• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Origins Of Life On Earth

It's life,captain, but not as we know it...

I revived this thread as there's quite a few on ET life and it's a bit had to decide where this fits:

Story at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3109910.stm

Call to extend alien life search


By Helen Briggs
BBC News Online science reporter


Jupiter or Mars-like planets beyond our Solar System may be serious contenders for harbouring life, says a British astrophysicist.
Professor Tim Naylor, of Exeter University, says planets that do not resemble home should not be dismissed.


If we can find life at the extremes of Earth where thermophiles are, then it could be that life could get a foot hold on the giant exoplanets that we've discovered

Tim Naylor, Exeter University
He is calling on biologists to draw up new parameters for extra-terrestrial life based on a knowledge of the toughest organisms on Earth.

Microbes which thrive in boiling hot springs or in volcanic vents are stretching the limits of conditions that can support life.

According to Professor Naylor, it boosts the chances of finding life on non Earth-like planets circling stars other than our Sun.

International experts are meeting this week at Exeter University in the south-west of England to discuss just what type of conditions really are necessary for life on other worlds.

It could lead to a search for life on the growing list of so-called extrasolar planets that have been discovered.

Many of these 100 or so planets are huge gaseous objects close to their stars which, to a large extent, have been ignored as serious contenders favourable to living organisms.

"Planets that have been ruled out completely in the search for life could in fact be candidates for harbouring life," says Professor Naylor.

"If we can find life in the extremes of Earth where thermophiles (heat-loving microbes) are, then it could be that life could get a foothold on the giant exoplanets that we've discovered."

Future missions

Various space telescope missions are being prepared by the US and European space agencies to search for planets around stars in other galaxies.

The most ambitious of these is possibly Darwin, a plan by the European Space Agency to station a telescope 1.5 million kilometres from Earth.

The flotilla of six telescopes would seek to pinpoint other worlds capable of supporting life.

With so many stars to choose from, the obvious candidates are the nearest and most Earth-like. But not all scientists agree.

British planet hunter Dr Hugh Jones of Liverpool John Moores University says we need to get a much better idea of the conditions for life in different environments ahead of costly projects such as Darwin.

"Thermophiles in a whole range of environments should certainly be part of the search for life," he says.

"But when we launch these missions, it would be a shame not to configure them to look for planets like the Earth."

Am I missing something, or wasn't this obvious from the start? Life isn't like Star Trek, so any alien life forms are likely to be, well, alien.
 
Sort of biblical

Now there's a theory that clay had a role in the origin of life.

In New Scientist at:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994307

Clay's matchmaking could have sparked life

19:00 23 October 03

NewScientist.com news service


Two of the crucial components for the origin of life - genetic material and cell membranes - could have been introduced to one another by a lump of clay, new experiments have shown.

The study of montmorillonite clay, by Martin Hanczyc, Shelly Fujikawa and Jack Szostak at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, revealed it can sharply accelerate the formation of membranous fluid-filled sacs.

These vesicles also grow and undergo a simple form of division, giving them the properties of primitive cells. Previous work has shown that the same simple mineral can help assemble the genetic material RNA from simpler chemicals. "Interestingly, the clay also gets internalised in the vesicles," says Leslie Orgel, an origin of life expert at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences in San Diego, California. "So this work is quite nice in that it finds a connection between the mechanism that creates RNA and encloses it in a membrane."

Inherit, mutate, evolve

The genesis of genetic material and the emergence of cell structure are hot areas of research, but until now the two had not connected. The birth of genetic material was clearly crucial for life to take on its unique abilities to inherit, mutate and evolve.

And membranes were key to the physiology of cells because they protect their contents, concentrate chemicals to promote reactions and isolate successful genes from unsuccessful ones. "It's clear you really need both these elements to get evolution off the ground and running," says Szostak.

Research has already shown that some of building blocks for RNA-like molecules and membranes are spontaneously created by chemical reactions in outer space and in conditions that may have existed on the primordial Earth. But how these subunits were then assembled is still debated.

For RNA, one popular theory revolves around the unusual properties of montmorillonite clay. The negatively charged layers of its crystals create a sandwich of positive charge between them. This turns out to be a highly attractive environment for RNA subunits to concentrate and join together into long chains.


Szostak wondered whether montmorillonite could also help the assembly of vesicles from simple fatty acid precursors. He remembers the day his colleagues Hanczyc and Fujikawa ran into his office to show him their first results: the clay caused a 100-fold acceleration of vesicle formation.

"It was pretty amazing," he says. Once formed, the vesicles often incorporated bit of clay and were able to grow by absorbing more fatty acid subunits.


His team also showed the clay could hold RNA and form vesicles at the same time. Fluorescently-labelled RNA attached to the clay ended up assembled into vesicles after the reaction. And the researchers were able to get these "protocells" to divide by forcing them through small holes. This caused them to split into smaller vesicles, with minimal loss of their contents.

Szostak admits that in a natural setting the vesicles would rarely be forced to divide in this way. So now his group is searching for different mixtures of membrane-forming molecules that might divide spontaneously when they reach a certain size.

Journal reference: Science (vol 302, p 618 )

Given the creation myths where gods shaped living creatures from clay, a strange sort of echo here
 
EARLY EARTH

Meteorites Supplied Earth Life With Phosphorus

The remains of an iron meteorite, found around Derrick Peak, in Antarctica
by Lori Stiles
Tucson AZ (SPX) Aug 25, 2004
University of Arizona scientists have discovered that meteorites, particularly iron meteorites, may have been critical to the evolution of life on Earth.
Their research shows that meteorites easily could have provided more phosphorus than naturally occurs on Earth - enough phosphorus to give rise to biomolecules which eventually assembled into living, replicating organisms.

Phosphorus is central to life. It forms the backbone of DNA and RNA because it connects these molecules' genetic bases into long chains.

It is vital to metabolism because it is linked with life's fundamental fuel, adenosine triphosphate (ATP), the energy that powers growth and movement. And phosphorus is part of living architecture – it is in the phospholipids that make up cell walls and in the bones of vertebrates.

"In terms of mass, phosphorus is the fifth most important biologic element, after carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen," said Matthew A. Pasek, a doctoral candidate in UA's planetary sciences department and Lunar and Planetary Laboratory.

But where terrestrial life got its phosphorus has been a mystery, he added.

Phosphorus is much rarer in nature than are hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen.

Pasek cites recent studies that show there's approximately one phosphorus atom for every 2.8 million hydrogen atoms in the cosmos, every 49 million hydrogen atoms in the oceans, and every 203 hydrogen atoms in bacteria.

Similarly, there's a single phosphorus atom for every 1,400 oxygen atoms in the cosmos, every 25 million oxygen atoms in the oceans, and 72 oxygen atoms in bacteria.

The numbers for carbon atoms and nitrogen atoms, respectively, per single phosphorus atom are 680 and 230 in the cosmos, 974 and 633 in the oceans, and 116 and 15 in bacteria.

"Because phosphorus is much rarer in the environment than in life, understanding the behavior of phosphorus on the early Earth gives clues to life's orgin," Pasek said.

The most common terrestrial form of the element is a mineral called apatite. When mixed with water, apatite releases only very small amounts of phosphate.

Scientists have tried heating apatite to high temperatures, combining it with various strange, super-energetic compounds, even experimenting with phosphorous compounds unknown on Earth. This research hasn't explained where life's phosphorus comes from, Pasek noted.

Pasek began working with Dante Lauretta, UA assistant professor of planetary sciences, on the idea that meteorites are the source of living Earth's phosphorus. The work was inspired by Lauretta's earlier experiments that showed that phosphorus became concentrated at metal surfaces that corroded in the early solar system.

"This natural mechanism of phosphorus concentration in the presence of a known organic catalyst (such as iron-based metal) made me think that aqueous corrosion of meteoritic minerals could lead to the formation of important phosphorus-bearing biomolecules," Lauretta said.

"Meteorites have several different minerals that contain phosphorus," Pasek said. "The most important one, which we've worked with most recently, is iron-nickel phosphide, known as schreibersite."

Schreibersite is a metallic compound that is extremely rare on Earth. But it is ubiquitous in meteorites, especially iron meteorites, which are peppered with schreibersite grains or slivered with pinkish-colored schreibersite veins.

Last April, Pasek, UA undergraduate Virginia Smith, and Lauretta mixed schriebersite with room-temperature, fresh, de-ionized water. They then analyzed the liquid mixture using NMR, nuclear magnetic resonance.

"We saw a whole slew of different phosphorus compounds being formed," Pasek said. "One of the most interesting ones we found was P2-O7 (two phorphorus atoms with seven oxygen atoms), one of the more biochemically useful forms of phosphate, similar to what's found in ATP."

Previous experiments have formed P2-07, but at high temperature or under other extreme conditions, not by simply dissolving a mineral in room-temperature water, Pasek said.

"This allows us to somewhat constrain where the origins of life may have occurred," he said.

"If you are going to have phosphate-based life, it likely would have had to occur near a freshwater region where a meteorite had recently fallen. We can go so far, maybe, as to say it was an iron meteorite. Iron meteorites have from about 10 to 100 times as much schreibersite as do other meteorites.

"I think meteorites were critical for the evolution of life because of some of the minerals, especially the P2-07 compound, which is used in ATP, in photosynthesis, in forming new phosphate bonds with organics (carbon-containing compounds), and in a variety of other biochemical processes," Pasek said.

"I think one of the most exciting aspects of this discovery is the fact that iron meteorites form by the process of planetesimal differentiation," Lauretta said.

That is, the building-blocks of planets, called planestesmals, form both a metallic core and a silicate mantle. Iron meteorites represent the metallic core, and other types of meteorites, called achondrites, represent the mantle.

"No one ever realized that such a critical stage in planetary evolution could be coupled to the origin of life," he added. "This result constrains where, in our solar system and others, life could originate.

It requires an asteroid belt where planetesimals can grow to a critical size – around 500 kilometers in diameter – and a mechanism to disrupt these bodies and deliver them to the inner solar system."

Jupiter drives the delivery of planetesimals to our inner solar system, Lauretta said, thereby limiting the chances that outer solar system planets and moons will be supplied with the reactive forms of phosphorus used by biomolecules essential to terrestrial life.

Solar systems that lack a Jupiter-sized object that can perturb mineral-rich asteroids inward toward terrestrial planets also have dim prospects for developing life, Lauretta added.

Pasek is talking about the research today (Aug. 24) at the 228th American Chemical Society national meeting in Philadelphia. The work is funded by the NASA program, Astrobiology: Exobiology and Evolutionary Biology.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/early-earth-04l.html
 
Origins of life easier than first thought
16 Sep 2005

In the primordial soup that produced life on earth, there were organic molecules that combined to produce the first nucleic acid chains, which were the first elements able to self-replicate. According to one of the more accepted theories, these molecules were ribonucleic acid (RNA) chains, a molecule that is practically identical to DNA and that today has the secondary role in cells of copying information stored in DNA and translating it into proteins.

These proteins have a direct active role in the chemical reactions of the cell. In the early stages of life, it seems that the first RNA chains would have had the dual role of self-replicating (as is today the case with DNA) and participating actively in the chemical reactions of the cell activity.

Because of their dual role, these cells are called ribozymes (a contraction of the words ribosome and enzyme). But there is an important obstacle to the theory of ribozymes as the origin of life: they could not be very large in length as they would not be able to correct the replication errors (mutations). Therefore they were unable to contain enough genes even to develop the most simple organisms.

An investigation led by Mauro Santos, from the Department of Genetics and Microbiology at the Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona (Spain), alongside two Hungarian scientists, has shown that the error threshold, that is, the maximum number of errors that may occur during the replication process of ribozymes without this affecting its functioning, is higher than was previously calculated.

In practice, this means that the first riboorganisms (protocells in which RNA is responsible for genetic information and metabolic reactions) could have a much bigger genome than was previously thought: they could contain more than 100 different genes, each measuring 70 bases in length (bases are the units that constitute the genes and codify the information), or more than 70 genes, each measuring 100 bases. It is worth remembering that tRNAs (essential molecules for the synthesis of proteins) are approximately 70 bases long.

The discovery has greatly relaxed the conditions necessary for the first living organisms to develop. "This quantity of genes would be enough for a simple organism to have enough functional activity", according to the researchers. Recent analysis into the minimum number of DNA genes required to constitute bacteria, the most simple organism today, considers that around 200 genes is sufficient. But in riboorganisms there can be much fewer genes, since DNA genomes include a number of genes that have the role of making the RNA translation system (which enables proteins to be produced) work, which would not be required in RNA-based organism.

Octavi Lopez Coronado
[email protected].
34-935-823-301
Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona
uab.es

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medical ... sid=30686#
 
I like the idea - I had learnt the RNA theories, but this seem interesting. Will try and find more info and see if (in my limited experience) that I can find some flaws and some support. Thanks.
 
Darwin's warm pond theory tested
By Rebecca Morelle
BBC News science reporter


Life on Earth was unlikely to have emerged from volcanic springs or hydrothermal vents, according to a leading US researcher.
Experiments carried out in volcanic pools suggest they do not provide the right conditions to spawn life. The findings are being discussed at an international two-day meeting to explore the latest thinking on the origin of life on Earth. It is taking place at the Royal Society in London.

Darwin's theory

David Deamer, emeritus professor of chemistry at the University of California at Santa Cruz, said ahead of his presentation: "It is about 140 years since Charles Darwin suggested that life may have begun in a 'warm little pond'. We are now testing Darwin's idea, but in 'hot little puddles' associated with the volcanic regions of Kamchatka [Russia] and Mount Lassen [California, US]."


Understanding how life emerged on Earth within 1,000 million years of its formation is a fascinating scientific problem
Prof Ian Smith, University of Cambridge

"The results are surprising and in some ways disappointing. It seems that hot acidic waters containing clay do not provide the right conditions for chemicals to assemble themselves into 'pioneer organisms.'"

Professor Deamer said that amino acids and DNA, the "building blocks" for life, and phosphate, another essential ingredient, cling to the surfaces of clay particles in the volcanic pools.

"The reason this is significant is that it has been proposed that clay promotes interesting chemical reactions relating to the origin of life," he explained.

"However," he added, "in our experiments, the organic compounds became so strongly held to the clay particles that they could not undergo any further chemical reactions."

Martian existence?

While our understanding of the world is rapidly increasing, the answer to how life began on Earth remains elusive.

The conference, involving more than 200 leading international scientists, will also explore other theories including whether life arrived from space.


"It is presumed that life arose in a soup rich in carbon compounds, but where did these organic molecules come from?" said Dr Max Bernstein from the US-based Seti Institute.

He believes the answer may lie in interstellar dust, and will be talking about the possibility that a comet or asteroid may have provided Earth with the raw ingredients needed for life.

The researchers will also be asking whether life could exist elsewhere in the Universe.

Professor Monica Grady from the UK's Open University will explore the possibility of a Martian existence at the meeting.

She will discuss whether a Martian biosphere once existed by examining research into the carbon chemistry of Mars.

Professor Ian Smith, from the University of Cambridge, the organiser of the conference said: "Understanding how life emerged on Earth within 1,000 million years of its formation is both a fascinating scientific problem and an essential step in predicting the presence of life elsewhere in the Universe."

Professor Deamer said that his research, which is not yet published, will help to narrow down the theories about how life on Earth emerged.

"One possibility is that life really did begin in a 'warm little pond', but not in hot volcanic springs or marine hydrothermal vents," he added.


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/s ... 702336.stm

Published: 2006/02/13 12:08:28 GMT

© BBC MMVI
 
The origin of life

In the beginning...

Feb 16th 2006
From The Economist print edition

How life on Earth got going is still mysterious, but not for want of ideas

NEVER make forecasts, especially about the future. Samuel Goldwyn's wise advice is well illustrated by a pair of scientific papers published in 1953. Both were thought by their authors to be milestones on the path to the secret of life, but only one has so far amounted to much, and it was not the one that caught the public imagination at the time.

James Watson and Francis Crick, who wrote “A structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid”, have become as famous as rock stars for asking how life works and thereby starting a line of inquiry that led to the Human Genome Project. Stanley Miller, by contrast, though lauded by his peers, languishes in obscurity as far as the wider world is concerned. Yet when it appeared, “Production of amino acids under possible primitive Earth conditions” was expected to begin a scientific process that would solve a problem in some ways more profound than how life works at the moment—namely how it got going in the first place on the surface of a sterile rock 150m km from a small, unregarded yellow star.

Dr Miller was the first to address this question experimentally. Inspired by one of Charles Darwin's ideas, that the ingredients of life might have formed by chemical reactions in a “warm, little pond”, he mixed the gases then thought to have formed the atmosphere of the primitive Earth—methane, ammonia and hydrogen—in a flask half-full of boiling water, and passed electric sparks, mimicking lightning, through them for several days to see what would happen. What happened, as the name of the paper suggests, was amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. The origin of life then seemed within grasp. But it has eluded researchers ever since. They are still looking, though, and this week several of them met at the Royal Society, in London, to review progress.



The origin of pieces
The origin question is really three sub-questions. One is, where did the raw materials for life come from? That is what Dr Miller was asking. The second is, how did those raw materials spontaneously assemble themselves into the first object to which the term “alive” might reasonably be applied? The third is, how, having once come into existence, did it survive conditions in the early solar system?

The first question was addressed by Patrick Thaddeus, of the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, and Max Bernstein, who works at the Ames laboratory, in California, part of America's space agency, NASA. As Dr Bernstein succinctly put it, the chemical raw materials for life, in the form of simple compounds that could then be assembled into more complex biomolecules, could come from above, below or beyond.

The “above” theory—ie, that the raw materials were formed in the atmosphere, and which Dr Miller's original experiment was intended to investigate—has fallen out of favour. That is because it depends on the atmosphere being composed of chemicals rich in hydrogen, which methane and ammonia are. Dr Miller thought this was likely because it was known in the 1950s that Jupiter's atmosphere contains these gases. Modern thinking, though, favours an early terrestrial atmosphere rich in carbon dioxide, as is found on Venus and Mars. Such an atmosphere is no good for making amino acids.

The “beyond” theory is that the raw materials were formed in space, and came to Earth either while it was being formed, or in the form of a later chemical “top up” from comets and interstellar dust. Dr Thaddeus waxed eloquent in support of this, pointing out that radio astronomy has now identified 135 different molecules in outer space (each gives out a specific pattern of radio waves when its atoms are shaken, allowing it to be identified from afar). Moreover, these molecules tend to be concentrated in the sorts of nebulae in which stars and their associated planetary systems are known to form.

Sadly, though, few of the 135 chemicals found so far resemble any important building block of life. That leaves the “below” hypothesis, which is the one Dr Bernstein favours. His theory is that the crucial raw materials were built up in hydrothermal vents like those found today in the deep ocean. These do, indeed, leak chemicals of the sort that Dr Miller used, though they provide reaction-encouraging energy in the form of heat alone, with no electricity. Nevertheless, modern vents do seem to produce not only simple amino acids but also short amino-acid chains—in other words, tiny proteins.

Going from the raw materials to the finished product, though, is a big step. In this case, the definition of “finished product” is something that is recognisably the ancestor of life today. Such an ancestor would store information in DNA, or a molecule similar to it, that was able to replicate, and thus breed. It would also use that information to make proteins. And it would probably do all this inside a membrane made of fatty molecules. In other words, it would be a living cell.



Worlds without end
The favoured theory at the moment is that the first genetic material was not DNA, but its cousin RNA. In the wake of the Watson and Crick paper, a series of experiments showed that RNA acts as a messenger for the DNA, and as a fetcher and carrier of amino acids for the factories in which proteins are made. Until recently, therefore, it was seen as a rather humble substance—a molecular hewer of wood and drawer of water for the presiding DNA genius in the cell nucleus. But it is also an important component of the protein factories themselves. Indeed, these factories are known as ribosomes because of it. And the past few years have seen the discovery of more and more roles for RNA, including some in which it acts as a chemical catalyst—a job that had previously been thought to be restricted to protein-based enzymes.

This ubiquity, combined with the fact that RNA can catalyse chemical reactions, has led to the idea of an RNA world that preceded the modern DNA/protein world—and it seems very likely that RNA did, indeed, precede DNA, if only because it is the more chemically stable of the two. But that does not explain either where the RNA came from in the first place, or how the RNA/protein interdependence came about—a question known as the “breakout” problem.

There are several ideas for how large molecules such as RNA (and also early proteins) might have been generated out of the chemical raw materials that came from above or below or beyond. Two of the most persistent, though, are that clay was the catalyst, and that iron and nickel sulphides were the catalysts.

The clay theory is widely held, but needs tightening up. James Ferris of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, in New York state, explained to the meeting that his research on a type of clay called montmorillonite showed that it catalysed the formation of RNA molecules up to 50 units long. (A unit, in this context, is one of the four chemical bases that make up the alphabet of the genetic code, attached to some sugar and phosphate.) He also showed that the process was selective, with the same relatively small set of RNA molecules emerging every time. That is important, because if all possible permutations of the four bases were equally likely, none of them would ever become common enough for anything interesting to happen.

The iron/nickel/sulphur model is the brainchild of Günter Wächtershauser of Munich University. It, too, relies on catalysis, though in this case the best-tested chemical pathways generate amino acids and proteins, rather than RNA. Unfortunately, neither the clay route nor the iron/nickel route answers the breakout question. But a third, and novel, model described at the meeting might.

This was devised by Trevor Dale of Cardiff University, in Wales. He has come up with a way that proteins and RNA might catalyse each other's production.

The protein involved would crystallise in the form of long, and easily formed, fibres called amyloid. (This is the form that proteins take in brain diseases such as Alzheimer's and Creutzfeldt-Jakob.) The amyloid fibres would then act as surfaces on which RNA molecules could grow.

Crucially, RNA forming on a fibre this way would grow as double strands, like the DNA in a cell nucleus, rather than as the single strands in which the molecule normally comes. When the strands separated, each would act as a template for a new double-stranded molecule, just as happens when a DNA molecule divides.

The protein, meanwhile, would grow because the protruding end of the RNA would act as a catalyst, adding amino acids on to the end of the amyloid fibre. When the fibre grew too long to be stable, it would break in two. Thus both RNA and protein would replicate.

Such a system, Dr Dale thinks, could be the ancestor of the ribosome and, if wrapped in a fatty membrane, of the cell. And, as David Deamer, of the University of California, Santa Cruz, told the meeting, such membranes will assemble spontaneously in certain conditions.

Dr Dale's idea is certainly chemically plausible, though it has yet to be tested in a laboratory. But he is conducting tests at the moment, and hopes to have the results later this year.

The third sub-question—of how life managed to get going at all in the hostile arena of the early Earth, was neatly addressed by Charles Cockell, of Britain's Open University. The perceived problem is that for the first 600m years of its existence, the planet was being bombarded by bits of debris left over from the formation of the solar system. Yet chemical signatures in the few rocks left over from this period suggest that life—presumably in the form of bacteria—was well established by the end of it. How, then, did that life survive the constant rain of asteroids?



Beginnings are such delicate times
Dr Cockell turned the question neatly on its head by showing that impact craters are ideal places for life to get going. The heat generated by an impact produces local hydrothermal springs. These start off hot, thus favouring the formation of amino acids and RNA-forming bases. They then cool over the centuries to the point where these individual molecules can get together in more complex chains. And they also have lots of microscopic nooks and crannies with space for micro-organisms to breed, and interesting chemicals in them for bugs to feed on.

The biggest irony of all, then, might be that the conditions once thought a near-insuperable obstacle to the emergence of life on Earth may actually have enabled it to come about.

http://www.economist.com/science/displa ... id=5518892
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It really only has to happen once. As the actress said to the bishop... :lol:
 
There's a fascinating book out on the emergence of life, starting at the molecular level. I contains a lot of facts that I never knew about.

Singularities : Landmarks on the Pathways of Life
by Christian de Duve
Amazon

Unfortunately it's very expensive :cry: 50 euro is a bit too much for me to spend on a book that's not about computer hacking ;)
 
Very interesting, it surely makes it even more likely that life is common throughout the universe.
 
Humans may owe more than smooth feet to pumice, claim scientists
Pumice, the rock used remove dry skin from feet, could have been responsible for the birth of life on Earth, scientists have claimed.
By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent 7:45AM BST 10 Apr 2011 Comment

It is commonly known for its ability to remove dry skin from feet, but pumice stone may have had a far more important role in our lives than we realise.
Scientists claim the rock, which is produced as volcanic gases bubble through lava as it solidifies, may have been responsible for the birth of life on Earth more than 3.5 billion years ago.

In a surprising new theory for how life evolved our planet, palaeobiologists believe the tiny pores in the volcanic rock provided the perfect environment for the first living cells to develop.
They say they have found evidence that the essential cocktail of chemicals that make up all organisms on Earth can accumulated inside the pumice pores while other chemicals commonly found there could have kick started biological reactions in the presence of ultraviolet light.

Pumice is also well known for its ability to float and massive rafts of the rock have washed up on shorelines around the world decades after major volcanic eruptions.

Professor Martin Brasier, a palaeobiologist at Oxford University who led the team behind the research, said: “This rock sat at the interface between the air and the sea, which is exactly where life would have thrived.
“It is a very light and very porous rock. It has the maximum surface area of any known rock and so it provides the reactive surface for the first complex organic molecules to form.
“It is also geologically durable and can sit on a shoreline where it has washed up for thousands of years being continually refloated and washed up again.
"This long period of time that would have been needed for chemicals to accumulate in one place has always been missing from other theories for how life first evolved.
“Lighting and foams simply did not last long enough to allow these chemicals to form into living cells.”

Professor Brasier, who presented his findings at the European Geosciences Union last week and will publish a more detailed paper on his findings in the journal of Astrobiology later this year, has examined pumice that is around 3.5 billion years old from Western Australia and found that is contains key mineral deposits such as phosphate, which is a key ingredient in living cells.
The pores were also lined with catalysts such as titanium oxide, which is used by industrial chemists today to fix nitrogen from the atmosphere to create ammonium used in fertilisers.

Professor Brasier believes that oil films on the surface of the oceans would have got inside the rock and created oily vesicles that were the beginning of the first cells.
He said: “Titanium oxide was very common in these pumice pores in the presence of ultraviolet light, it can combine nitrogen from the atmosphere with hydrogen. This would have created the building blocks for the first amino acids that now make up the proteins found in all living things.
“As the pumice floated in the water, oily material at the surface would have coated part of the pumice and this would have been essential for forming the walls or membranes of what would have become living cells.
“Osmotic gradients would also have seen other important organic chemicals accumulate inside these vesicles. What we end up with is a substrate that provides all the conditions for the first living cells to form.”

Professor Brasier and his colleagues now hope to carry out some laboratory experiments using pumice to test whether these conditions would have allowed life for form.
He added: “There is a lot of work to do, so I hope other groups also start to look at this seriously and use pumice.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/evol ... tists.html
 
rynner2 said:
Humans may owe more than smooth feet to pumice, claim scientists
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/evol ... tists.html

Volcanic rock rafts 'could have been cradles of life'
By Mark Kinver, Environment reporter, BBC News

Volcanic rock rafts could have played a key role in the origins of life on Earth, a team of scientists suggests.
Researchers say the buoyant rock pumice has the right properties to have provided the conditions for early life to emerge more than 3.5bn years ago.
Pumice "rafts" are found today on shores of islands such as the volcanic Greek island of Santorini (Thera).

The team, from Oxford University and the University of Western Australia, calls for more research on the idea.
"During its life cycle, pumice is potentially exposed to - among other things - lightning associated with volcanic eruptions, oily hydrocarbons and metals produced by hydrothermal vents, and ultraviolet light from the Sun as it floats on water," explained co-author Professor Martin Brasier from the University of Oxford.
"All these conditions have the potential to host, or even generate, the kind of chemical processes that we think created the first living cells."

The volcanic rock floats on water because it has the largest surface-area-to-volume ratio of any type of rock, which would have allowed it to act as a raft collecting material before becoming beached on a shore.

Another of the scientists involved, Dr David Wacey from the University of Western Australia, said that it was known that that life was "thriving" among beach sand grains some 3.4bn years ago.
"What we are saying here is that certain kinds of beach might have provided a cradle for life," he said.

The two researchers were part of an international team which recently published a paper suggesting that microscopic fossils unearthed in Western Australia provided "good, solid evidence" for cells and bacteria living in an oxygen-free world more than 3.4bn years ago.

Writing in their latest paper, to be published in the journal Astrobiology, the team said that the idea that rafts of pumice could have played a significant role in the emergence of some of the earliest organisms on Earth deserved to be "rigorously explored in the laboratory and the early rock record".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14748623

So, maybe life is a beach! 8)
 
Heres another idea.

Scientist suggests life began in freshwater pond, not the ocean

February 14th, 2012 in Space & Earth / Earth Sciences

(PhysOrg.com) -- For most everyone alive today, it's almost a fundamental fact. Life began in the ocean and evolved into all of the different organisms that exist today. The idea that this could be wrong causes great discomfort, like discovering as an adult that you were adopted as a child. Nonetheless, a team of diverse scientists led by Armen Mulkidjanian is suggesting that very thing; instead of life beginning in deep thermal vents in the ocean, the prevailing view, they say it perhaps instead started in landlocked freshwater pools created by thermal vapor. Their theory is based, as they explain in their paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, mostly on the idea that the sea is just too salty to provide the ideal conditions necessary to spur life into existence.

Mulkidjanian and his colleagues argue that in looking at the way cells are made today, it’s hard to imagine they got their start in water that was far saltier than it is now. They point out that cells in all living organisms have a much higher proportion of potassium to sodium, whereas the ocean is the reverse. Such high levels of salt would have made it difficult for cells to synthesize proteins, they say, making it extremely difficult for them the form into the molecular machines with strong walls seen today. Such thick walls would not have existed when cells were just starting to form, making it almost impossible for them to get started, grow and mature.

In contrast, they say, the conditions found on land during the time period when life is believed to have started, was likely far more conducive. In addition to the existing pools of fresh water created by the condensation and cooling of geothermal vapor, there were the higher temperatures that are believed to have existed worldwide. In addition, they say that those pools of water, or mud, likely had many of the same ingredients found in modern cells: phosphate ions, zinc, manganese and especially potassium. Thus the newly forming original cells would not have had to work hard to keep out harmful sodium ions. Also, to counter arguments that newly developing cells on land would be stopped in their tracks by harmful UV radiation from the sun, the team notes that both RNA and DNA have been shown to be stable under such exposure.

Despite the team’s compelling arguments, there are likely to be many doubters, and rather than converting most in the scientific community, this new idea is likely to spark debate that will almost certainly continue for many years to come.

More information: Origin of first cells at terrestrial, anoxic geothermal fields, PNAS, Published online before print February 13, 2012, doi:10.1073/pnas.1117774109
Abstract
All cells contain much more potassium, phosphate, and transition metals than modern (or reconstructed primeval) oceans, lakes, or rivers. Cells maintain ion gradients by using sophisticated, energy-dependent membrane enzymes (membrane pumps) that are embedded in elaborate ion-tight membranes. The first cells could possess neither ion-tight membranes nor membrane pumps, so the concentrations of small inorganic molecules and ions within protocells and in their environment would equilibrate. Hence, the ion composition of modern cells might reflect the inorganic ion composition of the habitats of protocells. We attempted to reconstruct the “hatcheries” of the first cells by combining geochemical analysis with phylogenomic scrutiny of the inorganic ion requirements of universal components of modern cells. These ubiquitous, and by inference primordial, proteins and functional systems show affinity to and functional requirement for K+, Zn2+, Mn2+, and phosphate. Thus, protocells must have evolved in habitats with a high K+/Na+ ratio and relatively high concentrations of Zn, Mn, and phosphorous compounds. Geochemical reconstruction shows that the ionic composition conducive to the origin of cells could not have existed in marine settings but is compatible with emissions of vapor-dominated zones of inland geothermal systems. Under the anoxic, CO2-dominated primordial atmosphere, the chemistry of basins at geothermal fields would resemble the internal milieu of modern cells. The precellular stages of evolution might have transpired in shallow ponds of condensed and cooled geothermal vapor that were lined with porous silicate minerals mixed with metal sulfides and enriched in K+, Zn2+, and phosphorous compounds.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-sci ... -pond.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Comets linked to beginnings of life
John von Radowitz Wednesday 28 March 2012

Shock waves from comets bombarding the Earth may have helped to build proteins and set the stage for life, scientists have learned.

Comets, giant snowballs of ice and dust, are known to have carried organic chemicals and water to the early Earth.
But just what caused life to spring out of nowhere on a barren and desolate planet billions of years ago remains a mystery.

Now scientists may have part of the answer. Laboratory experiments have shown that amino acids - organic molecules that are the building blocks of proteins - would have survived violent comet impacts.
What is more, the shock of a large comet impact would have provided the energy needed to start bonding amino acids together to make proteins.

Proteins provide the raw material that allows all living things, from microbes to humans, to exist and function.
Their creation by comets may explain how life appeared so quickly at the end of a period 3.8 billion years ago called the "late heavy bombardment". During this turbulent time the Earth was showered by both comets and rocky asteroids, leaving crater scars that are still seen on the Moon.

Dr Jennifer Blank, who led the US scientists from the Nasa/Ames Research Centre in Moffett Field, California, said: "Our research shows that the building blocks of life could, indeed, have remained intact despite the tremendous shock wave and other violent conditions in a comet impact.

"Comets really would have been the ideal packages for delivering ingredients for the chemical evolution thought to have resulted in life. We like the comet delivery scenario because it includes all of the ingredients for life - amino acids, water and energy."

Dr Blank described the experiments at the annual meeting of the American Chemical Society in San Diego, California.
Her team set out to simulate conditions that existed when Earth was repeatedly struck by amino acid-carrying comets, some of which were 10 miles or more in diameter.

One study used powerful gas guns to fire supersonic blasts of gas at capsules filled with amino acids, water and other materials.
Despite the heat and shock of the simulated collisions the amino acids did not break down. Instead, they began forming the chain-like "peptide bonds" that link amino acids together to make proteins.
Intense pressure from the impact offset the intense heat and supplied the energy needed to create the peptides.

Other experiments used computer models to simulate conditions as comets ploughed into the Earth's atmosphere.
Both comets and asteroids may have brought multiple deliveries of the "seedlings of life" to Earth, said Dr Blank.

PA

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 93751.html
 
Earth life 'may have come from Mars'
By Simon Redfern, Reporter, BBC News, Florence

Life may have started on Mars before arriving on Earth, a major scientific conference has heard.
New research supports an idea that the Red Planet was a better place to kick-start biology billions of years ago than the early Earth was.
The evidence is based on how the first molecules necessary for life were assembled.
Details of the theory were outlined by Prof Steven Benner at the Goldschmidt Meeting in Florence, Italy.

Scientists have long wondered how atoms first came together to make up the three crucial molecular components of living organisms: RNA, DNA and proteins.
The molecules that combined to form genetic material are far more complex than the primordial "pre-biotic" soup of organic (carbon-based) chemicals thought to have existed on the Earth more than three billion years ago, and RNA (ribonucleic acid) is thought to have been the first of them to appear.

Simply adding energy such as heat or light to the more basic organic molecules in the "soup" does not generate RNA. Instead, it generates tar. :twisted:
RNA needs to be coaxed into shape by "templating" atoms at the crystalline surfaces of minerals.
The minerals most effective at templating RNA would have dissolved in the oceans of the early Earth, but would have been more abundant on Mars, according to Prof Benner.

This could suggest that life started on the Red Planet before being transported to Earth on meteorites, argues Prof Benner, of the Westheimer Institute of Science and Technology in Gainesville, US.

The idea that life originated on Mars and was then transported to our planet has been mooted before. But Prof Benner's ideas add another twist to the theory of a Martian origin for the terrestrial biosphere.

Here in Florence, Prof Benner presented results that suggest minerals containing the elements boron and molybdenum are key in assembling atoms into life-forming molecules.
The researcher points out that boron minerals help carbohydrate rings to form from pre-biotic chemicals, and then molybdenum takes that intermediate molecule and rearranges it to form ribose, and hence RNA.

This raises problems for how life began on Earth, since the early Earth is thought to have been unsuitable for the formation of the necessary boron and molybdenum minerals.
It is thought that the boron minerals needed to form RNA from pre-biotic soups were not available on early Earth in sufficient quantity, and the molybdenum minerals were not available in the correct chemical form.

Prof Benner explained: "It’s only when molybdenum becomes highly oxidised that it is able to influence how early life formed.
"This form of molybdenum couldn’t have been available on Earth at the time life first began, because three billion years ago, the surface of the Earth had very little oxygen, but Mars did.
"It’s yet another piece of evidence which makes it more likely life came to Earth on a Martian meteorite, rather than starting on this planet."

Early Mars is also thought to have had a drier environment, and this is also crucial to its favourable location for life's origins.
"What’s quite clear is that boron, as an element, is quite scarce in Earth’s crust," Prof Benner told BBC News, “but Mars has been drier than Earth and more oxidising, so if Earth is not suitable for the chemistry, Mars might be.
"The evidence seems to be building that we are actually all Martians; that life started on Mars and came to Earth on a rock," he commented.

"It’s lucky that we ended up here, nevertheless - as certainly Earth has been the better of the two planets for sustaining life. If our hypothetical Martian ancestors had remained on Mars, there may not have been a story to tell." 8)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23872765

I can see religious fundamentalists having trouble with this idea!
 
The new paper suggesting panspermic correlations with the Cambrian Explosion is interesting, but it's already drawing criticism - some of which has more to do with dampening any speculative glosses above and beyond the already extremely speculative / suggestive nature of the paper itself.

For example, here's an early response published at Live Science:

No, Octopuses Don't Come From Outer Space
https://www.livescience.com/62594-octopuses-are-not-aliens-panspermia.html

I'm still sorting through all this. My initial, and still tentative, impressions are:

- The paper authors let themselves drift a bit too far out on a limb in suggesting certain things (of which I suspect the octopus example is the most obvious).

- The paper's speculations rely upon the proposition that we have a considerably robust knowledge of once-extant species, species changes, and genomic trends stretching back to circa 500 million years BP. This clashes with the parade of recent finds and analyses demonstrating we haven't (yet) produced any similarly coherent / robust such knowledge about the rise of Homo covering the last 100 - 250 thousand years.

- The authors' focus on the notion of retroviruses stimulating or accelerating the emergence of radically new (sub-?)species is a very good and very intriguing point. However, IMHO they seem to go too far in assuming (or at least prioritizing) some connection between retroviral influence and an extraterrestrial origin for the influential retroviruses. I can't think of anything they claim about purported extraterrestrial retroviruses that wouldn't equally apply to ones of 'homegrown' (terrestrial) origin.

At this very early stage, I suspect the eventual consensus will be somewhere in the middle ground between swallowing the paper's speculations and completely blowing them off.
 
This new item concerns a sort of localized panspermia theory, in which life precursors developed on planetesimals (chunks of the coalescing solar system) and perhaps then seeded the emerging planet earth.
Life May Have Evolved Before Earth Finished Forming

Life may have arisen in our solar system before Earth even finished forming.

Planetesimals, the rocky building blocks of planets, likely had all the ingredients necessary for life as we know it way back at the dawn of the solar system, said Lindy Elkins-Tanton, a planetary scientist at Arizona State University (ASU).

And clement conditions may have persisted inside some planetesimals for tens of millions of years — perhaps long enough for life to emerge ...

Some planetesimals survived into and beyond the planet-forming period, raising the possibility that one of these primitive bodies may have seeded Earth with life ...

FULL STORY: https://www.livescience.com/65330-life-may-have-evolved-before-earth-finished-forming.html
 
Last edited:
Life on Earth probably originated in deep-sea vents and aliens could be growing the same way now, scientists suggest

Source: Independent Newspaper
Date: '1 day ago'

New experiment replicating conditions in hydrothermal fissures led to ‘self-assembling’ protocells - a basic form of cell structure essential for life.

Mysterious deep-sea hydrothermal vents, where fissures in the sea floor allow the magma in the Earth’s mantle to heat trapped water to high temperatures before it is pumped back into the ocean from towering natural chimneys, provide ideal conditions for the origins of life, scientists believe.

https://www-independent-co-uk.cdn.a...3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s
 
This new study suggests soda lakes (akin to the modern Mono Lake in California) might have been the source of primordial phosphorus - an issue that's been a theoretical loose end for a long time.
Early 'Soda Lakes' May Have Provided Missing Ingredient Key to the Origin of Life

The first life-forms on Earth needed a pu pu platter of ingredients to exist, but one of those ingredients, the mineral phosphorus, has long puzzled scientists. No one knew how phosphorus, one of the six main chemical elements of life, became plentiful enough on early Earth for life to burst forth.

Now, researchers may have the answer; lakes that thrived in dry locations on early Earth likely played a key role in supplying phosphorus, researchers wrote in a new study published Dec. 30 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The finding explains how this scarce mineral became abundant in Earth's primordial soup. Put more plainly, it helps scientists understand how life likely arose. "For 50 years, what's called 'the phosphate problem,' has plagued studies on the origin of life," study co-researcher Jonathan Toner, a research assistant professor of Earth and space sciences at the University of Washington, said in a statement. ...

Phosphorus is crucial to life as we know it. The mineral helps form the backbone of DNA and RNA molecules; anchors lipids, or fats, that separate cells from the environment around them; and helps provide life energy, serving as the main component in molecules such as adenosine triphosphate, or ATP.

To investigate the "phosphate problem," the researchers in the new study looked at carbonate-rich lakes, which are found in dry environments. These lakes, also known as soda lakes, form when water from the surrounding landscape flows into a depression. Evaporation then turns the lake water salty and alkaline (meaning it has a high pH). ...
FULL STORY: https://www.livescience.com/lakes-provided-phosphorus-to-early-earth.html
 
Life’s Frankenstein beginnings

Source: heritagedaily.com
Date: 21 January, 2020

When the Earth was born, it was a mess. Meteors and lightning storms likely bombarded the planet’s surface where nothing except lifeless chemicals could survive.

How life formed in this chemical mayhem is a mystery billions of years old. Now, a new study offers evidence that the first building blocks may have matched their environment, starting out messier than previously thought.

Life is built with three major components: RNA and DNA–the genetic code that, like construction managers, program how to run and reproduce cells–and proteins, the workers that carry out their instructions. Most likely, the first cells had all three pieces. Over time, they grew and replicated, competing in Darwin’s game to create the diversity of life today: bacteria, fungi, wolves, whales and humans.

But first, RNA, DNA or proteins had to form without their partners. One common theory, known as the “RNA World” hypothesis, proposes that because RNA, unlike DNA, can self-replicate, that molecule may have come first. While recent studies discovered how the molecule’s nucleotides–the A, C, G and U that form its backbone–could have formed from chemicals available on early Earth, some scientists believe the process may not have been such a straightforward path.

“Years ago, the naive idea that pools of pure concentrated ribonucleotides might be present on the primitive Earth was mocked by Leslie Orgel as ‘the Molecular Biologist’s Dream,'” said Jack Szostak, a Nobel Prize Laureate, professor of chemistry and chemical biology and genetics at Harvard University, and an investigator at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. “But how relatively modern homogeneous RNA could emerge from a heterogeneous mixture of different starting materials was unknown.”

In a paper published in the Journal of the American Chemical Society, Szostak and colleagues present a new model for how RNA could have emerged. Instead of a clean path, he and his team propose a Frankenstein-like beginning, with RNA growing out of a mixture of nucleotides with similar chemical structures: arabino- deoxy- and ribonucleotides (ANA, DNA, and RNA).

https://www.heritagedaily.com/2020/01/lifes-frankenstein-beginnings/125566
 
Emergence of life in an inflationary universe

Scientific Reports volume 10, Article number: 1671 (2020)

Source: nature.com
Published: 3 February, 2020

Abstract

Abiotic emergence of ordered information stored in the form of RNA is an important unresolved problem concerning the origin of life. A polymer longer than 40–100 nucleotides is necessary to expect a self-replicating activity, but the formation of such a long polymer having a correct nucleotide sequence by random reactions seems statistically unlikely. However, our universe, created by a single inflation event, likely includes more than 10100 Sun-like stars. If life can emerge at least once in such a large volume, it is not in contradiction with our observations of life on Earth, even if the expected number of abiogenesis events is negligibly small within the observable universe that contains only 1022 stars. Here, a quantitative relation is derived between the minimum RNA length lmin required to be the first biological polymer, and the universe size necessary to expect the formation of such a long and active RNA by randomly adding monomers. It is then shown that an active RNA can indeed be produced somewhere in an inflationary universe, giving a solution to the abiotic polymerization problem. On the other hand, lmin must be shorter than ~20 nucleotides for the abiogenesis probability close to unity on a terrestrial planet, but a self-replicating activity is not expected for such a short RNA. Therefore, if extraterrestrial organisms of a different origin from those on Earth are discovered in the future, it would imply an unknown mechanism at work to polymerize nucleotides much faster than random statistical processes.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-58060-0
 
The origin of life as a planetary phenomenon

Source: sciencemag.org / Science Advances
Date: 5 February, 2020

Abstract

We advocate an integrative approach between laboratory experiments in prebiotic chemistry and geologic, geochemical, and astrophysical observations to help assemble a robust chemical pathway to life that can be reproduced in the laboratory. The cyanosulfidic chemistry scenario described here was developed by such an integrative iterative process. We discuss how it maps onto evolving planetary surface environments on early Earth and Mars and the value of comparative planetary evolution. The results indicate that Mars can offer direct evidence for geochemical conditions similar to prebiotic Earth, whose early record has been erased. The Jezero crater is now the chosen landing site for NASA’s Mars 2020 rover, making this an extraordinary opportunity for a breakthrough in understanding life’s origins.

INTRODUCTION

We begin with the premise that life emerged on Earth from chemistry that led to the synthesis of molecular building blocks, which, in turn, self-assembled to form cells. This prebiotic chemistry must have been a natural and robust extension of the geochemical and environmental conditions readily available somewhere on the planet.

Here, we focus on the prebiotic synthesis of the nucleotides, amino acids, and lipids needed for life as we know it and the planetary environmental context that makes that synthesis possible. We will not address the steps to self-assembly into cells—see the review by Szostak (1) for that—but neither do we intend to draw a line of any scientific importance between the two stages. We simply envisage chemistry morphing smoothly into biology. However, there is a point further down the path that does have significance in which RNA and peptides exceed a certain length so that exploration of sequence space by the system can no longer be exhaustive, and nascent biology thus proceeds along a pathway dictated by contingency. Up to that point, prebiotic chemistry and early biology most likely followed a deterministic trajectory, and if similar sequences of conditions prevailed upon other planets, we might expect the same chemistry and early biology to play out.

Substantial recent progress in both prebiotic chemistry and exploration of early planetary surface environments motivates us to outline the current state of the field as we see it. We advocate an integrative approach between prebiotic chemistry and paleoenvironmental context, constrained by geologic and geochemical observations to help resolve many of the remaining challenges. New insights into Earth’s early environment have now been joined by markedly improved understanding of early Mars, making it possible to make chronologically constrained comparisons of planetary history and environmental evolution. In the coming decades, atmospheric spectra of Earth-like exoplanets will also be obtained, ultimately allowing for a radical expansion of the breadth of geochemistries we can study. How can we leverage these new insights to understand life’s origins?

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/6/eaax3419
 
The problem I keep coming back to - No matter what the theory of how
- is WHY? - WHY biological life?

Sure they offer many, many hows as to how chemistry could have led to a complete
cell - but what is a cell without life - Why would that cell function as a life form?

And what force would drive or cause it to reproduce?

If the Universe is as science would have you believe, it is inorganic and functions
inorganically - Unless you say the Universe itself possesses a living force inherit
to its existence - Then biological existence might simply be an anomaly.

See until you can give an explanation as to why the life process itself began to
function as such - Than any theory as to how it began here [on Earth} or
anywhere else, is lacking in meaning - Chemistry itself can never explain Life.
 
Crystals grow and spread, with no real why other than chemical reactions. They don't appear to have any specific motivation.
 
Crystals grow and spread, with no real why other than chemical reactions. They don't appear to have any specific motivation.
Yes! Almost everything has an underlying crystalline structure and is mathematically determined. The behaviour and properties of certain substances are programmed into them by means of their crystalline structure. RNA and DNA both are programmed by means of their architecture.
 
The underlying physical processes are merely the apparatus or vehicle for biological life.

The essential characteristic of "living" (as contrasted with "non-living") systems is that they are self-organized / self-sustaining networks of processes that - in addition to whatever else they may do or manifest - persistently maintain the apparatus and arrangement of their internal components as a result of their own actions / interactions.

They are autonomous in the sense that ongoing management of their self-sustaining character is a functional result of their own apparatus, arrangement, and processes rather than merely the physico-chemical features of their components per se or external forces or interactions.

As such, the cell is the most commonly cited elemental or canonical example of a living system.

Reproduction is not an essential element for qualifying as a living system. Reproduction is an essential element of the network(s) of processes definitive of a species rather than an individual organism.
 
The underlying physical processes are merely the apparatus or vehicle for biological life.

The essential characteristic of "living" (as contrasted with "non-living") systems is that they are self-organized / self-sustaining networks of processes that - in addition to whatever else they may do or manifest - persistently maintain the apparatus and arrangement of their internal components as a result of their own actions / interactions.

They are autonomous in the sense that ongoing management of their self-sustaining character is a functional result of their own apparatus, arrangement, and processes rather than merely the physico-chemical features of their components per se or external forces or interactions.

As such, the cell is the most commonly cited elemental or canonical example of a living system.

Reproduction is not an essential element for qualifying as a living system. Reproduction is an essential element of the network(s) of processes definitive of a species rather than an individual organism.

Agreed - But from where or why would any other of the inorganic processes occurring throughout the universe suddenly, or even over time, begin to
"self-organized / self-sustaining networks of processes" - What kick-starts
such a self organization and self-sustaining process? {Crystals might organize
and sustain but there is no living life process in a crystal}
- Can the 'spark of life' be a possibility in the random chemical/physical events
of nature? - You could say yes, but still 'self organization' sounds like an external
process or intelligence not inherent to inorganic reactions.

Again, unless the universe itself possesses an inherent intelligence.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top