iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Evolution Created Life From Lifeless 'Primordial Soup,' Scientists Suggest

Earth Asteroid

First Posted: 02/21/2012 11:40 am Updated: 02/21/2012 11:54 am

By: Clara Moskowitz, LiveScience Senior Writer
Published: 02/21/2012 10:12 AM EST on LiveScience

VANCOUVER, British Columbia -- Just as species are believed to have evolved over time, the individual molecules that form the basis of life also likely developed in response to natural selection, scientists say.

Life on Earth first bloomed around 3.7 billion years ago, when chemical compounds in a "primordial soup" somehow sparked into life, scientists suspect. But what turned sterile molecules into living, changing organisms? That's the ultimate mystery.

By studying the evolution of not just life, but life's building blocks as well, researchers hope to come closer to the answer.

Two become one

The molecules swimming in early Earth's primordial soup would have been continually destroyed by ultraviolet radiation from the sun, as well as heat and other processes on the planet. [7 Theories on the Origin of Life]

But when certain special pairs of molecules combined to form a larger compound, they sometimes came out with protections that neither had alone.

"When molecules interact, they start taking on properties they don't have as individuals, but do gain when they're in a complex," Robert Root-Bernstein, a physiologist at Michigan State University, said Sunday (Feb. 19) here at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "This provides a means of natural selection."

Molecules that could combine to gain attributes would survive longer and proliferate, while those that were more easily destroyed would fade away.

Better together

One example is the compound of glutamic acid and two glycine molecules.

Individually, each of these molecules was easily destroyed by ultraviolet radiation. But put together, they were extremely stable.

"In this case we are buffering this pair of molecules against destruction, and they would have been around much longer than other things," Root-Bernstein said. "Very specific pairs are going to survive and others aren't."

Another example is the hormone epinephrine, also known as adrenaline. When combined with ascorbic acid (vitamin C), the compound is resistant to oxidation -- a loss of electrons that can cause a substance to disintegrate. This is an attribute that neither possesses alone. [What Are the Ingredients of Life?]

The watchmaker problem

These chemical combinations may help explain one of the greatest mysteries of how life got started.

There's a famous parable called the "watchmaker problem," first described by Nobel Prize-winning economist Herbert Simon.

Imagine two watchmakers trying to assemble a watch of 1,000 pieces. The first watchmaker assembles his watch one piece at a time -- he must assemble it in one sitting or it falls apart and he has to start over. The second watchmaker builds hers by first putting together small stable modules of a few pieces, and then building these up into ever-larger subconfigurations until she has a whole watch. If she is interrupted, the smaller modules don't break down and she can resume from roughly where she started.

The second is a much more efficient way of putting together a watch, because it offers protection against having to start over from the beginning if the process is interrupted.

Building up the first organisms on Earth may have worked the same way, Root-Bernstein said.

"If you have to evolve a receptor composed of a precise ordering of 400 amino acids, it wouldn't be possible to do it all at once," he said. "You have to use stable modules."

These modules are the compound molecules that have become stable by combining. If life assembled from combinations of these already-stable building blocks, rather than a random combination of raw molecules from scratch, the process would have been much more efficient.

"The difference between trying absolutely everything and trying a small number of stable modules is huge," Root-Bernstein said. "It makes something that's virtually impossible into something that's very likely."

You can follow LiveScience senior writer Clara Moskowitz on Twitter @ClaraMoskowitz.For more science news, follow LiveScience on twitter @livescience.

Copyright 2012 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
FOLLOW HUFFPOST SCIENCE

By: Clara Moskowitz, LiveScience Senior Writer Published: 02/21/2012 10:12 AM EST on LiveScience VANCOUVER, British Columbia -- Just as species are believed to have evolved over time, the indivi...
By: Clara Moskowitz, LiveScience Senior Writer Published: 02/21/2012 10:12 AM EST on LiveScience VANCOUVER, British Columbia -- Just as species are believed to have evolved over time, the indivi...
Filed by David Freeman  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 2,431
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (17 total)
10:32 AM on 05/16/2012
Time to update comprehension of Earthlife genesis and nature...

Earth’s Primal Organisms (Per Sleep And Chirality)
AAAS Religion-Trade Union Dictates Notwithstanding

A.
Traces of Inaugural Life
Geologists, biologists join forces to tell new stories about the first cells on Earth
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/340401/title/Traces_of_Inaugural_Life

“Earth’s first living organisms didn’t leave behind footprints or bite marks or bones. These single cells thrived quietly in a tiny pocket somewhere on the planet”.

B.
EarthLife Genesis From Aromaticity/H-Bonding
http://universe-life.com/2011/09/30/earthlife-genesis-from-aromaticityh-bonding/

The address of Earth Life Genesis, of phasing from inanimate to animate natural selection, is Aromaticity.Hydrogen Bonding.

Dov Henis
(comments from 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com/
08:02 PM on 03/09/2012
So it seems that the article titled "Evolution Created Life From Lifeless 'Primordial Soup,' Scientists Suggest" is not based on real scientific evidence but just on speculation and wishful thinking. And And the research done on abiogenesis more and more points to its implausibility.

Despite all the research done, the problem of the origins of life remains. All that has been outlined is speculation and, despite tremendous advances in biochemistry, answers to the problem remain hypothetical. Details of the transition from complex non-living materials to simple living organisms remain a mystery.

You must conclude that no valid scientific explanation of life exists at present. Since science has not the vaguest idea how life originated on earth, it would be honest to admit this in public.

in summary, surveys of textbooks find that the Miller–Urey study is the major research cited to prove abiogenesis. Although widely heralded for decades by the popular press as ‘proving’ that life originated on the early earth entirely under natural conditions, we now realize the experiment actually provided compelling evidence for the opposite conclusion. It is now recognized that this set of experiments has done more to show that abiogenesis on Earth is not possible than to indicate how it could be possible.
lastpost
see biography
06:57 AM on 02/27/2012
"Evolution Created Life From Lifeless 'Primordial Soup,'"
I’ll just have a Caesar Salad then.

"chemical compounds in a "primordial soup" somehow sparked into life"
How very scientific.

"the ultimate mystery."
If the Higgs Boson, on a human scale, is the god particle. Is an asteroid, on a deity scale, the life particle?

"Two become one"
Commonly known as the beast with two backs.

"molecules swimming"
got out and made love in the surf. As shown in the film “From Here To Maternity”.

"each of these molecules was easily destroyed"
And religious bans on same sex marriage couldn’t have helped much either.

"[What Are the Ingredients of Life?]"
Well the main one, is a healthy distrust of personal infallibility.

"The second watchmaker builds hers by first putting together small stable modules of a few pieces"
Which explains why she ended up with a refrigerator and an ipod, and an Ikea doodad.
photo
Maezeppa
Happy-Happy Joy-Joy
12:25 PM on 03/04/2012
There is an idiomatic error in the caption. Evolution didn't actively 'create' because evolution is the result of a natural filtering process.

Imagine a frozen lawn in winter, with powdery snow here and there.  You see tracks leading from one place to another.  Even though you don't see every single footprint, there is enough there to piece together key information.  Today's knowledge of the abiogenetic process is much the same - we know what chemicals and energy existed on early earth.  We know how the first proteins, sugars and amino acids emerged.  We know that RNA is a simpler molecule that can lead to DNA if it is trapped within a membrane with a bit of organic matter.  We know how membranes can come about naturally.   And so on.  

Piecing together the events that occurred in the nonlife-to-life transition requires many thousands of man-hours of patient research.  We know life occurring and succeeding is probably rare - but we know it happened at least once.  

Many of the steps in the chemical process that led to organic matter and then life have been replicated.   Much of it remains to be figured out.   I believe it's very possible synthetic life will be achieved in my lifetime.
05:23 PM on 03/04/2012
Check some of Craig Venter´s work on, "Synthetic Life" as he describes it, but what he actually did was to replace the genome of a natural cell with a different genome created by gene synthesis thus creating a new bacterial strain dubbed Mycoplasma Laboratorium. But describing this work in those terms has been widely criticized since
the chemically synthesized genome was an almost 1:1 copy of a naturally occurring genome and the recipient cell was a naturally occurring bacterium
The Craig Venter Institute maintains the term "synthetic bacterial cell" but they also clarify "...we do not consider this to be “creating life from scratch” but rather we are creating new life out of already existing life using synthetic DNA".
Therefore Maezeppa no abogenesis here, just tinkering with existing living organisms, as expected.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
02:55 PM on 02/25/2012
First of all, let us disabuse ourselves of the notion that life and matter are separate. They are not. Self-replication is a physical feature of matter. See how a crystal can grow before your eyes. DNA is just a very, very refined physical example of this same process, albeit the innovation, on purely physical terms is that DNA changes as it self-replicates. It is, in a sense, flawed.

There is nothing more natural than molecules which self-replicate. It just so happens that this particular one is able to defer its final state infinitely. What this means is infinite possibility. From that infinite possibility, life emerges.

Life is an emergent property of matter. It is just that simple.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PaticaDeGato
Hissing and scratching with gusto.
05:42 AM on 02/25/2012
And this is news? Abiogenesis has been postulated and tested at least since the 1950s.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:01 PM on 02/25/2012
"Abiogenesis has been postulated and tested at least since the 1950s."

Has it? If you're referring to the Miller Urey experiment that was hardly proof of abiogenesis, and nor was it intended to be.
photo
Maezeppa
Happy-Happy Joy-Joy
12:36 PM on 03/04/2012
'The famous Miller-Urey experiments used a strongly reducing atmosphere to produce amino acids. The original experiment is famous for the unexpected discovery that such a simple experiment could indeed produce crucial biological compounds; this discovery instigated a huge amount of related research that continues today.'
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lightcsm
06:22 PM on 02/24/2012
Stuff like this will always remain controversial as it goes against people's deeply held religious beliefs that life was directly created by their god. But I commend the scientists for actively searching for the answers instead of just settling with a predetermined conclusion. Scientific inquiry drives our society.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:36 AM on 02/25/2012
The predetermined conclusion is evolution in this case. This is not science.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
taoistpunk
because the monks wouldn't have me..
12:38 AM on 02/25/2012
like you'd know science if it bit you..
photo
Maezeppa
Happy-Happy Joy-Joy
02:39 PM on 02/25/2012
LOL - yes, just as falling off a log involves the 'predetermined conclusion' of gravity.   Evolution is a fact.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
elblanc0
Whatever good things we build end up building us.
03:23 PM on 02/24/2012
Thanks scientists for continuing to examine our origins on this planet and not just settle on some super-fantastic baseless ancient claim made by primitives. Cheers and I look forward to more answers (and questions) as we examine this puzzle of life.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
StephenJK
All your consciousness are belong to us
03:22 AM on 02/25/2012
Yeah thanks science for giving everyone clearance to be intellectually lazy and less inquisitive because you whitecoats tell us all we need to know!!!!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Oblongato
My micro-bio defines me.
05:47 AM on 02/25/2012
Yes, let us stand up and throw off the yoke of science; let us start anew without our accumulated knowledge and technology of the past centuries! Let us live free and inquisitive lives!

I believe I can fly! Aaaaiiiiiiiieeee!

(thump)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:03 PM on 02/25/2012
Yeah thanks science for giving everyone clearance to be intellectually lazy and less inquisitive because you whitecoats tell us all we need to know!!!!

Your sneering reference to 'whitecoats" shows a real hatred for science which is a bit foolish to say the least.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:05 PM on 02/24/2012
I'm of the opinion the driving force of creation is contained in the vacuum, which according to quantum physics, is infinitely energetically dense.

www.offthegridmpls.blogspot.com
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
StephenJK
All your consciousness are belong to us
03:24 AM on 02/25/2012
"..infinitely energetically dense."

That's how I see consciousness. LOL And we don't have instrumentation to measure it, yet, consciousness built the present crop of instrumentation. LOL Nice paradox.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:50 AM on 02/25/2012
That the energetic mass of the vacuum is infinite, was described by quantum physics a hundred years ago. We "conscious" folk don't know about it, because rather than face it and deal with it scientifically, they called it the "vacuum catastrophe", and eliminated it by a completely arbitrary process called "renormalization". They still do.

What we aren't comfortable with we too often deny - or mock - rather than asking ourselves honestly what it means. Which, in this case, because there is so much relative space between every atom in your body, that vacuum that is infinitely more energetically dense than you are, is passing through you at all times. But you don't know that because science has decided it isn't important, or that your consciousness can't handle it.
photo
rsargerod
Truth leads to enlightenment and wisdom!
11:02 PM on 02/23/2012
My hypothesis is that all living spices including Man, came from the Cosmos and not from just the Earth, although many species were evolutionized here on Earth, it still does not account for the 250 Genes found in Humans which are not connected to any other Species here on Earth. The multitude of races speak for itself. But the most important question to be answered is why has only Man evolutionized his conscious and senses faster than any other Spices on the Planet?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
taoistpunk
because the monks wouldn't have me..
02:29 AM on 02/24/2012
well, at least you called it an hypothesis.

my suggestion would be, "The Dune Hypothesis."
07:17 AM on 02/24/2012
Man: King of the Spices.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:04 PM on 02/23/2012
Personally I never liked the watchmaker argument I prefer, a doctor(God), injects a serum into a body(the universe). the serum is esencially a chemical.....and the doctor knows....as that chemical interacts with this or that other chemical in the universe, this result or that result is going to happen...and he knows approximately how long its going to take and what other substances it might come into contact with which can cause further reactions.yet all the while, he knows the eventual outcome.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chipper1
08:47 PM on 02/23/2012
Not very scientific.
10:26 PM on 02/23/2012
I guess you would "prefer" God to have a human hand (complete with articulating thumb and forefingers) to pull an otherworldly syringe. However, the CC might applaud you for coming up with such human-centric nonsense.
(Or is it supposed to be irony?)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:17 PM on 02/23/2012
you .....thought I was saying God was a large floating doctor in the universe and that was my point? move along...just stop responding please.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:55 PM on 02/23/2012
what I find kind of scary as I read these threads, is that atheism....is now showing all the earmarks of religion. they are becoming, the exact thing they argue against. its all there.

the intolerance of others viewpoints that differ from their own...thier own set of "prophets" the dawkins, hitchings, etc etc...the absolutily zealot like proselytizing on every forum on the net, turning even simply displays by a poster saying"God bless" into on par with a hate crime... , pushing every discussions topic into a snarky comment regarding religion...leading to a religious debates.

here...we get a lil taste of that world atheists always are ranting about...and we see, a world without religion and populated by atheists would simply be "meet the new boss,just the same as the old boss".

its clear from what i can see...., wars over land,resources,misunderstandings,murder for love and passion,jealousy would still be around. man doesnt change deity or no deity.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MagicManDoneIt
When facts are lacking. Just say...
08:24 PM on 02/23/2012
Be careful that your avatar pic doesn't burn down that straw man you just built.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:29 PM on 02/23/2012
strawman or not, atheists are now acting like the religious.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:17 PM on 02/24/2012
Atheists are hardly religious. Atheists do not believe in supernatural entities. Just because atheists believe in the same general things (there are no gods) does not mean it's a religious body. Also, the intolerance of other viewpoints also does not mean religious, though the religious do behave like that.

By your definition, supply-side economics and Keynesian economics would be two warring religions. Of course, they are not.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
loki
cheap politicians for sale
07:22 PM on 02/23/2012
it wasn't primordial soup that we evolved from. It was God snot.

dont you science types read the only real book at all.
photo
cmbg78
I am the ~0.00000032%
12:17 AM on 02/24/2012
I know it looked and had the consistency of snot, but that wasn't snot....
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:06 PM on 02/23/2012
If you are going to use a watchmaker metaphor for the single-celled organism including DNA, you're going to need a watch with about 50 billion pieces.

www.offthegridmpls.blogspot.com
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:45 PM on 02/23/2012
That's a really big twinkie!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
StephenJK
All your consciousness are belong to us
03:33 AM on 02/25/2012
Do you have ANYthing meaningful to contribute, Carl? I feel like grabbing your face really hard.
07:48 PM on 02/23/2012
And for how long would the atmospheric and geological conditions would need to remain relatively stable for the warm little puddle to produce this living organism.

I think the primordial soup story is preposterous; it´s just a desperate effort to trying to explain an event which we cannot be explained as a natural event. I

It is amazing that scientist can right out suggest that "Evolution Created Life From Lifeless 'Primordial Soup," with a straight face. Is that science ?
07:51 PM on 02/23/2012
"which we cannot be explained as a natural event."

what specific property of life makes its origin unnatural (supernatural)?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
TheBlueCoyote
Random Opinion Generator
12:19 AM on 02/24/2012
No legitimate scientist has ever said that evolution created life, the theory of evolution does not address this issue. There are several viable theories that address the beginnings of life and scientists are adding to that knowledge every day. Unlike the rigid dogma of christianity, science admits when more information is needed.
03:45 PM on 02/23/2012
Having been raised a Catholic, and given a good education, I find myself at odds with the scientific community on this subject.

The random possibility that chemicals formed and amino acids were created is plausible, to believe that these randomly became complex components that went from single cell animals to plankton, to fish, to mammals is too much for me to believe.

Every time I see the miracle of children, whose inquisitive learning, speech, vision, hearing, mobility is almost too difficult to believe this is random chance. To look at their digestive system, circulation system, growth determined by dna, where did dna come from (random chemical genetic alignment, what are the empirical odds of that)?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gregory57
Micro-bio, was one of my favorite classes.
04:06 PM on 02/23/2012
I'm a Catholic too, also given the dubious blessing of a "good" education. I have no doubt that an Omniscient Omnipotent God could Will all of creation into being with a single Hydrogen atom.
10:46 PM on 02/23/2012
And you believe this because your catechism teacher told you so or have you independently tested this hypothesis?
Luckily, my religion teacher didn't just study catechism (the interpretations of the CC), thankfully she actually studied the Bible.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
taoistpunk
because the monks wouldn't have me..
04:10 PM on 02/23/2012
why base your knowledge on belief when you can study it and find out for yourself which parts are true, and which are just speculation?

and if children are a miracle, what are apes which share nearly identical systems of circulation, digestion, etc.
if apes, what of monkeys?
if monkeys, what of...

and once you've made it back to the most primitive life form is it still a miracle? will it still be when humans replicate the process?

it seems to me that as soon as you define some parts of the world as sacred, and others as mundane, you have some very interesting, and thorny, theological questions on your hands.

evolution is not random. all life is in continuous check by environmental pressures and the drive to reproduce..
as we have not yet generated abiogenesis, there is no way to know how random it might be.