A New Clue to How Life Originated

huachuma

Fascinating article in my humble estimation (coming from a background in the Biological sciences). You'll be less enamored/enthused if you're an avowed Creationist...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/a-new-clue-to-how-life-originated/ar-AAFI1m2?li=BBnbcA1

As with all science (as it should be) we'll have to wait to see if this finding is able to be replicated/verified...

SaveComment53Like5
Comments (53)
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
queenmargo

I am in the less enamored/enthused category.

1 Like Save     Thanked by huachuma
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
catspa_zone9sunset14(aka)

Exciting idea -- the proteins in the phospholipid bilayer maybe just got some new significance., not that they weren't doing a lot already (of what little we know). The paper was literally just published on PNAS -- I will be ferreting it via my academic sources. Thanks for posting, huachuma.

Save     Thanked by huachuma
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

“I agree completely,” Keller tells me. “It’s completely magical... Why? “We have no idea, and we wouldn’t have predicted it,” Keller says, laughing. “We’re in a lovely place that opens the field up to future theory.”

Miracle: ...extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences.

Magic: the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious forces.

The miracle of life is very exciting!

6 Likes Save     Thanked by huachuma
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
artemis_ma

Fascinating - evocative if replication is achieved.

1 Like Save     Thanked by huachuma
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (stillmissesSophie,chase,maifleur,others(8a)

“ You'll be less enamored/enthused if you're an avowed Creationist...”


I’m disappointed about the inclusion of this sentence. It’s unnecessarily provocative and dismissive.


I am an “avowed Creationist.” I love science and get very excited to hear about discoveries like this one.


And it does absolutely nothing to diminish my faith; on the contrary it reaffirms it. There is nothing in this discovery that precludes the idea of an intelligent design to the universe.

9 Likes Save     Thanked by huachuma
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

There isn't enough info in that article and reads like it was written for morons. If you knew anything about the Miller-Urey experiments, this poorly written article wouldn't impress you very much.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
ubro(2a)

Maybe this was written so people other than scientists could understand. Not every piece needs to be written only for those in 'the know'.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

They had a group come out a few years back claiming about the same thing and they were just recreating the Miller-Urey experiment with a couple of variables. I'm wondering if this is about the same thing?

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
artemis_ma

Here's the full article, in PNAS.


Alas, being retired, I no longer have access to the subscription we had when I was working.

You do get an abstract however.


And here's Science Daily's writeup.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
graywings123(7)

and reads like it was written for morons.


Wow, I had to read it slowly to understand it. Lurker111, do you have a background in science?

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Just with a quick reading of the limited amount of info, it sounds like it's Miller-Urey 3.0. How cells are formed from the building blocks. This was pretty much understood decades ago. I think it's interesting to find new pathways. There is a lot wrong with the research in my eyes, but the problems might not effect the experiment. I would need to refresh my memory on this topic before I comment. One thing just doesn't sound right to me.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Wow, I had to read it slowly to understand it. Lurker111, do you have a background in science?

It sure sounds as though lurker does, along with catspat.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
catspa_zone9sunset14(aka)

The results of this study go beyond Miller-Urey by demonstrating potential mechanisms for the origin of stable cellular membranes and the molecular compounds and structures that are essential for life -- how living cells came to be formed. Miller-Urey only showed that organic molecules could spontaneously form from ambient elements zapped by an electric charge, e.g., lightening. Simply and haphazardly creating a soup of amino acids is a far simpler thing than figuring out how a lipid micelle could become stable enough (chemically, physically) to function as a cellular membrane. This study found that the binding of amino acids to fatty acids not only stabilized a membrane but also placed amino acids in proximities favorable for bonding and forming proteins and more complex structures ("co-localization").


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
blfenton

Well I guess I'm a moron, but there are reasons why scientific books are written for the layman, so that we can have some idea as to what's going on and to be able to research further and to ask questions.

This "discovery" was mentioned on my 6:00 news and you think this article was simplified......well you should hear the news report.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

I'll stick to the clay theory. Clay has unique properties and would offer protection from anoxic events and euxinic conditions...If we even had salt water oceans back then. That's what bothers me about this research. I'm pretty sure our oceans were mostly hydrogen at that time. Most of the free oxygen was tied up in rock formation and such. I wish we had more threads like this one that are actually constructive and informative, and help keep our minds sharp. I love learning and sharing knowledge.

The results of this study go beyond Miller-Urey by demonstrating
potential mechanisms for the origin of stable cellular membranes and the
molecular compounds and structures that are essential for life

Not really. This is like Miller Urey 3.0...How cells are formed. Just like I said. We've actually had decent debates on this topic about 10-15 years ago, when this forum was a decent place for this type of debate.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
ubro(2a)

^^^ start a few, you might be surprised at how many of us may not contribute, but would read and learn.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
patriciae_gw(07)

Lurker, I am not feeling the love. If this place was so much better 10-15 years ago your negation of Catspat's comments is part of the problem.

I will be interested to see how this concept matures.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

your negation of Catspat's comments is part of the problem.

I read catspat's post and didn't see anything wrong with it. This is
just a continuation of the Miller-Urey experiment. I've seen a lot of
the research that has come from this experiment in abiogenesis. This
current research shows how the spheres could survive in salt water (no mention of UV rays) and I've stated that is where I'm having problems. My
memory is that this all happened before we had salt water oceans. I
think the old theory of life starting in clay is founded in solid
research, and not by accident. It is an interesting discovery and I
already think it could be very useful in bioengineering. Just a bit of a stretch for the origins of life on Earth.

Feel free to add something constructive.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
huachuma

miss lindsey (still misses Sophie)

I’m very sorry to have caused you offense, but I wouldn’t consider your stance as that of a “avowed Creationist”. It’s a term that I would personally reserve for only those that believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis, with no wiggle room at all afforded for biologic or physical evidence (or time constraints)


But you are correct and what I posted was an unnecessary and regretful dig at those I disagree with…

I’ll try to improve my wording and my capacity for tolerance in future postings.

.

I’m a staunch advocate of the Scientific Method; I appreciate greatly that that just as (IMHO) life evolves, so do scientific theories and hypothesizes…

I’m what most people would consider agnostic, but I would be the first to admit that I have no idea where the ultimate truth lies and I certainly don't discount the possibility of some sort of Creator, but I'm not qualified to determine just how that would work...


Apologies again for an insensitive comment.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
catspa_zone9sunset14(aka)

An interesting and important question is at what point there was water on the surface of the Earth. While amino acids might bond to form proteins without water (it's a dehydration reaction), it's hard to imagine cells forming on dry clay. Even the "clay vesicles" idea assumes presence of water. This not being my field, it's fun to speculate aimlessly... :-)

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
shaxhome(Frog Rock, Australia 9b)

If only Maxter was still with us! His father knew all about this stuff...

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
heri _ cles

Hopefully science will help to answer questions about how life formed so that blind faith no longer fills the vacuum.


1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (stillmissesSophie,chase,maifleur,others(8a)

huachuma, I really appreciate that. Not because I felt like I was owed an apology, but because I really enjoyed your courteous tone. :-)

I guess it’s off-topic of this post, but I’ve been thinking a lot lately of various creation/origin stories from different people groups that I’ve had the pleasure of hearing. It’s fascinating to me how they all follow more or less the same pattern despite their differing symbolic and figurative language (water makes way for land then plants appear and increasingly complex levels of animals culminating in humans). Even the story of evolution... Maybe it’s just different expression that all means the same thing.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
palisades_

An interesting and important question is at what point there was water on the surface of the Earth

From what I could recall, explosions from space rocks and meteorites when they smashed together to create a planet released free form of oxygen and hydrogen which combined chemically into water. Then when the young planet earth was able to generate its own magnetic field to form a shield to protect its atmosphere from the sun and outerspace radiations, its water would not be stripped away by constant bombardment from space particles. Voila, life began to form and flourish.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
heri _ cles

Even the story of evolution... Maybe it’s just different expression that all means the same thing.

No, it doesn't.




Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
arthurm2015(Micro-Climate, Zone 10b Sydney, Australia)

Have been watching the BBC series the planets, hosted by Brian Cox. Perhaps we will find primitive life on mars and some of the moons of the outer planets.

Read somewhere the other day that an old time scientist (name escapes me) realised that ancient fossils took ages to evolve and this caused him much angst because he was a believer and the good word was that creation took 7 days.

Anyway, not to worry, a lovely day here in the Southern Seas. The mystery and all the lucky events that happened in the past should increase the appreciation.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Of course, some speculate that the Earth's water came from a comet. Hydrogen is everywhere in space. I can imagine the Earth passing through a hydrogen cloud resulting in rain for 40 days and nights.


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
ubro(2a)

^^^ Funny, I always imagined the parting of the Red Sea was some type of Tsunami or environmental event.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Probably was. I see the Bible as a history book, but I don't take it literally. It was written down by people, after all. For me, science and faith are compatible.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
ubro(2a)

I agree, science and faith can be compatible, each to his own. For me, science is the only source, faith is not necessary.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Science is the study of God's creations.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
ubro(2a)

^^^ In your opinion, not mine, I do not happen to think he exists.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Adam and Eve?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Y chromosome Adam and mitochondrial Eve?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
heri _ cles

As long as scientists cannot create life in a test tube creationists can clutch on to their little security blankets.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
heri _ cles

I see the Bible as a history book

Except much of the Bible is fiction..old fake news

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
patriciae_gw(07)

I am amused by the conceit of a history book as fantasy. It works for me.

Commenting on religious beliefs is tough. I am not a believer but I can respect people who are. I once heard the Dali Lama say that he was ok with your believing what ever because eventually you would find your way to the truth. Something to be said for believing in reincarnation.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

As long as scientists cannot create life in a test tube creationists can clutch on to their little security blankets.

Why does that make any sense to you?


1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

I don't get that ^^^, either.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Yawn. Interesting that this is where this conversation took you.

(Not really)

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

LOL

I didn't bring Creator stuff here. Someone else did and picked it up.


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

No, you brought up a bogus fantasy about child trafficking. Nothing wrong with talking about religion when talking about creation, fgs.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

No, I brought up bible stories. And how strange some are.

The creation story mentioned here comes from the same bible.

Some stories are fake and some are true?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Some are misinterpreted by those with little understanding.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
heri _ cles


I am an “avowed Creationist.” I love science and get very excited to hear about discoveries like this one. And it does absolutely nothing to diminish my faith; on the contrary it reaffirms it.

1. Why would absence of evidence amount to evidence or reaffirm anything ?

"Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic.
It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been
proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been
proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy
in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an
insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true
or false.[1]
It also does not allow for the possibility that the answer is
unknowable, only knowable in the future, or neither completely true nor
completely false. In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof." link

2. Since you stated that you are an "avowed Creationist" how can you maintain an open mind and subjectively evaluate any data, scientific findings, concepts, or theories that conflict with hardened, foundational, indoctrinated beliefs ?

I run into a similar thing when I speak with friends and family who are very nice church going, God fearing, religious people. They have constructed so many walls around their core beliefs that there is no way they would ever change them.

There are, however, a few of them, who I think are closet agnostics. Some even attend church occasionally and will never admit they question their faith, but inside, I suspect there is a little scientist fact man inside their head that is telling them OK, believe what you want but between you and me, you know it is all bulls**t.




1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (stillmissesSophie,chase,maifleur,others(8a)

heri_cles:

1. I see discoveries like this as further PROOF that the universe was designed not random.

Until science can show compelling evidence about how SOMETHING can come from NOTHING I’ll carry on with believing in a creator whom I refer to as God.

2. I just can. Since you don’t know me and you can’t see into my thought process you can’t really write me off as walled up or closed off, can you? No matter how many other people you’ve talked to.

3. This thread wasn’t really intended to be a discussion of religion or faith. I don’t mind talking about those things, in fact I like it. But I know that others here do not like having to be subjected to it. My messaging is open if you want to hear more about why I believe what I believe.

4. the idea that only people with a belief in the veracity of the Old Testament of the Bible believe in a creator is very narrow. All cultures have creation stories/myths and many still adhere to those beliefs. So when someone says they are a Creationist, don’t automatically assume they are Christian, Jew, or Muslim.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

how can you
maintain an open mind and subjectively evaluate any data, scientific
findings, concepts, or theories that conflict with hardened,
foundational, indoctrinated beliefs ?

See your post above...Argument from ignorance. Or, explain exactly what you mean. Science is wonderful and I would love to see this data, findings, concepts, and theories that conflict with my beliefs. Thanks.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

My understanding if the bible is deep.

My belief in the bible is small.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
heri _ cles

See your post above...Argument from ignorance.


The "argumentation from ignorance" I was citing is a form of argument , and I linked to a page that further explains that.

Your post appears to be a personal accusation.


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Your post appears to be a personal accusation.

Posts on HT often are. Not to be confused with an insult, unless the accusation is insulting. Did someone call you a racist?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (stillmissesSophie,chase,maifleur,others(8a)

heri_cles can you understand that this statement:

“... hardened, foundational, indoctrinated beliefs ?

I run into a similar thing when I speak with friends and family who are very nice church going, God fearing, religious people. They have constructed so many walls around their core beliefs that there is no way they would ever change them”

might feel like a personal accusation to *me*?

btw, it’s not a logical fallacy to say “I don’t see this new finding as proof that there is no Creator.” It *might be* a logical fallacy to say “the existence of this phenomenon proves that there is no Creator.” After all, “it also does not allow for the possibility that the answer is
unknowable, only knowable in the future, or neither completely true nor
completely false.”

My position is that the two realities are not mutually exclusive. And that I am interested in learning about it and open to seeing more and more discoveries be made. And I suspect the answer is unknowable in life.

Finally, I did not intend to score a debate point with my comment, nor did I intend to set up a debate about theology, religion, philosophy, or science. I’m not terribly interested in debating at all; I would rather converse casually. I simply wanted to point out that huachuma’s expression could be hurtful and alienating to a portion of the users here. S/he was extreme gracious in replying to my post and for that I am grateful.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
heri _ cles

heri_cles can you understand that this statement:

“... hardened, foundational, indoctrinated beliefs ?

I run into a similar thing when I speak with friends and family who are very nice church going, God fearing, religious people. They have constructed so many walls around their core beliefs that there is no way they would ever change them”

might feel like a personal accusation to *me*?

That is absurd. It was not directed at you personally.

Read it again.

What you could have responded to was how your faith is reaffirmed by scientific research.


Save    
Browse Gardening and Landscaping Stories on Houzz See all Stories
My Houzz My Houzz: An Artistic Life Fills a 150-Year-Old Home
A gorgeous courtyard, eclectic style and original details shine in a Paris-born artist's beachside rental
Full Story
Houzz Tours Houzz Tour: Midcentury Home in Michigan Finds New Life
A designer transforms her house by restoring original details and creating a sleek new kitchen
Full Story
Antiques Houzz Tour: 1830s New Orleans Cottage Is Brought Back to Life
A designer revitalizes his Creole cottage and uncovers its original bargeboard walls made from the hull of a boat
Full Story