mental_floss magazine
SUBSCRIBE >
GIFT SUBSCRIPTIONS >
DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTIONS >
subscriber services >
Today the New York Times brings us an interesting look at the origin of life. It tackles this central puzzle: “Which came first, the proteins of living cells or the genetic information that makes them? How could the metabolism of living things get started without an enclosing membrane to keep all the necessary chemicals together? But if life started inside a cell membrane, how did the necessary nutrients get in?”
The article is worth a read if you’ve ever wondered how life could arise from simple organic compounds; this article delves into bits of the technical details of how self-replicating, spontaneously dividing cells might have come about. Here’s a snippet:
Yet rocks that formed on Earth 3.8 billion years ago, almost as soon as the bombardment had stopped, contain possible evidence of biological processes. If life can arise from inorganic matter so quickly and easily, why is it not abundant in the solar system and beyond? If biology is an inherent property of matter, why have chemists so far been unable to reconstruct life, or anything close to it, in the laboratory?
…The questions may seem moot, since life did start somehow. But for the small group of researchers who insist on learning exactly how it started, frustration has abounded. Many once-promising leads have led only to years of wasted effort. Scientists as eminent as Francis Crick, the chief theorist of molecular biology, have quietly suggested that life may have formed elsewhere before seeding the planet, so hard does it seem to find a plausible explanation for its emergence on Earth.
Read the rest for a nice bit of popular science reporting. Be sure to check out the video of Vesicle Nucleation (located around the fourth paragraph of the article).
Comments (20)
Comment
- Follow mental_floss
Does anyone else wonder why so many scientists seem to keep making arguments for intelligent design while at the same time they ardently dismiss it?
posted by Dave on 6-16-2009 at 8:13 pm
Dave, could it be because there’s profound evidence against it and that it makes no sense at all?
posted by Amanda on 6-16-2009 at 8:45 pm
scientists are just looking for proof. although many don’t dismiss the possibility of intelligent design, it’s obviously more realistic to seek that proof on a scientific basis, rather than wait for God to tell us (somehow?). and really, what would life even be if we were born knowing everything?
posted by Cara on 6-16-2009 at 9:09 pm
Amanda claiming that intelligent design makes no sense is hardly tolerant or intelligent on your part.
Most scientist today all have an agenda and maybe the intelligent designs crews agenda is not in line with yours their theory on how life came about is just as valid as the evolutionary theory.
In the end trying to figure out where we came from is all nice and good but it will be speculation because there, at this point,is no conclusive evidence for any of the theories. Just as practical theory could be that life as we know it is all the result of a man turning on a light switch in another dimension.
Science should stick to areas that can be identified and tested/proven by science, and avoid the speculative areas that are more in the realm of philosophy and religion.
posted by Charles on 6-16-2009 at 11:20 pm
Actually Chuck, Evolution is, in fact, a credible theory based on observation, and ABUNDANT evidence.
Creationism/ID is neither valid nor credible… and is in fact an elaborate set of fairy tales based on a myth.
There is a difference.
Us sciency type folks appreciate your naivete… it is adorable.
posted by Timmy on 6-17-2009 at 5:34 am
I have heard heard similar theroies before, like the one mentioned by the venerable Crick.
But I cannot help but develop an ethical question: with all the time and energy devoted to finidng the source of life, which is important; doesn’t anyone think that these brilliant minds can be put to better use solving the problems that can possibly be remedied in our time? Disease, starvation, poverty?
I respect the intelligent minds of our day, but sometimes it seems that they set their priorities in the wrong order.
posted by James on 6-17-2009 at 9:35 am
Evolution is a theory in the same way that gravity is a theory.
That is all.
posted by Anonymous on 6-17-2009 at 9:42 am
Gravity is a law, evolution is a theory, intelligent design is a religious belief.
posted by Dan on 6-17-2009 at 10:06 am
James, the great thing about living in free society is that the scientists get to choose what they “put their minds to use” doing based on what they are interested in. Part of the search for the origin of life IS related to finding the source of disease.
posted by j.vanpelt on 6-17-2009 at 10:10 am
I just love statements like this: “Scientists as eminent as Francis Crick, the chief theorist of molecular biology, have quietly suggested that life may have formed elsewhere before seeding the planet, so hard does it seem to find a plausible explanation for its emergence on Earth.”
Let’s hear it for the panspermia hypothesis. It’s very sciency [sic]isn’t it, Timmy?
Of course there’s nothing naive about throwing up your hands and moving the problem off-planet where it is infinitely less likely to be observed or tested. It is a statement of faith and hope based on the religion of evolution.
posted by toddes on 6-17-2009 at 10:47 am
I think everything on earth was just chance at the right moment and at the right time life began.
posted by Kari on 6-17-2009 at 11:35 am
Wow… for an intelligent publication like mental_floss a lot of anti-evolution sentiment.
Evolution has nothing to do with how life was started, you dolts. It ha to do with the modification of organisms over time.
posted by Zach on 6-17-2009 at 12:50 pm
I don’t see much point in this exercise.
Maybe it could be useful if it was provable that there is only one possible way (unlikely), otherwise it is still an open question.
posted by anomdebus on 6-17-2009 at 1:22 pm
Evolution, is a two form science, there is macro (the origin of life and where we came from) and micro (also known as adaptation)
I like the naiveté of supposed scientists who say evolution is a law. No it is still a theory unless science choses to belittle its own standards.
The only reason to call it a Law is to debunked any creationalism/ID advocates, but in pure scientific terms evolution (macro) is still a theory. I should of clarified myself for those easily confused, when i say evolution in this sense i’m talking about MACRO evolution not MICRO evolution.
Regardless of my own personal or intellectual beliefs, i freely accept i may be wrong, but don’t start labeling theories as laws when they have not be proven a law yet.
posted by Charles on 6-17-2009 at 1:58 pm
Charles, when you say ‘theory’, do you even know what you are talking about? Are you aware of the huge amounts of supporting data and observations that go into a scientific theory?
Also, Charles, it’s pointless to say evolution isn’t a law. Laws are universal and must be true everywhere, so there can be no “law of evolution” because who knows what life is like on other planets (if there is life out there)? I don’t even know where you get your sources when you say “scientists who say evolution is a law”
posted by Schoolio on 6-17-2009 at 4:13 pm
link in my name is one of the websites i just decided
‘
a quick quote for those not wishing to go down all the rabbit holes
Emory University assistant professor Carlos S. Moreno
Moreno said Tuesday that placing the sticker in the biology textbooks was like “putting a sticker about gravity on a physics book.”
posted by Charles on 6-18-2009 at 2:31 am
the true origin of life can not be ascertained by scientific experiment!. the true origin in my own perspective is from the word of God. it was actually created from spoken words, just like saying let there be light and there was light
posted by Mike Iwu on 6-18-2009 at 8:05 am
And It is the ramblings of Mike Iwu that make me face palm.
posted by Charles on 6-18-2009 at 1:09 pm
Sometimes — WHY – is a Stupid question.
posted by alvino on 6-23-2009 at 5:23 am
Flying Spaghetti Monster, anyone?
Please studying biology for 4 years before you claim that evolution doesn’t make sense.
Stating intelligent design is in-valid doesn’t make you intolerant, Charles. And most scientists DON’T have an agenda. Most are discovering new things at their own curiosity. The uninformed ramblings of people that don’t know what they’re talking about are the ones with an agenda. Scientific claims go through peer-review…by other brilliant men and women.
Science allows our understanding of the physical world to grow. Every time there is new evidence, somebody is there to throw stones just because they don’t like the evidence. There is NO evidence that will let these yahoos understand evolution because they simply don’t want it to be true
posted by Tony on 6-23-2009 at 7:42 am