explain the nature of existence.

We've been over and over this before. Just because human beings have have concocted a juvenile and self-centered explanation for the unknowable doesn't mean it's true. To think that a 140,000 year-old species has some "inside scoop" on some mythical all-mighty creator who talks to us in our minds and is simply silly.

Sheesh (again) . . .

[SB]

@ rocker
"Ummm . . . lemme think. Uhhh . . . oh yeah! Because it's wrong!"

Is that an opinion of a fact?

If you have absolute proof you may be the smartest person on this planet.

I need the answers to:
- how life started from non life
- how the reactive potential difference of cellular chemistry survived and combined in the pre-life period
- no transitional species between amphibians and reptiles
- no transitional species between reptiles and mammals
- where the "will" of life came from (self-preservation, reproduce)
Yep, as soon as you supply me the the truths you hold I will be able to you say are right and Kyle Gregory is wrong.

[WukTooJo Dean]

You have to admit that really does make a LOT of sense dude.
www.online-privacy.de.tc

[Milwaukee tools]

One of the possibilities. We could also be of alien origin (meaning the organic compounds we evolved from came from an outside source), or we could be some alien experiment. But at some point down the timeline, we had to come from non-organic matter somewhere. Especially considering atoms started with hydrogen and deuterium, and built up from there inside of stars.

[Misplit]

The concept of transitional species would mean that all evolution happened in a straight line so that, at some point, there would be a species that would be half reptile and half human. Just like I would pass my 1st cousin 5 times removed in the street without any recognition, the relationship is about shared ancestry, we would each have a shared great great great great great grandparent. We would have branched off into far separate families. Same with species except the branch happened millions of families in the past.

[Rocker]

@SB

For the love of Pete . . . the same song, the same dance. What the heck is it that you creator delusionists don't get?

YOU are making the claim YOU know the secret of everything . . . that secret being a creator, of course. You have no proof, nothing but anthropomorphic anecdotes, and apparently have invented the answer out of nothing but a belief/opinion system. Fair enough. It's a free world and a free life, so you can believe in the great pumpkin for all I care.

But, I'm NOT making a claim I KNOW any answers. Some guesses perhaps, but no answers.

So, it's up to YOU to prove to me that the god/creator exists . . . not the twisted counter-logic of me having to prove you're wrong.

Bring god over to my place for a visit and introduce him/her to me in person. Or do you, and the other 90% of people on this planet who are stuck in intellectual kindergarten actually have the creator over to lunch on a regular basis so he/she can reveal the secrets of existence over a latte?

Seriously though . . . I suspect the real reason for the god delusion is that life, death and the unknown scares the crap of of most people. So, rather than live in fear and uncertainty, why not invent the great pumpkin to make everyone feel hunky dorry?

If it works for you, have at 'er. Personally, I'd prefer not to add to the plethora of life's complexities with a comic-book fantasy. The sooner the human race moves to antitheism, the better for all.

BTW--I'm god. Prove me wrong. Or maybe you're god. If so, I apologize. Send me the proof and we'll call it a draw ;-).

[SB]

I'm not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that I knew everything, I'm flatter though.

All I'm saying is that I know that the evidence you base your opinion on it flawed (greatly). I know I don't have the answers. I also know that you don't have the answer either negating the right for you to conclude someone else is wrong.

The essence of life cannot be empirically resolved, meaning it cannot be defined in empirical terms. Until it can be, it is best to keep an open mind and not judge other peoples opinions.

The universe is far bigger than the knowledge base where you reside and make your judgements from. I learned a long, long time ago that the argument is a draw. An open mind is a good thing that leads to wisdom.

[video games]

A big possibility. Life on Earth couldn't have just begun. It could have taken thousands of years for the chemical reactions to materialize and develop into organic compounds - Us. Or we can also be of alien origin who were transported to Earth by an alien race :) :)

[Rocker]

@SB

Ahhh . . . I remember we had this same discussion elsewhere! Good to touch base again :-).

Not that my opinion is going to make anyone jump for joy, but in all sincerity, you are absolutely a wise and good person. I mean than truthfully.

As I'm sure you know from experience, in almost every creator debate things degenerate so poorly because both sides are so far apart. I have no doubt we both tire of the obstinate nature of those on the opposite sides.

But, you are among the very few I've encountered who maintains their core beliefs while not castigating others for theirs. You gracefully stand by your principles, while acknowledging that there are indeed many possibilities to the "ultimate answer." I sincerely respect you for that.

What you said:

"The universe is far bigger than the knowledge base where you reside and make your judgments from. I learned a long, long time ago that the argument is a draw."

. . . is an excellent truth to live by. And, it is indeed true. Any fair-minded person (from the most ardent anti-thiests to the most entrenched fundamentalists) should be able to conclude that literally any answer is possible. Those who do not see the size, scope and majesty of existence as a source of awe and wonder in it's own right are missing the bigger picture that is too often obscured by smaller details.

Cheers, Bro!

[SB]

It's a grand adventure to question everything! =)

[Klaatu]

What? There is no Great Pumpkin?

[Rocker]

@SB

"It's a grand adventure to question everything! =)"

Wouldn't change one single thing! It's been a great show so far . . . the best in the universe.

@Klaatu

"What? There is no Great Pumpkin?"

LOL . . . John Lennon was the Walrus. I am the Pumpkin ;-).

[SB]

Of course there was a Great Pumpkin, he is pure evil,but fear not, Homer Simpson saved us all ... wait ... maybe it was the Great Pumpkin that reined victorious. Yikes!

[Andrew]

Heya i am for the first time here. I found this board and I find It truly useful & it helped me out much. I hope to provide one thing again and aid others such as you helped me.

[Rocker]

@SB

"Of course there was a Great Pumpkin, he is pure evil,but fear not, Homer Simpson saved us all ... wait ... maybe it was the Great Pumpkin that reined victorious. Yikes!"

The GP is certainly evil. How could anything taste so good in a pie, but require you to buy equal value in whipped cream to enter his lofty realm @!#%# . . . ;-).