NationStates Jolt Archive


New hypothesis regarding origin of life.

Zilam
04-12-2007, 20:32
http://www.physorg.com/printnews.php?newsid=115988029
New hypothesis for origin of life proposed

Life may have begun in the protected spaces inside of layers of the mineral mica, in ancient oceans, according to a new hypothesis.

The hypothesis was developed by Helen Hansma, a research scientist with the University of California, Santa Barbara and a program director at the National Science Foundation. Hansma will present her findings at a press briefing on Tues., Dec. 4, at the annual meeting of the American Society for Cell Biology in Washington, D.C.

The Hansma mica hypothesis proposes that the narrow confined spaces between the thin layers of mica could have provided exactly the right conditions for the rise of the first biomolecules –– effectively creating cells without membranes. The separation of the layers would have also provided the isolation needed for Darwinian evolution.

“Some think that the first biomolecules were simple proteins, some think they were RNA, or ribonucleic acid,” said Hansma. “Both proteins and RNA could have formed in between the mica sheets.”

RNA plays an important part in translating the genetic code, and is composed of nitrogenous bases, sugar, and phosphates. RNA and many proteins and lipids in our cells have negative charges like mica. RNA’s phosphate groups are spaced one half nanometer apart, just like the negative charges on mica.

Mica layers are held together by potassium. The concentration of potassium inside the mica is very similar to the concentration of potassium in our cells. And the seawater that bathed the mica is rich in sodium, just like our blood.

The heating and cooling of the day to night cycle would have caused the mica sheets to move up and down, and waves would have provided a mechanical energy source as well, according to the new model. Both forms of movement would have caused the forming and breaking of chemical bonds necessary for the earliest biochemistry.

Thus the mica layers could have provided the support, shelter, and an energy source for the development of precellular life, while leaving artifacts in the structure of living things today.

Besides providing a more plausible hypothesis than the prebiotic oceanic “soup” model, Hansma said her new hypothesis also explains more than the so-called “pizza” hypothesis. That model proposes that biomolecules originated on the surfaces of minerals from the Earth’s crust. The “pizza” hypothesis cannot explain how the earliest biomolecules obtained the right amount of water to form stable biopolymers.

A biophysicist, Hansma has worked with mica for decades beginning with her work in biological Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) in the late 1980s. “We put our samples on mica, because it is so atomically flat, so flat that we can see even bare DNA molecules as little ridges on the mica surface,” said Hansma. “The layered mineral is made of sheets so thin (one nanometer) that there are a million of them in a millimeter-thick sheet of mica.”

Hansma came upon her idea one day last spring when she was splitting some mica under her dissecting microscope. She had collected the specimens in a mica mine in Connecticut. The mica was covered with organic material. “As I was looking at the organic crud on the mica, it occurred to me that this would be a good place for life to originate –– between these sheets that can move up and down in response to water currents which would have provided the mechanical energy for making and breaking bonds,” said Hansma.


I personally agree with the statement that this is more believable the the "primordial soup" or "pizza" hypotheses.
JuNii
04-12-2007, 20:37
http://www.physorg.com/printnews.php?newsid=115988029


I personally agree with the statement that this is more believable the the "primordial soup" or "pizza" hypotheses.

The Hansma mica hypothesis proposes that the narrow confined spaces between the thin layers of mica could have provided exactly the right conditions for the rise of the first biomolecules –– effectively creating cells without membranes. The separation of the layers would have also provided the isolation needed for Darwinian evolution.


So first Soup, then Pizza, and now a "sandwich"...

I think scientists that think these up are hungry. :D

On a serious note tho. sounds very intersting.
HotRodia
04-12-2007, 20:38
Very cool. I look forward to seeing further research on this.
Longhaul
04-12-2007, 20:38
I personally agree with the statement that this is more believable the the "primordial soup" or "pizza" hypotheses.
I've always liked most of the variants of clay theory myself, but this one looks plausible too. :)
Greater Trostia
04-12-2007, 20:41
University of California, Santa Barbara

YAY! :)
New Czardas
04-12-2007, 20:45
So first Soup, then Pizza, and now a "sandwich"...

I think scientists that think these up are hungry. :D

I'm still holding out for the "Primordial Babaganouj".

And what HotRodia said.
Pirated Corsairs
04-12-2007, 20:48
Oooh, interesting. I can't wait to see how additional research might turn out.
Honourable Angels
04-12-2007, 21:32
I'm still holding out for the "Primordial Babaganouj".

And what HotRodia said.

'Anyone order a Primeval Chicken Tikka 'Sala?'
Ordo Drakul
04-12-2007, 21:44
Does it matter? Unless it can be repeated, it's unimportant speculation, and if it can be repeated, we have an ethics debate on our hands-does synthetic life have the same rights as natural life? In my opinion life is life, but creating it in a lab will only cause the Christians to rewrite their Bible to include a "How God Did It" chapter, or commentary, and it really changes little. Rather than worrying how it came about, we really need to focus on it's sanctity, and preserving that.
JuNii
04-12-2007, 22:02
Does it matter? Unless it can be repeated, it's unimportant speculation, and if it can be repeated, we have an ethics debate on our hands-does synthetic life have the same rights as natural life? In my opinion life is life, but creating it in a lab will only cause the Christians to rewrite their Bible to include a "How God Did It" chapter, or commentary, and it really changes little. Rather than worrying how it came about, we really need to focus on it's sanctity, and preserving that.

even if it can be repeated, would it be synthetic since it's using a proven natural process?
Longhaul
04-12-2007, 22:06
Does it matter? Unless it can be repeated, it's unimportant speculation
If it can be repeated then it would be a proven method to do a certain thing and would therefore represent new knowledge, which in and of itself is enough to categorise it as important, to me if nobody else.
Curious Inquiry
04-12-2007, 22:09
The true (http://www.venganza.org/) origin of life.
Kyronea
04-12-2007, 22:10
Does it matter? Unless it can be repeated, it's unimportant speculation, and if it can be repeated, we have an ethics debate on our hands-does synthetic life have the same rights as natural life? In my opinion life is life, but creating it in a lab will only cause the Christians to rewrite their Bible to include a "How God Did It" chapter, or commentary, and it really changes little. Rather than worrying how it came about, we really need to focus on it's sanctity, and preserving that.

I agree. This blasphemy against our Lord must stop! How dare these scientists claim to know the secrets of how God created all life?!
Bann-ed
04-12-2007, 22:47
Do RNA, proteins, lipids and such live? Do they have a will or a need of a resource in order to survive? What I can't figure out is(barring random chance fusion of particles or something), how or why any of these molecules would form into a cohesive mass and become a primordial organism.
Gravlen
04-12-2007, 22:52
I agree. This blasphemy against our Lord must stop! How dare these scientists claim to know the secrets of how God created all life?!

Of course, you mean *my* God, and not your (haha!) pitful excuse for a god?
Pirated Corsairs
04-12-2007, 22:54
Of course, you mean *my* God, and not your (haha!) pitful excuse for a god?

Your God? That's heresy! Persecute! Kill the unbeliever in the true God!
Call to power
04-12-2007, 22:56
how or why any of these molecules would form into a cohesive mass and become a primordial organism.

the love between a primordial ooze cell and another of course

...well I say I'm a love machine and thats final :cool:
Lunatic Goofballs
04-12-2007, 23:14
My God has a bigger dick than your god! :p
Julianus II
04-12-2007, 23:31
My God has a bigger dick than your god! :p

That's just 'cause he's sucking on it:p
Lunatic Goofballs
04-12-2007, 23:33
That's just 'cause he's sucking on it:p

He's young and needed the work. :p
Londim
05-12-2007, 02:06
You Heathens! Everyone knows I'm the one true God!
*smites unbelievers*
CthulhuFhtagn
05-12-2007, 02:15
Do RNA, proteins, lipids and such live? Do they have a will or a need of a resource in order to survive? What I can't figure out is(barring random chance fusion of particles or something), how or why any of these molecules would form into a cohesive mass and become a primordial organism.

Chemistry. They're attracted to one another. Besides, you only need one self-replicating molecule to kick the whole thing off.
Deus Malum
05-12-2007, 02:31
Chemistry. They're attracted to one another. Besides, you only need one self-replicating molecule to kick the whole thing off.

This makes me honestly wonder if anyone's tried to go through the interactions step by step from the ground up, starting with base molecules and working up to RNA and DNA. I'm sure someone has.
CthulhuFhtagn
05-12-2007, 02:34
This makes me honestly wonder if anyone's tried to go through the interactions step by step from the ground up, starting with base molecules and working up to RNA and DNA. I'm sure someone has.

As far as I know, no, no one has.
Vetalia
05-12-2007, 02:45
This makes me honestly wonder if anyone's tried to go through the interactions step by step from the ground up, starting with base molecules and working up to RNA and DNA. I'm sure someone has.

I doubt it. It would have probably been too complicated to model (and some of the knowledge wasn't there yet)...now, however, scientists do have the tools, additional information, and raw processing power to simulate a large scale system like this. I think we'll be seeing a lot of in silico simulations of this kind of primordial biochemistry as research in to genetics moves forward.
Deus Malum
05-12-2007, 02:57
I doubt it. It would have probably been too complicated to model (and some of the knowledge wasn't there yet)...now, however, scientists do have the tools, additional information, and raw processing power to simulate a large scale system like this. I think we'll be seeing a lot of in silico simulations of this kind of primordial biochemistry as research in to genetics moves forward.

I certainly hope so. It would shed light on a lot of things.
Domici
05-12-2007, 03:41
even if it can be repeated, would it be synthetic since it's using a proven natural process?

Yes. It's synthetic if humans deliberately do it when it couldn't have happened on its own. Consciousness matters. Fires start on their own when lightning strikes tinder. That doesn't make fireplaces natural.
JuNii
05-12-2007, 03:50
Yes. It's synthetic if humans deliberately do it when it couldn't have happened on its own. Consciousness matters. Fires start on their own when lightning strikes tinder. That doesn't make fireplaces natural.

ah, but the fire isn't synthetic no matter if it was created by a bolt of lightning or a match.