PDA

View Full Version : New theory on the origin of the first cell



Richard Amiel McGough
12-26-2012, 05:30 PM
From nature.com: How life emerged from deep sea rocks (http://www.nature.com/news/how-life-emerged-from-deep-sea-rocks-1.12109)



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.

David M
12-27-2012, 01:33 AM
Here is the complete publication by the authors for download:

693


This is a very long way from proving the first simple cell that can reproduce itself formed in this way. It is just another avenue for research.




From Wikipedia
Microorganisms live in all parts of the biosphere where there is liquid water, including soil, hot springs, on the ocean floor, high in the atmosphere and deep inside rocks within the Earth's crust.

In view of all the places where microbes can be found I see no justification for the title: How life emerged from deep sea rocks This is pure speculation and should have at least used the words "could possibly have" in the title. Instead, we are made to believe life started in the hot vents at the bottom of the oceans.

There are so many hurdles to overcome in establishing the theory of how the first living replicable cell formed that any discussion on this subject is not going to get very far. I started a thread entitled; The Simplest Cell (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3217-The-Simplest-Cell&highlight=simplest+cell) and that soon came to a halt.


David

Richard Amiel McGough
12-27-2012, 10:19 AM
Here is the complete publication by the authors for download:

693


This is a very long way from proving the first simple cell that can reproduce itself formed in this way. It is just another avenue for research.


Microorganisms live in all parts of the biosphere where there is liquid water, including soil, hot springs, on the ocean floor, high in the atmosphere and deep inside rocks within the Earth's crust.

In view of all the places where microbes can be found I see no justification for the title: How life emerged from deep sea rocks This is pure speculation and should have at least used the words "could possibly have" in the title. Instead, we are made to believe life started in the hot vents at the bottom of the oceans.

There are so many hurdles to overcome in establishing the theory of how the first living replicable cell formed that any discussion on this subject is not going to get very far. I started a thread entitled; The Simplest Cell (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3217-The-Simplest-Cell&highlight=simplest+cell) and that soon came to a halt.


David

Hey there David,

Thanks for providing that article. I agree that the Nature mag would have done better if they had put the title in the subjunctive mood (http://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/subjunctive_mood.htm). But headlines are known to be rather misleading. And reading the article quickly corrects any possible misconceptions. And while we are speaking of the subjunctive mood, it's odd that you are sensitive to it in this context, but do not understand how it generally works in logic and the English language. The subjunctive mood is how one expresses something that may be true or false, or is actually contrary to fact. Here is an example (http://bookriot.com/2012/02/10/stop-grammar-time-in-the-subjunctive-mood/):
The subjunctive mood expresses something that is contrary to fact. You musical theaters have an easy way to remember the correct use of the subjunctive, courtesy of an impoverished Jewish milkman. The lyrics “if I were a rich man” indicates that the rest of the sentence would be true if the first part were true (in logic, this is called a conditional).

If I were X, I would be Y.

See that? It's the same kind of logic we have been discussing in the other thread (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted): "There would be a paradox if ..." is in the subjunctive mood. You rejected your own statement of the paradox because you don't understand how to express concepts using the subjunctive mood (which is, of course, essential to the foundation of logic).

I also agree that any discussion about the formation of the first cell cannot be expected to go far because the science is so far over most people's heads. That's why the creationist focus on this question is so absurd. They are like kids who can't add 1 + 2 thinking they can criticize relativistic cosmology.

As for your thread The Simplest Cell (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3217-The-Simplest-Cell) - there are 83 posts in that thread, so it didn't die too quickly. I'm glad you mentioned it because I had forgotten that I never responded to your last post. I'll fix that now.

All the best,

Richard