The origin of life?

[cee-dee]

I've been reading an interesting article about the origins of Life.

It's very long, you won't read it in five minutes, it could take up to an hour to read properly. If you look and skimp through it, you won't get the full picture about what the scientists have been working on for so long.

They've not found the full story..................... yet.

Just because those chaps haven't found the full story doesn't mean the answer's not there. Those that believe in a divine hand in the origins of life will no doubt claim their belief is therefore correct.

My thoughts are that if you're looking for something and can't find it, you're either looking in the wrong place or you're not looking hard enough. Those chaps have certainly been looking hard but some of the findings prove that some of them were looking in the wrong place.

Anyone care to digest the article and comment?

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began

[aand2136-voqfz8yx]

I heard something similar regarding robotic missions ot Mars. These machines are very limited in their search functions and therefore the chances of them finding any life or previous life is so small it's almost negligible.

As you have said, it's not that it's not there, they're just not looking in the right places

[al**bear]

I'm up to chapter 4 

[al**bear]

We all know that in the begining there was the Void and PTAH 

PTAH thought the WORD -

bingo everything happened

[jd.linklater]

A very interesting article but a heck of a lot of information to digest without backtracking. I had the same problem when reading Stephen Hawking's Brief History Of Time, I guess my brain isn't as receptive as it used to be, must be an age thing.

I must admit that the deep ocean vent theory always seemed to me the most likely to explain the origin of life but I hadn't given much thought to the fact that lifeforms that evolve in such regions would need to stay in close proximity to a very specific temperature range to remain viable, so the possibility of them making it through hundreds of metres of extremely cold water and on to land seems a bit unlikely. On the other hand we have to wonder, have the oceans always been as cold as they are today? With all the subterranean activity that was going on millions of years ago that also seems unlikely.

On the whole I think it more likely that land based animals, or what were later to become land based animals evolved in similar conditions to the ocean vents but at locations on the surface like impact craters and craters found around still active volcanoes as the latter part of the article suggests.

Like I said a stimulating read, I will bookmark it and go back to it when I have a little more time to digest it properly, thanks for posting.  

[cee-dee]

I'm pleased you found it interesting and worth another look.

I never thought the deep ocean vents were the source of the origins of life because of the depth and pressure.

If the oceans were hotter, more evaporation would take place causing more rainfall? (What goes up must come down?) The thing is, the greater evaporation would cause a greater concentation of disolved minerals in some places which may well have "helped" the situation along? Such a place would be "easier" near shallow vents?

For a while I've believed that life started with a mix of chemicals under the "right" conditions but the mechanics of it is beyond me.

[jd.linklater]

I've always thought the pressure thing strange too but there are miniature life forms that exist today on the ocean floor under several tons of pressure and without any light. You'd think even something as robust as a whale wouldn't be able to withstand such pressures but these are tiny colourless blind shrimps. I don't think anyone knows for certain how they can survive under such conditions, you wouldn't think there were even nutrients to feed on at that depth but somehow they manage to exist. It's a strange world down there to be sure.

[cee-dee]

The thing is, although life exists there, could it have started there and evolved to live away from the pressure, in colder water, out of the dark and in to light?

[cee-dee]

Well now, plenty of viewers but not many posters?

I suppose the length of that article meant that only a few took the time to stick with it and wade through it right to the end?

[littleme61_6]

I read with great interest last night. A lot as expected went over my head, as I found a lot well above my mental ability. 

Just I never realised so much over many many years had been looked into about this. Very intriguing and thought inspiring it was to read about. 

[evoman3957]

I'm intrigued by the fact that we measure life and recognise such, only when it is carbon based; because that's the sort of life we understand, within the environment in which we exist and were created / evolved. Who's to say that somewhere else, there isn't life that is silicon based; or based on some other element, that perhaps we have never heard of..........because it doesn't exist here.

[jd.linklater]

---

@evoman3957 wrote:

I'm intrigued by the fact that we measure life and recognise such, only when it is carbon based; because that's the sort of life we understand, within the environment in which we exist and were created / evolved. Who's to say that somewhere else, there isn't life that is silicon based; or based on some other element, that perhaps we have never heard of..........because it doesn't exist here.

---

I've been saying the same thing since I was a kid. Every time we hear about a new planet being discovered orbiting some distant star, the discussion is always whether or not it could support our kind of life, making the assumption that there couldn't possibly be any other. The scientific community don't seem to want to even consider that there may be other life forms elswhere that aren't carbon based, that's always seemed more than a little shortsighted to me. 

[cee-dee]

First of all, it's likely that everywhere in the Universe started off made from the same stuff after the Big Bang. It's up to the "scientists" to prove that other "materials" could be evolved from the original mix.

Secondly, what was produced immediately at the moment of the Big Bang could well have evolved due to a few generations of Star formation.

It's possible that not every Solar system has the same mix of the "evolved materials" and therefore may not have the same stuff found in our Solar system, just like our Solar system may not have some of the "other stuff" found elsewhere in the Universe.

Again, it's possible that although the "right mix" of chemicals (et al) may well be found in many places in the Universe, they need a catalyst to cause life to begin. Such a catalyst might be found in Comets or random meteorites from "outside" our Solar system.

Remember, an Amino Acid was found in the comet dust collected by the Stardust mission.

As to "other forms" of life, we just don't know........ yet.

[al**bear]

Finished the article, very good read

Like most post academic research,  mostly done in secret and under wraps, publish then argue with others in the field

This seem to have been solved by bringing things together

Thats why Modern Universities, large companies & Industrial parks, have big think-tanks, where loads of different people get together and explain the difficulty they are having, suddenly a biologist tells a Computer scientist how Nature solves a similar problem, an engineer is helped by a being told of brand new Medical research etc