Monday, July 6, 2009

Science

How Did Life on Earth Get Started?

Scientists aim to repeat the 'miracle' of genesis

Posted July 24, 2008

On an arid outcropping of basalt in northwestern Australia, some of the oldest rocks on Earth lie exposed to the fierce sun. Formed at the bottom of an ancient ocean, this volcanic material shelters what one scientist calls the "oldest robust evidence" of life. At a scientific meeting at Rockefeller University in May, Roger Buick of the University of Washington said that the 3.5 billion-year-old rocks hold traces of carbon that once made up living organisms.

Video Channel: Science

Even before Buick's discovery, ample evidence indicated that life on Earth began while our 4.5 billion-year-old planet was very young. Simple organisms certainly flourished between 2 billion and 3 billion years ago, and claims of older evidence of life have periodically surfaced. But none have been universally embraced, and Buick's claim is so new that other scientists haven't fully reviewed it.

Yet even if the geologist is right about his rocks, his discovery would leave unanswered one of life's biggest mysteries: how life actually arose. While creationists attribute that spark of life to the hand of God, scientists are convinced there's a natural explanation. Yet as close as they've come to pinning it down, some admit the particulars may never be fully resolved. Others are convinced that we're edging closer to an answer—and to settling one of the oldest and most contentious questions in science and religion.

To solve the riddle of genesis, biologists, astronomers, geologists, and chemists are attacking the problem from all angles—even trying to re-create life from scratch. In recent years, institutions, including Harvard University, the Georgia Institute of Technology, and McMaster University in Canada, have formed "origins" institutes to probe the deepest history of life on Earth—and to search for life in the heavens. "The field is going through a minirenaissance," says chemical biologist Gerald Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif.

According to scientists, life began when chemistry begat biology—that is, when simple molecules assembled into more complex molecules that then began to self-replicate. But rocks that might harbor traces of such genesis events simply don't exist, says Buick. During Earth's opening act, space debris and cataclysmic volcanic upheavals destroyed the evidence, like an arsonist torching his tracks. The oldest known rocks are about 4 billion years old, yet even they formed roughly half a million millenniums after our planet's surface cooled and water first pooled into shallow seas. Scientists widely suspect that life began during that long, undocumented interval.

Theories about where and how life began range from the sublime to the bizarre. One camp says that deep-sea vents known as black smokers nurtured the first life. In the late 1970s, a team of researchers from Oregon State University unexpectedly discovered whole ecosystems thriving around a hot vent on the Pacific seafloor. Such vents, where molten rock from inside the Earth's mantle heats seawater to as much as 660 degrees Fahrenheit, could have provided the energy and basic organic molecules needed to spark life.

Another camp believes that ice—not boiling water—served as the cradle of life. Even the coldest ice contains seams of liquid. These watery pockets could have acted as test tubes for the earliest organic reactions. Experiments show that units of RNA—the genetic material that was probably the forerunner to better-known DNA—spontaneously string themselves together in ice, supporting this theory.

Still other scientists point to the skies. They argue that meteorites carrying amino acids and other important molecules seeded Earth with the necessary ingredient for life. Supporting the idea: high concentrations of amino acids inside meteorites found on Earth and in gas clouds in space. A wilder offshoot of this theory, called panspermia, suggests that whole bacteria—life itself—first evolved on Mars and then hitched a ride to Earth via small pieces of the Red Planet blasted here by asteroid or comet impacts. But no life has been found on Mars, and the one claim of fossil bacteria in a Martian meteorite, made by NASA scientists in 1996, has been almost universally rejected.

Perhaps the leading theory focuses on a much more prosaic realm: the slimy interface where the sea laps against land. If early oceans carried organic molecules—and they most likely did—the porous surfaces of shoreline minerals could have helped organize such building blocks into primitive structures. Eventually, these units could have replicated, forming thin films on the seashore rocks, says Robert Hazen, a researcher at the Carnegie Institution in Washington.

Reader Comments

Dumbing people down...who's doing it now?

In response to "auradawnveirs"...thank you for saying that Empress Eugenie was "dumbed down by religion" instead of: "dumbed down by a belief in a Creator". There is a very big difference between belief in God and "religion". During the Dark Ages, people who read the Bible, looking for "truth", were burned at the stake by the Church who wanted to keep them ignorant of the fact that the Church did not at all follow the Bible. Today, evolutionists do not want anyone to do a scientific search to expose that their theory does not follow science. You mentioned several atheists who were "scientists", but there are also many scientists who believe in a Creator, in the pattern of Newton and Einstein. These men, in spite of their accomplihments are labeled as "unscientific"because they believe in a Creator. The problem today is that evolutionists,like the Church in the Dark Ages, will not tolerate any scientists who do not blindly and ignorantly follow them. Let's face it, evolution is only a theory, and a bad one,too...there have not been any facts found to support any part of it, only suppositions that evolutionists themselves argue over. Why is it so necessary for evolutionists (who have absolutely nothing)to pressure intelligent scientists to agree with an unscientific theory. They are suppressing modern day Galileos by calling them heretics because of fear that they might have evidence of their beliefs. Meanwhile,the "Church of Evolution" depends upon peer pressure,and methods used by religious leaders throughout history: "Do any of us, your educated leaders, believe in this?"

auradawnveirs, read what is written

I never said atheism dumbs all people down, are that atheists are responsible for the ignorance of mankind. But in response to another commentator I pointed out that religion is not completely to blame for this and that atheists can also take part of the blame. An example of this is denying students the chance to learn about Creationism in school because it's not "science" while the hypothesis of evolution is paraded around like a theory or scientific fact.

No to Dryfire--dumbing people down

Dryfire says atheists are "dumbing people down." The Smithsonian exists to aid the advance of knowledge. Atheist Smithson gave us the Smithsonian. The Web we're working with uses electricity--Edison the atheist had a lot to do with this. So did atheist telegraph inventor Samuel B. Morse. Atheist Burbank was a plant geneticist. There's a "Lincoln Bible." But he wrote a book called "Infidelity," meaning atheism. He was advised to destroy it. He became literate partly by reading Scripture because other books were scarce in his poverty-stricken childhood home. He used Bible-style prose as did many of his generation. French Empress Eugenie, a Catholic who was forbidden to read Darwin, was dumbed down by religion She said there was no need to look for a Missing Link when "there was Lincoln, come out of the wilderness."

Add your thoughts

Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

advertisement

Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our Terms and Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
Make USNews.com your home page.