E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Life may have gotten started in hydrothermal vents where acidic seawater met with bitter alkaline fluid from the Earth's crust.
By Tia Ghose
LiveScience
A new theory proposes the primordial life-forms that gave rise to all life on Earth left deep-sea vents because of their "invention" of a tiny pump. These primitive cellular pumps would have powered life-giving chemical reactions.
The idea, detailed Dec. 20 in the journal Cell, could help explain two mysteries of life's early origin: How did the earliest proto-cells power chemical reactions to make the organic building blocks of life; and how did they leave hydrothermal vents to colonize early Earth's oceans?
Authors of the new theory argue the environmental conditions in porous hydrothermal vents — where heated, mineral-laden seawater spews from cracks in the ocean crust — created a gradient in positively charged protons that served as a "battery" to fuel the creation of organic molecules and proto-cells.
Later, primitive cellular pumps gradually evolved the ability to use a different type of gradient — the difference in sodium particles inside and outside the cell — as a battery to power the construction of complex molecules like proteins. And, voilà, the proto-cells could leave the deep-sea hydrothermal vents. [ Image Gallery: Unique Life at Deep-Sea Vents ]
"A coupling of proton gradients and sodium gradients may have played a major role in the origin of life. This is really cool, novel stuff," Jan Amend, a researcher at the University of Southern California, who was not involved in the study, wrote in an email to LiveScience. The study reflects the increasingly popular idea that a simple, everyday source of power, not a rare occurrence like a lightning strike, could have provided the power to initially create life, he said.
Deep-sea start
Many scientists think life got its start around 3.7 billion years ago in deep-sea hydrothermal vents. But figuring out just how complex, carbon-based life formed in that primordial stew has been tricky.
Somehow, the precursors of life harnessed carbon dioxide and hydrogen available in those primitive conditions to create the building blocks of life, such as amino acids and nucleotides (building blocks of DNA). But those chemical reactions require a power source, said study co-author Nick Lane, a researcher at the University College London.
Now, Lane and William Martin of the Institute of Molecular Evolution at the Heinrich Heine University in Germany propose that the rocky mineral walls in ocean-floor vents could have provided the means.
The theory goes: At the time of life's origin, the early ocean was acidic and filled with positively charged protons, while the deep-sea vents spewed out bitter alkaline fluid, which is rich in negatively charged hydroxide ions, Lane told LiveScience.
The vents created furrowed rocky, iron- and sulfur-rich walls full of tiny pores that separated the warm alkaline vent fluid from the cooler, acidic seawater. The interface between the two created a natural charge gradient.
"It's a little bit like a battery," Lane told LiveScience.
That battery then powered the chemical transformation of carbon dioxide and hydrogen into simple carbon-based molecules such as amino acids or proteins. Eventually that gradient drove the creation of cellular membranes, complicated proteins and ribonucleic acid (RNA), a molecule similar to DNA.
Leaving the vents
At that point, primitive cells used the thin, serpentine walls of the vent to corral the new carbon-based molecules together into precursors of cells and used the charge gradient in the environment to power the building of more complex organic chemicals.
But in order to leave the vent, primitive cells would have needed some way to carry a power-producing gradient with them — think battery pack. To solve that problem, the team looked at existing archaea bacteria in deep-sea vents.
Those primeval life-forms use a simple type of cellular pump that pushes sodium out of the cell while pulling positively charged protons in. The team proposed that a precursor to that cellular pump evolved in the membranes of the proto-cells.
The membrane started out very leaky, but over time, the membranes would have slowly closed, preventing much larger sodium particles from leaving the cell while smaller protons could still slip through. That enabled the proto-cells to still use the existing power-source in the environment — the charge gradient — while gradually evolving an independent way of getting power.
Eventually, when the pores closed completely, the primitive cells would have had a sodium pump that could power their cellular reactions, enabling more complex life to form. They could then leave their birthplace.
Testing the idea, however, will be tricky, Amend told LiveScience. "Mimicking natural conditions in the lab is a lot more difficult than it sounds."
Follow LiveScience on Twitter @livescience. We're also on Facebook and Google+.
Leave a Comment:
Makes sense.
Somehow, the precursors of life harnessed carbon dioxide and hydrogen available in those primitive conditions to create the building blocks of life
Somehow ancient aliens came here and left a few behind to populate this world
Somehow God decided this was a good place to create mankind and the animals, which haven't changed (evolved one iota since time began) monkeys are still monkeys, alligators are still alligators, and so on.
Get a few things straight only a very small percentage of Christians believe the earth is only 6K old, and an even fewer amount have a problem with science.
The big bang and now the big vent and pump. AAAmazzin.
This is a plausible theory for the origin of a simple electrochemical gradient, and laboratory experiments have demonstrated that amino acids can be formed under conditions that were likely present at the beginning of the Earth, but it's a huge leap from these simple molecules to nucleic acids that control the production of large complex proteins assembled into living organisms controlled by a neural network (i.e. brain). The more we learn about the incredible complexity of living systems, the more it seems unlikely to me that they would arise spontaneously, even over billions of years.
By the way, I was a biology major in college and my predilection is for a scientific explanation for the origin of life.
Indeed there are many things that the scientific community does not know. This lack of knowledge lends no credibility to the creation myth of any religion.
The more we learn about the incredible complexity of living systems, the more it seems unlikely to me that they would be created by an EVEN MORE complex entity like a God or something. Starting off extremely simple and evolving into the complex makes sense. Popping into being fully complex, conscious, and aware to populate a universe with complex creatures? How much more unlikely is THAT scenario than the one proposed in this article.
dont beleve these lyes. the only creater is the creater himself our god. god is real. it says so in the bible written by jebus cris. now if youl exguse me i need to plan on killing any living bein that dont believe in god and hour lourd and savor jebus cris.
the earf is only 6000 years old to. prayse jebus! he dye for hour sins!
lmao.. but I am not laughing at your post.. rather your obvious lack of education of what you are attempting to talk about.
Does anyone ever wonder why new types of life forms and new DNA combinations are not forming, or why evolution is no longer producing new species? Mutatioins are happening, that I will admit, but not new ones. If someone researches ALL the scientific papers out there, there is as much written that disproves evolution and primordial ooze as what proves it. Usually people decide what they want to believe, and then find the scientific papers to support what they believe. Very rarely do I see someone do all sides of research.
Believe what you want, but please research both sides as if you believe that side and you will find lots of information out there.
Shari,
Evolution IS producing new species. Remember, we are dealing with geologic timeframes.
As an example, homo sapiens is a new species. And, as another example, another branch of the tree.....Neanderthal died out.
Look, if evolution scares you, just consider theistic evolution. Evolution happened, but some God started it.
Steve, 9kman joking, read again. Oh yea funny, no? Keeping this short, easier to follow.
Shari,
The emergence of antobiotic-resistant bacteria is a perfect example of evolutionary processes occurring within your lifetime. There may be many "scientific papers" but there's only data in support of evolution. If you have reproducible data disproving evolution, publish it and claim your Nobel Prize and fame.
Obvious troll is obvious. Still, you were able to get these guys. Well played sir . . . well played.
If you haven't realized so far, he's not being serious.
What is truly sad is we waste money on this stuff. Wild theories.
no, the really and truly sad thing is that people believe all the answers are in their little magic book, so we shouldn't even try.
not to mention the incredible waste of time, effort and money trying to convince others that their magic book holds "the truth"
I like how this line of thought adds an electrical component to proto-cells in the prebiotic environment around hydrothermal vents.
Amazing stuff. Love to see how they can test these theories.
I have a feeling the Zealots are going to be treading on this thread very soon, their panties all in a wad. Let the prosthelytizing begin!
Sounds right: no mythical beings involved...
Prior to reading this article an advertisement popped up showing a sincere woman with the lines "I survived both ovarian cancer and uterin cancer." The other day there was an ad for a prostate supplement. There were also articles about how many autistic children are being born. Evidently there's lots of poeple out there with diabetes. and fybromyalgia, too. It sure looks like people are evolving, doesn't it? For some reason, crops are unable to evolve so they can withstand the drought that has stricken the southwest. I could just be an alarmist on this and should caution people to wait it out a few million years. That's what the giraffe had to do in evolving it's long neck so it could reach up and eat the leaves off the top of trees. That took eons. It's a wonder the thing didn't die of starvation. But that's evolution for ya: it brings hope. Hang in there.
By the way, resilience of cancer cells is one example of evolution, even though undesirable for us. Those cells acquire mutations that makes them immune to cell death. If you use a targeted chemotherapy on them, some cells may survive and cause recurrence which may be resistant to the previous therapy.
Not so Alex. That is not a new trick that human cells just learned, they've always had the ability to do that.
@Bullet:
This is a new trick, because these mutations are new in these cells and not present in the rest of body.
Love how these theorists spout absolute fact based on a few observations. I also love how the anti-religionists scream that there is no god and that their "magic book"--as described earlier in these posts--is a sham.
My question to those who say that God doesn't exist is, Can you prove that He doesn't? Instead of telling those who believe in religion to prove the existence of God, show the world, conclusively, that He doesn't. Don't just tell everyone...prove it.
Benjamin Franklin, revered Founding Father and a preeminent Thinker of his time stated, "Science and Religion go hand in hand. One cannot exist without the other."
Was Franklin wrong? Or was he right? Is the truth of the matter somewhere in between? Answer those questions with a rational, open-minded discourse.
Until then, please stop telling others that they are idiots for believing in God. To shout your opinions while denigrating others does nothing but illustrate ones inability or desire to conduct thoughtful discourse, and only comes across as arrogant, closed minded, condescending and mean; as if you are better than everyone else.
would that be the same Ben Frankiln that wrote "the Franklin Bible"?
you know he rewrote the new testament without all the magical hocus-pocus that Ben despised. the rising from the dead, raising from the dead, walking on water and the like.
one that is likely far closer to reality than what the canon became.
lets take your wrong comment about "Love how these theorists spout absolute fact based on a few observations", completely wrong, and it hasn't been touted as "absolute fact", it is a reasonable hypothesis.
even if it was proven as an "absolute fact" that would not "disprove the existence of god" although it WOULD prove that he/she/it doesn't work the way you want he/she/it to work (why doesn't our language have a suitable, gender-neutral, third-person term? sigh).
@HCB63
The burden of proof is always on the person making the assertion. If a person makes an assertion that there is a god, then it is up to that person to prove it; not for the rest of us to disprove it. That is how the scientific method, business, law, and just about every other important thing in life works. I mean, if you are accused of a crime, we don't say "Guilty until proven innocent.", correct? Rather, it is up to the prosecution, the person making the assertion, to prove your guilt.
@Iseeconfusedpeople
I believe you're thinking of the Jefferson Bible, not the Franklin Bible. I don't think Franklin wrote a Bible. Nevertheless, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison and the overwhelming majority of the so-called "Founding Fathers" were deists at best and, arguably, would have been atheists in our time.
HCB63.
You smugly wrote: Can you prove that He doesn't?
What kind of conclusive question is that? Here's a list of things we don't believe in, but according to you we'd have to prove they don't exist (How do you prove the nonexistence of a thing if that thing doesn't exist? You can't experiment on this non-thing. You can't march this non-thing onto a stage and proclaim, "Here. See for yourself. This thing does not exist.":
Mankind and science can only prove the existence of things. Period. There is no empirical way to test the non-existence of a thing. So, what makes us so smug in our belief that there is no God?
So, although we certainly can not prove the non-existence of a thing, we've gotten pretty good at proving the existence of a thing. That thing you call God, has failed in our proof of existence.
Look...
The whole purpose of being a God is to have mortal minions who worship and adore you. Periodically, ya gotta issue some edicts and proclaim your existence so they know who's in charge. When exactly was the last broadcast from the High and Mighty? (If you say, "I talked to God last night in my prayers", we're going to have you committed.)
Dang... Failed that test. Well... Better luck next time for me.
The article is about science.
"God" is irrelevant to this discussion.
If you want to believe that "god" magically created two fully evolved homo sapiens in an instant, please feel free to do so.
If you prefer to worship a totem pole, you can do that too.
Just don't bring it up in comments on a scientific article about the evolution of life. It's off topic.
you are correct, my mistake.
:)
Science and religion will always be at odds with each other. When one is dealing with uneducated people one has to consider the fact that the less they are able to think and comprehend for themselves the more they will turn to answers that will fit their idealogies and require less energy to think about or study. Someone on this board questioned whether evolution has ceased, however it is alive and well, look at the American and Arab cultures, two cultures yet have evolved into their own sub-species, Arabs have the thinkers and intelligentsia, yet have a religious based intolerance of any other culture, America has their thinkers and intelligentsia, yet have a religious based intolerance for any other culture. This theory as to the begiining of life makes a whole lot more sense than any book where Adam and Eve started, especially when one considers all the other markers that go into our present definition of what life is,
Based on the rules of logic, it is not possible to 'prove' a negative. What this basically means is that it it not possible to prove that something doesn't exist.
However, I am not sure exactly what god's existance or non-existance has to do with this story.
You left out and stupid. "comes across as arrogant............and stupid". Doesn't mean the belligerent commenter really is stupid, just means they appear to be.
CaptnRon you can't be serious. The Arabs have the thinkers. The Arabs have the Muslims my friend, read their little book and tell me how great their minds work. Evolved into their own sub-species, what the heck are you talking about, you must be one of the sub species (didn't work out to good, did it?). God built some evolution into the life on this planet and it will not stop until his plan has ended. Science and God are not at odds with each other. Every day science gets a little closer to proving God's existence.
Now you just hold on right there, Anjisan1963 (11.3)! While I agree with what you wrote, you went too far.
Flying Spaghetti Monster DOES exist! You just prove to me He doesn't.
Ramen.
I agree with the opinion that the person making the claim must prove the claim. As Hitch stated so eloquently: "That which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence."
However, I think it is possible to demonstrate that god, as defined in the bible, does not exist.
For example, if I claim that there is an invisible pink unicorn (IPU) living in my backyard and I ask you to disprove my claim, you might start by saying there is no evidence for the IPU. The IPU doesn't interact with anything in the backyard - when it is muddy, there are no IPU tracks, etc. I could claim that the nature of the IPU prevents it from leaving evidence of any kind. The IPU hates muddy feet and it levitates above the ground when it is muddy.
You might just shake your head and call me crazy (and you'd by right to do so). Or you could take another approach. You could note that the qualities that I claim for the IPU are contradictory. In this case something can not be 'pink' and 'invisible'. Pink is a color in the visible light spectrum and it is impossible for something to be pink and invisible at the same time. Due to this inconsistency, the IPU can not possibly exist.
Similarly, god, as defined in the bible can not exist. The bible claims that god is Omnipotent (all powerful), Omniscient (all knowing), and Omnibenevolent (all good). This is known as the 3O problem and it creates the same logical inconsistency that plagues the IPU.
Consider for example the massacre of children at Sandy Hook Elementary school
If god is all good he should have stopped it.
If god is all knowing he should have known it would happen.
If god is all powerful he should have been able to stop it.
So why didn't god act? Is he not good? Is he not all knowing? Is he not all powerful?
I know how the apologists react to this question... god doesn't interfere, there is sin in the world, god gives us freewill. Blah blah blah.
BUT... when people get a cold or lose their car keys or have a constipated cat, they pray to god. God "solves" that problem, and then we all hear about it on Facebook.
You have two choices:
1) your god doesn't exist and you are delusional
2) your god's power and influence stop at the common cold, lost car keys, and constipated cats.
Nice GeorgiaBitslinger....
God is the God of cured colds, lost car keys, and constipated cats. Though you did leave out the fact that Jesus is responsible for every successfully received pass in the game of football ("Thank you Jesus").
Sorry, but it doesn't actually show how life could suddenly exist where no life had previously existed.
Jack, your assertion that the Founding Fathers were deists isn't supported by the facts:
“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here.” Patrick Henry
“It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.” George Washington
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams
“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” John Quincy Adams
"Only one adequate plan has ever appeared in the world, and that is the Christian dispensation." - John Jay, First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
"The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: 'that God governs in the affairs of men.' And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?" - Benjamin Franklin
56 men signed the Declaration of Independence - 54 of them went to Christian worship services 3 times weekly (so did George Washington)
As for proof of God's existence, have you ever in fact searched for it? It's everywhere and overwhelming: start with Evidence That Demands A Verdict and The Case For Christ - see if you can be the first to refute them.
How many times is God mentioned in the constitution?
Bravo truth, well spoken. You are a gentleman and a scholar and there are damn few of you left.
" Evidence That Demands A Verdict and The Case For Christ "
What the heck does that mean?
Also, here's a "revelation" for you: There ARE atheists who attend church. Yeah, believe it or not. They may do it for the good feelings it inspires, for the feeling of belonging to a community, for the spouse, political reasons, you are "expected to" (the age of Ben Franklin for example), etc., etc., etc.
Hard to believe for you maybe.
Oh, Bullet171, you wrote: Every day science gets a little closer to proving God's existence. (11.9)
I disagree. It is precisely the opposite. It continues to get closer to proving there is no need for a god.
Of course, all of the American Founding Fathers lived well before Darwin published his book, and well before we had any evidence that backed it up. So their opinions on the subject are outdated.
It never ceases to amaze me, science that is. New discoveries, new ideas, new ways of thinking. On the other side of the coin there is no shortage of idiots that want to disclaim all that science does for mankind. Most of us wouldn't be alive if it wasn't for scientists that made so many discoveries in so many fields of research. Every new discovery opens new doors for research, all research opens new doors for discovery. This new theory of how life began is just that, a theory. If you don't like it then all you have to do is just let it be and go on to your next posting.
Oh yeah, if it wasn't for scientists and theories and research you wouldn't be sitting there typing on your keyboard, in your warm house, with a cup of hot coffee, with a full tummy, listening to music in the background, and in relative good health. So if there is a God, maybe he wants us to learn and grow. Maybe he allows us to use science as a part of our lives. Maybe, just maybe, he wants us to find him somewhere. Now wouldn't that be a hoot.
Know the truly sad <:( thing is we as humanity worry about BS, instead of focusing on each other and are families and making their lives and our own better. We are here, how or why it happened is irrelevant and unchangeable. Go to the mall and read the map if you do not believe me, there is a red dot and everything. Quit worrying about the pot of gold and focus on the next day and moment and make those better. That you can control, and will affect those around you on this planet.
What I find sad is that those who believe in God need to reject science and all of its conclusions and theories. Just because you want to believe in a centuries old creation myth does not mean that science is wrong. Science deals with the physical mysteries. You deal with the metaphysical mysteries. So go ahead and believe, but don't expect science, which is the study of the physical world, to accept your metaphysical explanations. Those explanations are not subject to scientific inquiry or provable hypothosis. Therefore, there is nothing in them for the scientist to examine.
Science is a marvel for sure, I am always astounded at what turns up in our above and below water worlds. Our scientists do turn over new worlds and wonders to humanity, I am thankful for that. But to continually ascribe truth to theoretical observations is a stretch.
If someone criticizes the Scriptues for its lack of scientific accuracy they have just proved themselves the fool at this party! The Scriptures actually agree on many points with what we now understand of our earth. You just have not read it, period.
As far a God and scripture is concerned, proof is in the pudding, no pun intended. Read the Scriptures and you will see through the truths in Bible prophesy that the word of God is truth. There is no way to refute the fulfillment of Bible prophesy. One that illustrates this well are the many about the Messiah. All fulfilled in Him as the Son of God. Many of these prophesies were written hundreds of years before his birth, this is proved by Archaelogical evidence, yes proved by science. Do your own research if your brave enough to do so, or are you scared of the Boogie Man???
I have read it, many times. As a matter of fact, studied it DAILY for many years. Not only is it not scientifically accurate, it's not really accurate, period. Filled with errors and inconsistencies...
How about some evidence (archeological or otherwise) that proves 'He' even existed?
>Groan<
Yet another theory without any observed phenomenon to back it up...
Well, I'm sure someone's gonna get their PHD signed off anyhow...(seeing as there is no evidence of biogenesis at hydrothermal vents) Maybe these biologists need a little refresher course on paleogeology...(as in...the creatures found at hydrothermal vents are adapted from existing creatures living in shallower waters...)
Still, as theories go...well you might as well throw that one in the pot as well. (used to require shallow mudholes...now...VOILA! all you need is a hydrothermal vent!)
This is not a theory, btw...it is an unproven hypothesis. Theres a big difference.
Blah, blah, blah - always trying to explain how life started. Man has not created anything out of nothing, and has made many things from the resources readily available. The things that are man-made require matter, energy and intellect, yet those who disbelieve in God have the audacity to claim that life came about by chaos and chance. That is, the many complex things invented, created and made by man require intelligence, but the deep complexity of what we see and call life came from a non-intelligent, non-thinking and non-creative beginning. If you who are non-God believers dare, watch A. E. Wilder-Smith's videos on Evolution/Creation: e.g. - youtu.be/RdLrXPnp0zs
So, they are saying that photosynthesis was not the original means of powering those cellular processes? Hmmm ...! - RC
Whatever the original means were for the initial creation of life, I tend to think they are still around somewhere here on the planet we call Earth even today. - RC
PS - Keep in mind that pumice floats, everyone! Even today we have huge pumice islands floating in the Pacific Ocean. - RC
@Truth - many of those quotes from our forefathers were public quotes. In private letters between our forefathers they showed deist beliefs. Deism was not a disbelief in "god" so much as it was a disbelief in the bible as the source of truth.
“Being no bigot myself, I am disposed to indulge the professors of Christianity in the church that road to heaven which to them shall seem the most direct, plainest, easiest and least liable to exception.” - George Washington
“Hence the doctrines which he really delivered were defective as a whole, and fragments only of what he did deliver have come to us mutilated, misstated, & often unintelligible.” - Thomas Jefferson on the "teachings" of Jesus as presented in the bible.
There are many other such quotes but that is not really the topic here. Our forefathers were subject to political correctness then just as much as our representatives are today. Hence, their public face was often different from their private....
__________________________________________________________________________________________
I am not a Christian and profess no belief in a supreme being. However, I also find the idea that life started without intent to do so rather untenable. The one thing that this article repeatedly hints at is the "desire" to survive and change. Rocks have no desire, minerals have no survival instinct. An amino acid has no will to procreate.
Yes, physical "cells" capable of ''supporting" live may have started this way. Certainly sounds feasible. But it is a giant leap to go from this to "consciousness" - which is what is required for "desire" and "survival instinct".
What does this article have to do with religion? Please, keep your myths and faiths out of science. Science is not concerned with your beliefs or anyone else's. It is concerned with what we can observe without any preconceptions.